I write a lot about climate change on my other blog, and so I don’t really feel a strong need to touch on this topic very often here. But when you think about it, climate change might be more important to the people who read 10,000 Birds than a lot of other groups of people.
We should be expecting sea level rise. As the sea level rises, existing salt marshes and other coastal wetlands will become flooded; as salt marshes are inundated, they will become lower tidal zones, and new areas will be recruited to salt marsh.
People like to deny the reality of climate change, but it is real, and sea level rise is part of that. We see indirect but very compelling evidence of this when insurance companies, government agencies, and other big players act as though they considered climate change to be real. That is not a direct scientific argmuement for the reality of climate change, but it is nonetheless important and convincing. And, in that area there is something every bird lover will be interested in: I’ve recently heard that the Maryland Department of Natural Resources may be implementing a new policy dictated by the realities of climate change. This would be to avoid conservation related funding for areas at or below 2 feet above sea level, given the prospects of rising seas due to climate change.
This might seem like an extreme reaction, maybe an unfair one, but I don’t think it is either. This is an appropriate policy decision. There is no sense in acting as though areas at or below 2 feet above sea level in a coastal region will benefit from any long term conservation effort. This applies, I think, not only to marshes but to infrastructure. A few years ago, the Maryland DNR decided to elevate some of its structures by a couple of feet in order to get them out of the way of impending sea level rise. Pulling back from the sea, and avoiding long term investment in areas that will shortly be inundated (and moving those resources elsewhere) is good policy. The important thing here is that yet another major institution, in this case they Maryland DNR, is acting as though climate change and sea level rise is real. Because it is.
Getting back to the marshes and other coastal natural environments, it isn’t simply the case that the marshes will move inland. There are three things that will go wrong:
1) The inland zones that would become the new wetlands are already, in many cases, occupied by human-built things that will severely interfere with this process. There are extensive settlements, parking lots, and roads near existing coastal wetlands. A parking lot will take centuries to become a salt marsh if it is flooded. Also, these human-occupied area are probably full of toxins and other impediments to normal use by wildlife.
2) The various coastal wetland features will not simply reform uphill from existing features. A place that is now an embayment that could contain a broad salt marsh may be overlooked by hills that will not become a good salt marsh. What is now conservation land owned by state or federal authorities may be lost, and the new coastal wetland features may form on unprotected or otherwise inappropriate land.
3) There is evidence that as coastal features form under sea level rise, many features we have taken for granted over the last several centuries will not re-form until sea level rise levels off, which may be centuries from now. It takes a long time of relatively stable sea level to form strong barrier beaches and broad and productive salt marshes. These features will become rare.
The birds are in trouble and some of them are going to go extinct because of climate change. I’ve not look at this directly, but I’m guessing that the wintering grounds of the Whooping Crane are at risk of destruction by sea level rise. The timing of seasonal changes is shifting, so that some birds are at risk of showing up at the right place at the wrong time (see: Birds migrating at wrong time for warmer climate)
And penguins. Forget about penguins. The Galapagos and South African penguins may be OK but many of those living in the Antarctic are doomed.
“The birds” as a whole will be “fine” but many individual species will not. I truly hope that there are no climate change denialists among the bird lovers. That would be very, very annoying.
There is a new report coming out, called “Shifting Skies: Confronting the Climate Crisis.” Here’s the information I have on it:
With 2012 breaking records as America’s hottest year ever, America’s migratory birds face unique challenges because of their long journeys and need for multiple habitats. Their remarkable survival skills, evolved over thousands of years, rely on a chain of stopover feeding grounds and habitats for breeding and raising young – but break any one link and the survival of the entire species is threatened.
At least 350 bird species in North America go to South or Central America in the fall and return in the spring. Climate change is the biggest threat to migratory birds this century. Migratory birds are at particular risk, requiring multiple and specialized habitats to breed, raise their young, migrate and overwinter. From drying up wetlands to shrinking mountaintop cool zones, rising temperatures are shifting, altering and destroying habitats.
Shifting Skies is a follow-up to the National Wildlife Federation’s January report, Wildlife in a Warming World. Get more National Wildlife Federation updates at NWF.org/News.
I asked Douglas B. Inkley, senior scientist at the National Wildlife Federation a few questions. Since all my questions were brilliant and all his answers were fascinating, I’ll just give them to you straight:
GL: Isn’t there a particular risk to migratory birds that require coast wetlands for some part of their life cycle, given that these areas may suffer significant changes from sea level rise?
Inkley: Coastal birds are especially vulnerable to disappearing habitat due to sea level rise, especially wherever “hardening of the beaches,” such as the building of seawalls, is attempted to resist increasing coastal erosion.”
GL: Aha. I hadn’t thought about that. Climate change “mitigation” is rather human focused.
Are birds that migrate to temperate regions that are now warmer at greater risk of disease, given that parasite loads and other disease effects are often stronger in warmer regions? I.e., will a lack of, or reduced, winter kill-offs of parasites affect these birds?
Inkley: Migratory birds are especially susceptible to climate change because they require multiple habitats to breed, migrate and overwinter. Break just one link of the chain and the entire species is in trouble.
Warming temperatures may expose birds to diseases they previously didn’t encounter. For example, sage grouse are expected to be more exposed to West Nile Virus as warming temperatures allow mosquitoes, the carrier of West Nile Virus, to proliferate in areas formerly too cool.
GL: What was the biggest surprise you encountered when putting together this project?
Inkley: I was surprised to find from the scientific literature that even for a single species, the effects of climate change can vary in different areas of that species’ range.
GL: If you had one thing to say to, say, President Obama (or the US congress, if you like) right now…advice, warning, etc. … what would it be?
Inkley: Humans, like birds, are very vulnerable to climate change in so many different ways. This is the time for Congress to show leadership for U.S. citizens and the wildlife resources we enjoy by building a clean energy future and reduce carbon pollution.
_________________-
The photograph is taken in Louisiana showing a storm surge, and is from NOAA
I don’t know, Greg. All this concern about habitat seems kind of quaint to me. I expect that when agriculture and food delivery collapse from the combined pressures of climate change, peak oil, and resultant social chaos, people are going to cut down all the trees and burn them, and they’re going to kill and eat every bird they can catch. It’s already happening in Europe:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/songbird-migration/franzen-text
There are indeed climate change deniers among birders. I’m most likely to get negative feedback when I post about climate change, and it’s usually from people who watch or photograph birds.
Gail, I’m sure you are correct but there a significant fallacy in your statement. If we compare problems and focus only on the worst ones and ignore the others, we should just focus on the part about the sun exploding and engulfing the earth and leave everything else alone. I for one intend to act as though we can limit climate change. The point of this post is not to say we must refocus our efforts from something else to marshes, but rather, to recruit people who are concerned with birds and coastal habitats to do more to address climate change.
John: Interesting. Is this because if all the birds die their photographs will increase in value?!?!? :/
Yeahhh…I’m not so sure. The sun blowing up is pretty far off. It’s kind of like saying, why worry about your little malignant cancer tumor when you’re going to die eventually anyway.
BTW, I did not know you were so into birds. Did you read that article? It’s utterly sickening. Also, I thought I discovered all by myself that when I sit on my porch I can attract birds by playing their songs on my laptop , I was having such fun – I’ve counted over 25 kinds of birds in my own yard…and now it turns out people are using that to kill them in huge numbers, wahhh! Anyway I’m curious what you think about this:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130614-bird-watching-birdsong-smartphone-app-ethics/
Do you think it’s wrong for me to play songs on my porch?
Gail, well, I was being hyperbolic. A closer to reality example: Why worry about any given risk to life and limb when car accidents cause most injuries and accidental deaths. We hear that one all the time! In climate circles of course the common one is “why should we do something because CHINA!”
Gail: Yes, I’m into birds, I write a piece here at 10,000 birds once a month (this is one of them).
Good question about the bird song apps. I’ve not seen the article, thanks for the link. It is an interesting ethical question, I’d like to hear what the other 10,000 Birds readers and bloggers think about this. My first thought is, “I’ve gotta try this” and my second thought is “I better not do this.”
I don’t get it. It’s likely that climate change will cause some bird species to disappear, and I think there’s some evidence of bird populations shifting already. So I’m not sure why someone who really pays attention to birds wouldn’t be concerned.
Re: bird apps – what I’ve always heard from other birders is that it’s best to minimize the use of recordings, especially during the breeding season. If birds are spending time and energy defending their territory against what they think is an intruder, that’s time and energy they’re not spending on foraging and feeding nestlings.
Great post Greg. More birders need to realize the extent to which climate change is affecting bird species and the picture is far from pretty in many places on the globe. In Costa Rica, those of us who have been birding in this country for 20 years or more have witnessed changes in the distributions of many bird species that have been steadily moving upslope to breed at higher elevations.
Many bird species seem to be much less common than they used to be even in protected areas and (surprise, surprise) the places that appear to show this are the ones that seem to have experienced much longer droughts than usual and less rain overall (such as La Selva and other parts of the north Caribbean slope).
I was reminded of this disturbing, sad trend on Sunday while doing a bird count in Braulio Carrillo National Park. In addition to recording far fewer Stripe-breasted Wrens and various other species than I used to, I ran into an ornithologist who had been studying birds at La Selva since the 70s. According to him, the decline there in numbers of individual birds and structure of mixed flocks is nothing short of drastic. Luckily, he kept notes on territories of many birds at La Selva over the years and thus has numbers about population densities of many species. His main hypothesis has been that the decline in birds at La Selva is related to overpopulation of Collared Peccaries but he also thinks that less rainfall due to climate change is another factor that has very likely come into play.
It seems that many rainforest birds in ideal conditions are living right on the edge in a very complicated, interconnected ecosystem so if changes in rainfall happen to say limit plant growth and perhaps reduce populations of arthropods and change fruiting patterns, fewer birds find enough to eat, especially for the “specialists” that are typical of rainforest habitats.
If we keep getting prolonged droughts in places that historically got around 4 meters of rain a year, it’s hard to imagine that many of the bird species that evolved in such conditions will be able to adapt fast enough.
@Gail: the catching of songbirds around the Mediterranean has nothing to do with climate change. It has been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years and those who practise it claim “tradition”.
Thanks for that clarification John. I really wasn’t conflating the two, perhaps I should have made myself more clear.
My point is that climate change, though an existential threat, is a symptom of something much deeper and less eaily eradicated, which is the human nature to over-exploit resources until there is a collapse – of civilization, of ecosystems.
Unfortunately we are now doing this on a global scale. Our squandering of energy is merely a part of this trend. Overfishing is another.
The only way we could address the fundamental problem would be to drastically reduce our population and consumption, and we will never voluntarily do that (which is why most mainstream climate activists never advocate it). People would rather starve than let anyone pry away the teevee remote clutched in their fingers.
There are also climate change deceivers amongst birders. I mean those who ignore the large amount of recent peer-reviewed science that points to the fact that anthropogenic warming is a tiny part of the picture. They seem not to have made any progress since swallowing hook, line & sinker, the discredited, near-fraudulent theories of Michael Mann and the preposterous James Hanson. I would say to everyone – look at today’s science.
I think your concern is entirely misplaced. There are just as many scientists who do not agree on so called global warming as do. What makes us so self important that we believe we can possibly have any effect on what is happening to our poor beleaguered planet. Of course we should be concerned about environmental issues and do whatever we can to help the birds. Also to make as many people aware of all the problems facing bird populations. Such as habitat loss, forest fragmentation plus the problems of Cowbirds, feral cats, raccoons and possums intruding into the remaining fragmented forests. Having been a birder for over 50 years I have recorded the loses of many of the neo tropical insectivores in my area.
David, no there are not. That is an absurd statement and given the importance of climate change it is also an offensive statement. The science of climate change is well established and there is near perfect agreement on its reality, the human cause of it, and its importance. Sorry, but it is absolutely astonishing that someone in June, 2013 could say “There are just as many scientists who do not agree on so called global warming as do” and mean it. I am flabbergasted. And that is not a word I use very often.
Here, go read this: http://theconsensusproject.com/
Obviously you only listen to people who say only what you want to hear. Yes I agree the earth’s climate is changing but the causes are not written in stone as you suggest. Keep an open mind and try to gather information on both sides of this issue. I agree we are causing many problems for the birds but remain unconvinced that we as humans can alter the changes that are happening regarding climate change.
David, I spend considerable time … most of my time these days … reading the peer reviewed literature on climate change, writing about it, discussing it with climate scientists and science communicators, doing panel discussions and teaching on it, etc. I have an open mind, I have training in this area, and I am well informed. You are simply wrong and expressing the opinion that I have a closed mind or need to learn more about the issue is not an argument.
If you are interested in my writing on climate change you’ll see quite a bit of it at the link provided at the beginning of this post.
You have completely ignored the other problems we are having with the birds. I understand climate change is your thing. However I believe these other problems are just as important if not more important than Climate change. I do not believe that we as humans can have much effect on climate change. We can resolve some of these other problems if we put our minds and wills to try to solve them. We will just have to agree to disagree regarding humans ability to somehow correct the changes the earth is undergoing.
David, Greg can write about what he wants. In this case he wrote about the effect of climate change on birds. If you click around on the blog you will find lots of other posts talking about other issues that birds face.
That you don’t believe climate change is happening as a result of human agency shows that you do not live in the reality-based community. Do you know how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere? Do you think it has no effect?
“You have completely ignored the other problems we are having with the birds.”
No, the post is about climate change. It’s right in the title. Why should he have to discuss the other problems in a post labeled as being about a very specific problem.
If you want to discuss cats or habitat loss, comment on a post about cats (there are several at 10kB, trust me) or habitat loss (quite a few of those too).
What you are doing is akin to going to a grocery store and complaining about not being able to find the antique furniture.
This is a great resource for people who have questions about climate change:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Corey, You are absolutely right Greg can write about anything he chooses. You also have the right to believe whatever he writes. I likewise have the right to disagree with what he writes. If your reality based community believes this that is your right also. As for me and many people I deal with on a daily basis we choose not to buy into this . The world we live in is just as real as your world. I seriously doubt that you spend as much time out in the real world of birding as I do. Birding is my all consuming passion. It truly saddens me to see the demise of so many of our neo tropical insectivores.
I keep trying to post a comment but keep getting shut out I guess you don’t want to hear any dissenting opinions.
David, your comments are all over this blog post. I am not sure why you think you can’t comment. Also, above you said “I seriously doubt that you spend as much time out in the real world of birding as I do.”
Have you ever read this blog before? I mean, yes, you have the right to believe whatever you want but it is no wonder you don’t believe in human-caused climate change when you are on a blog that I co-own that is entirely about birds and is loaded with blog posts that I have written about birding and yet you still somehow doubt that I spend much time out in the real world of birding.
But I’m interested in how you answer the questions I posed above, repeated here:
Do you know how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere? Do you think it has no effect?
David, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Corey I was mistaken I didn’t realize my comment went out. I’m sorry I misspoke. Please tell me how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere. I did not say you don’t spend time out in the real world of birding. I said I doubt you spend as much time out there as I do as I have not met many people who bird as much or as intensely as I do. I did not mean to insult your birding expertise or your ability. Please tell me what your experience as a birder is. Lower your hackles we can go forward as 2 birders who have the birds as our passion and concern.
David Cesari, I wish I could take you seriously…but your history of trolling bird blogs (which is just plain weird – see here) makes me think that you are not exactly being genuine.
If you are actually interested in seeing my experience as a birder just click around on the blog.
Corey, For your information I am relatively new to the internet. I do not have a history of trolling bird blogs. This is only the second time I have ever responded to a bird blog. Both times I happened to disagree with the content. However you do as your side always does proceed to denigrate and demonize anyone who disagrees with your opinions. You have succeeded I will not participate on your blog any more.
Its is due to people like the guy above that we are experiencing the last days of glory of human race.