Explores the false reporting in the paper “Shape-shifting: changing animal morphologies as a response to climatic warming” and details why bird beaks change shape that’s unrelated to a climate crisis
Jim Steele sent in this video to post but I also received a tip about this study from a reader.
The warming climate is causing animals to ‘shapeshift’
Climate change is not only a human problem; animals have to adapt to it as well. Some “warm-blooded” animals are shapeshifting and getting larger beaks, legs, and ears to better regulate their body temperatures as the planet gets hotter. Bird researcher Sara Ryding of Deakin University in Australia describes these changes in a review published September 7th in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution.
“A lot of the time when climate change is discussed in mainstream media, people are asking ‘can humans overcome this?’, or ‘what technology can solve this?’. It’s high time we recognized that animals also have to adapt to these changes, but this is occurring over a far shorter timescale than would have occurred through most of evolutionary time,” says Ryding. “The climate change that we have created is heaping a whole lot of pressure on them, and while some species will adapt, others will not.”
Ryding notes that climate change is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that’s been occurring progressively, so it is difficult to pinpoint just one cause of the shapeshifting. But these changes have been occurring across wide geographical regions and among a diverse array of species, so there is little in common apart from climate change.
Strong shapeshifting has particularly been reported in birds. Several species of Australian parrot have shown, on average, a 4%-10% increase in bill size since 1871, and this is positively correlated with the summer temperature each year. North American dark-eyed juncos, a type of small songbird, had a link between increased bill size and short-term temperature extremes in cold environments. There have also been reported changes in mammalian species. Researchers have reported tail length increases in wood mice and tail and leg size increases in masked shrews.
HT/Gregory W
Well, it does correlate with the greening of the planet from a return to more normal levels of CO2 doesn’t it?
Maybe this “shapeshifting” – previously known as Evolution – is a sign of increased well-being.
Correlate?
Merriam Webster:
No relationship identified, just assumed.
No correlation proven.
Coincidental similarity does not prove or imply correlation.
Relationship must be identified, demonstrated and proven before researchers start to imply their data implies correlated.
Correlation is not causation.
Don’t The Deniers realise that the correct beak length for all birds was set precisely at 17:15 June 12th 1852, at the very end of the LIA?
If birds have to much “kernel” heat, they open a “thermic window” spreading their countour plumes completely to regulate their temperature. Or They turn the body to get wind from backside blowing under the plumes, or opne their beak, or all at once.
Found only a German link:
III. Physiologie 1. Aspekte zur Wärmeregulation
Physiology, aspects of temperature regulation. Starts with warming in cold temperature – see photos.
A serious scientist would mesure the effect on temperature with shorter or longer beak or what ever they believe may cool down a birds temperature.
In general parrot beaks are used for climbing and eating, a way the beak shortens by abrasion.
There are a lot of reasons for longer beaks, not enough abrasion for different reasons, not enough vitamine A, or by defect or illness, wrong diet.
Is there any blood supply in beaks? If not, it’s nearly impossible for beaks to play a role in thermal regulation.
The proximal part – the part of the beak closest to the bird – does and also nerve endings. But that’s it
At least there are nerves.
Beaks are heavily vascularized and formed from hardened integumentary layers (skin cells) The outer layers of the beak are constantly being replace to counter wear and tear. Veterinarians often find pet parrots, cockatoos, etc have overgrown beaks and need to have their beaks trimmed If a bird doesn’t have enough activity due or lacks adequate “chew toys”
Those that raise flocks of rather pugnacious birds (gallinaceous), i.e. chickens, pheasants, even quail, often resort to beak trimming to prevent aggressive birds (chicks) from injuring other birds.
Trimmed too far and the bird (chick) can die from blood loss. Stopping the bleeding isn’t easy, plus other chicks peck at the dried blood restarting the bleeding.
Some chickens we raised, learned that they can bully people. Any skin exposed on the foot gives the bird a place to attack. These roosters pecked at a person’s foot, often causing bleeding. It was not unusual to see somebody running with a rooster chasing them.
It did reduce the amount of door to door salespeople ringing our bell.
Allegedly dumb birds, they quickly learned and avoided people who kicked as a response.
Chickens are very aggressive and will peck at anything smaller than they are. Feet are a favorite target and they will peck the feet that are supporting the body that is carrying their food!
Not quite true, Pamela. My daughter has chickens. She had one I called Attila the Hen. I am much larger than Attila but she routinely pecked me if I’m anywhere near her. She, also, terrorized my daughter’s two pit bulls. She would stand at the back door glaring at them as if to say, “Come on out pups, make my day!”
Snort! Yes, you are correct, chickens tend to be fearless and will unwisely challenge creatures capable of causing them terminal harm.
Birds in captivity (like parakeets) also need to have their toenails trimmed for the same reason.
I have often observed birds opening their beaks when overheated. This is similar to panting in dogs and cats. Their mouths are wet so there is cooling from evaporation. There is a blood supply in beaks but the size of the beak probably has a lot to do with the amount of blood supply.
Or maybe longer beaks are needed for the bird to feed. Such as wading birds. Egrets, herons and the like.
Best adaptation for warming:
Shape-shifting: changing animal morphologiesas a response to climatic warming
It may well be that Sturgeon’s Law applies here.
Correlation does not prove causation. Unless you really, really want it to.
It doesn’t appear that they are anywhere near demonstrating correlation.
The changes in appendage are alleged to be caused by approximately 1°C temperature change since 1850 that is mostly manifested in higher night temperature maximums and in winter maximums.
In environments where daily temperature movement is up to 30°F and shifts between seasons are over a similar range.
Meaning the authors allege that a miniscule temperature change in an environment, where the diurnal and annual temperature ranges are massively larger, causes appendages to grow larger…
Any alleged measured changes are surely within diurnal and annual data error bounds, unless the authors can reliably cause appendages to grow larger or shrink in response to tenths of a degree.
Beyond that, since CO2 absorption bands mostly overlap the H2O absorbtion bands, any place (like the tropics) that has a lot of water in the air, is going to see little if any warming from more CO2.
Just when you think they can’t get any more delusional, they falsify that notion.
“larger beaks, legs, and ears to better regulate their body temperatures as the planet gets hotter”
They missed something well known to, er, man:
“Men’s average height ‘up 11cm since 1870s
For British men, the average height at age 21 rose from 167.05cm (5ft 5in) in 1871-75 to 177.37cm (5ft 10in) in 1971-75. A public health expert said height was a “useful barometer” but it was crucial to focus on improving health overall.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23896855
So human ‘shape-shifting’ is about better health, not some imaginary climate catastrophe or getting hotter after 1950.
But hey, let’s spin it out for at least another ten years
“it should be noted that the majority of findings focus on endotherms (particularly birds), with far less research available for other taxa. In order to better understand this phenomenon, research on shape-shifting needs to be complemented with studies on selection and genetic evolution. “
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(21)00197-X#relatedArticles
There’s the plea for more funding. Personally, I wouldn’t give tuppence to anyone using language like shapeshifting…
“Shapeshifters are inorganic, human hybrids from the Alternate Universe. Also known as the First Wave, the shapeshifters were created with the aid of William Bell to infiltrate the Prime Universe and lay the groundwork for a full-scale invasion that would result in the destruction of the Prime Universe in favor of saving the Alternate Universe from complete destruction. “
https://fringe.fandom.com/wiki/Shapeshifters
This isn’t Fringe science, it’s delusional and not even science.
wrong in so many ways
Mans height has only increased to allow him to see over all the grass thats growing faster and taller due to pollution by CO2
survival of the fittest ?
“Mans height has only increased to allow him to see over all the grass thats growing faster and taller due to pollution by CO2”
But that’s only relevant to the wherethefarcarewe tribe
Commander Odo disagrees, they are from the Delta quadrant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odo_(Star_Trek)
Nothing is ever settled…
Naturally, the “catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” propagandists of NPR are yelling and screaming about shape-shifting.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035503769/climate-change-animals-shape-shift-australia
It’s one reason (among many) that I no longer listen to or trust NPR.
Something I learned in high school biology from studying evolution. Bird beak shape and size is also related to the available seeds and fruits they eat. Birds with small beaks can more easily obtain small seeds and fruits. Larger seeds and fruits require larger beaks shaped to most easily obtain them.
Wonder what CO2 fertilization does to the size of seeds and fruits? I would expect larger sizes which could require larger beaks. Beware confirmation bias leading to the conclusion you begin with. A study like this should emphasize correlation only, not 100% causation.
Birds with small beaks can more easily obtain small seeds and fruits
.
Don’t forget insects.
There are a lot of large bugs out there.
Chickens will eat anything that moves and many things that don’t.
Those with smaller beaks peck off pieces of large critters. Those with larger beaks get the whole bug or at least larger pieces.
June bugs fly between 2-3 feet off the ground when mating and looking for a place to lay eggs.
Spotted by a duck, ducks will relentlessly pursue the June bug.
It would appear that June bugs are tasty… Only my ducks eat every Japanese beetle they can. Japanese beetles are bitter. We won’t eat any duck eggs during Japanese beetle season.
I saw chicken hunt and eat sparrows.
Interesting. Sparrows go inside my chicken enclosure to steal food. Thus far I have not noticed any sparrow feathers blowing around. But give them time, the ravenous beasts just recently realized that garden snails are tasty treats….
I’ve seen seagulls catch and swallow adult rabbits…
While reorganizing a shed out back of my house, I came across a nest of young roof rats. My Rhodesian Ridgeback immediately dispatched (with prejudice) all of them, and then left them. I tossed them out into the yard where I had a half-dozen chickens foraging. They began fighting over access to the bodies. When they managed to get one, and get away from the other chickens, they would tilt their heads up and swallow them whole.
From that experience, I don’t think it would be a good idea to take a nap on the ground near a flock of chickens! They are like feathered velociraptors.
And grubs/worms.
If I look at the “face” of a chicken:
No plumes around the strong beak, able to attack and injure other animals, in my eyes chicken are flying pigs, eating what ever they get.
So I like chicken:
The best part is that any shrinkage in body parts would also be reversely correlated with temperatures and no doubt considered a deleterious effect of climate change. I wonder if any of these animals have evolved as a result of contacts with humans, habitat loss or any of a hundred other changes since 1870.
Another reason for changed bill morphology:
Bill morphology and neutral genetic structure both predict variation in acoustic signals within a bird population (2017)
Abstract
Adaptive evolutionary divergence within a population can be facilitated by associated divergence in mating signals. Acoustic signals are often involved in mate choice and are also known to diverge spatially in response to a variety of processes. In birds, for instance, variation in bill size and shape can result in correlated changes in vocalizations due to functional constraints on sound production. Acoustic signals can also vary spatially in relation to neutral genetic structure (due to cultural drift) and/or habitat structure (due to acoustic adaptation for optimal sound transmission). Here, we test these alternative hypotheses as causes of variation in acoustic signal structure in the Island Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma insularis), a species that is restricted to one small island (Santa Cruz Island, CA) and exhibits spatial genetic structure and microgeographic divergence in bill morphology across short distances and habitat types. We find that bill morphology is related to the structure of the female “rattle” call, a vocalization associated with territorial disputes and male–female interactions. Females with longer, shallower bills produced calls that were more rapid, and those with shallower bills also produced calls that were lower in frequency. In addition, rattle rapidity varied across the island in accordance with neutral genetic structure. Vocal characteristics were not related to habitat structure, suggesting that variation in rattle calls is unlikely to reflect optimization for sound transmission. Our findings indicate that selection on bill morphology and cultural drift can jointly shape variation in acoustic signal structure, even at fine spatial scales within populations.
“variation in acoustic signal structure in the Island Scrub-Jay (Aphelocoma insularis), a species that is restricted to one small island (Santa Cruz Island, CA)”
It had to be in California!…
Beware, unplumed Californian biped parrots, with climate change you will have the competition of the plumed parrots!…
… Anthropogenic speaking-birds catastrophe???
More junk science based upon ignorance, Confirmation Bias, bad statistics and gross assumptions.
Classic Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, argument based upon ignorance.
In this case, the author does not know so assumes their default attribution, “
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming,global warming,climate change, climate silliness…A) Correlation is not causation! Apparently is beyond these researchers.
i) The article leaves the reader with strong doubt that any “correlation” was proven.
Looks to be another ‘Press Release’ publication attempt to insinuate the importance of the researchers baseless assumptions find future funding. Plus, achieve that alleged 15 minutes of glory.
Buried in that is the assumption that nature is perfect and unchanging.
Therefore if you observe a change, it must somehow be caused by man and is definitely bad.
As is usual for articles relating to climatology, there is no mention of the uncertainty range for measurements. Similarly, the correlations (only referred to obliquely with the squared values) don’t have uncertainties either! As it is, they show r-squared values of 0.01 and 0.005, meaning that only one-half percent in the “appendage” variance is explained by the average global temperature change.
There is also no indication of whether there has been any warming in the places where these birds live.
There’s just the assumption that if the whole earth is warming, then each and every spot on the planet must have warmed as well.
Yes! My guess is that places like the Sahara Desert and the Tibetan Plateau, with dry air, are probably warming (at night) more than humid areas.
I’ve been trying to read all the referenced papers that Ryding’s horrific paper cited.One that she and the media mention is worth reading
I have handled and monitored juncos for 30 years and have seen no sign of change, other than the fact that they like open spaces and leave when it gets overgrown
The 2020 paper Ryding refers to “Context-dependent effects of relative temperature extremes on bill morphology in a songbird”, actually contradicts Ryding’s climate fear mongering and supports the need for good ecological analyses to understand beak changes! Alarmists are so dishonest!
“…as the planet gets hotter” supposes that the planet is already hot.
Most would agree that it’s hot in some places at least some of the time, but this is not true for most places. Objectively, and compared to earlier times, the planet is mostly cold, or perhaps cool.
Dont mention the Darwin moth !
now was that the plant that adapted to the moth or the moth that adapted to the plant or did the moth have to change as all the other food sources were gone
it only took them 20 years to find it after Darwin said it existed.
Oh, he also talked about shape shifting of bird beaks and that back in the 1860`s so it must be much worse now
Yesterday before dawn at this location the air temperature got down to 48F (9C), but the afternoon high hit a record 96F (36C). This change of 48F or 27C happened without strong downslope winds or a frontal passage. Today, the low was 52F (11C) and another record high of 97F is forecast. Aerosols from fire smoke have been very dense for the past several days.
This CO2 magic molecule does a really poor job of trapping heat.
The actual research paper does, notably, remark, “One complication of studies that examine morphological change over long time frames is that the causes of change have many potential explanatory variables. It is therefore not surprising that temperature-based explanations of changes might be considered secondary to other factors.” Yet, they emphasize the role of temperature. They are basically saying that the bills of birds may change by up to 10% for an ambient temperature change of less than 5% Celsius degrees, or less than 1% Kelvin.
However, their work is sloppy. It appears that they are correlating average global temperature changes with animals for specific and different regions that have temperature changes different from the global average.
They are talking about ridiculously low r-squared values in the range of 0.005 to 0.01, without mentioning what the uncertainty ranges are for the original beak measurements or the derived correlation coefficient(r). An r-squared value of 0.005 means that only one-half percent of the variance in the bird bills can be explained or predicted by their chosen covariate. This is hand waving!
When looking around in different papers it’s seen, that f.e. humidity seems to be an important factor for beak size change, at least as important as temperature if not even more.
“Climate change is not only a human problem; animals have to adapt to it as well.”
It’s hard to imagine a more idiotic statement. Animals will adapt to whatever their local climate does. Period. If they don’t, and can’t survive as a result, that’s called nature.
“A lot of the time when climate change is discussed in mainstream media, people are asking ‘can humans overcome this?’, or ‘what technology can solve this?’
The better question, “Why hasn’t any of the “C”s projected 30 years ago to happen in 10 or 12 years by those who promoted CAGW then actually happened?”
The Adelaide Hills has been plagued with many hundreds/thousands of parrots for several years. They are extremely proficient at destroying many parts of houses and other structures.
Perhaps the development of stronger building materials has caused these parrots to grow larger beaks in order to continue to destroy everything they perch on.
Send money for my study on this topic.
So if climate change is resulting in “shape shifting” (what a horrible term) – so scientific, then the results of this scientific “investigation” should be prevalent across the natural world, i.e. other countries. I’d like to see data across the world to see if this is the case, not just a small snapshot.
Helena Horton covered this in an article in the Guardian on 8th September. She quotes Ryding thus
“The increase in appendage size we see so far are quite small – less than 10% – so the changes are unlikely to be immediately noticeable.” and “However prominent appendages such as ears are predicted to increase, so we might end up with a live- action Dumbo in the not-so-distant future”
Not sure if she was serious or it was a joke that passed Helena by.