This long discussion about global change, weather, and climate points up the advantages of cooperation among all of us concerned in one way or another with ongoing changes in weather and climate and how they relate to birds.
I sent around a request for information regarding the question of whether or not “Record cold of this magnitude is not consistent with global warming” to my colleagues in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and so far I have received these responses, all from acknowledged authorities on weather and climate. All sent pdfs of the articles they recommend, but unfortunately not even one would fit through the knothole, as I’ve discovered from getting various versions of this message with successively pared-down versions of this email: “Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups: “CAYUGABIRDS-L (cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu)<mailto:cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu> “Your message couldn't be delivered and there was no valid enhanced status code being issued by the remote mail system to determine the exact cause, status: '552 Requested mail action aborted; exceeded storage allocation; 976kb maximum message size'.” Natalie Mahowald — http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/mahowald/ — writes “The fundamental issue is that your authority does not understand the difference between weather and climate. Climate is a 30 year average. Weather is one event. Global warming is a long term change in climate. “If temperatures averaged over a 30 year period went back to preindustrial levels, that would be inconsistent with climate change. “Weather is really highly variable: a chaotic system, and the weather is highly variable due to natural variability. Under climate change we expect more record highs, and fewer record lows. But we expect to see record lows. And indeed, this is what the record shows. There are even some theories that suggest that there is an increase in high AND low records under climate change, but I do not believe those are yet proven to be robust (but happy to be corrected). “This misunderstanding on the role of this natural variability is actually widespread in both the public and the scientific community. The role of natural variability and how to detect when something is anthropogenic is a big question right now, and one that our new hire, Flavio Lehner, cc’d here, is an authority on. “A good paper (which looks on longer time scales), about the issues of communicating climate change is this one by Clara Deser.” [Clara Deser, et al., Communication of the role of natural variability in future North American climate, Nature Climate Change, 26 OCTOBER 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1562] The Deser paper’s abstract: “As climate models improve, decision-makers’ expectations for accurate climate predictions are growing. Natural climate variability, however, poses inherent limits to climate predictability and the related goal of adaptation guidance in many places, as illustrated here for North America. Other locations with low natural variability show a more predictable future in which anthropogenic forcing can be more readily identified, even on small scales. We call for a more focused dialogue between scientists, policymakers and the public to improve communication and avoid raising expectations for accurate regional predictions everywhere.” Toby Ault — https://www.engineering.cornell.edu/faculty-directory/toby-r-ault — sends along a pdf of another pertinent paper that’s too big to fit: Gerald A. Meehl et al., US daily temperature records past, present, and future, PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] | December 6, 2016 | vol. 113 | no. 49 | 13977–13982. He writes,“I believe this paper addresses the issue of record temperatures. Specifically, the ratio of [record warm] to [record cold] days should be constant in a stationary climate (spoiler alert: it isn’t).” The paper’s abstract, with the gory details: “Observed temperature extremes over the continental United States can be represented by the ratio of daily record high temperatures to daily record low minimum temperatures, and this ratio has increased to a value of about 2 to 1, averaged over the first decade of the 21st century, albeit with large interannual variability. Two different versions of a global coupled climate model (CCSM4), as well as 23 other coupled model intercomparison project phase 5 (CMIP5) models, show larger values of this ratio than observations, mainly as a result of greater numbers of record highs since the 1980s compared with observations. This is partly because of the “warm 1930s” in the observations, which made it more difficult to set record highs later in the century, and partly because of a trend toward less rainfall and reduced evapotranspiration in the model versions compared with observations. We compute future projections of this ratio on the basis of its estimated dependence on mean temperature increase, which we find robustly at play in both observations and simulations. The use of this relation also has the advantage of removing dependence of a projection on a specific scenario. An empirical projection of the ratio of record highs to record lows is obtained from the nonlinear relationship in observations from 1930 to 2015, thus correcting downward the likely biased future projections of the model. For example, for a 3 °C warming in US temperatures, the ratio of record highs to lows is projected to be ∼15 ± 8 compared to the present average ratio of just over 2.” Chuck Greene — https://www.engineering.cornell.edu/faculty-directory/charles-h-greene — wrote much the same, and included the a non-technical paper that serves well as a good introduction to the other two [Charles H. Greene, The winters of our discontent, Scientific American, December 2012, 50-55]. The one-sentence summary: “Loss of Arctic sea ice is stacking the deck in favor of harsh winter weather in the U.S. and Europe.” I want to thank all who have been following and taking part in the discussion, and to express appreciation to all at the Laboratory of Ornithology who have been compiling and bringing to bear so much meteorologically and climatologically important ornithological data from birders like us. As the case of the Great Auk shows, we amateurs have been piling up climatically important evidence as far back as the Neanderthals and their osteological collections from the Mediterranean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk From: "Candace E. Cornell" <cec...@gmail.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2020 at 8:34 AM To: John <john.ci...@cornell.edu>, David Nicosia <daven102...@gmail.com>, "atvaw...@gmail.com" <atvaw...@gmail.com>, CAYUGABIRDS-L <cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] New Mexico Mass Motality Please don't take your conversation off line as I find your various points of view on this issue fascinating. Candace Cornell On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:34 PM John Luther Cisne <john.ci...@cornell.edu<mailto:john.ci...@cornell.edu>> wrote: If I’m not mistaken, we can all agree that Global Warming isn’t just for the birds. From: <bounce-124949961-77975...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:bounce-124949961-77975...@list.cornell.edu>> on behalf of John <john.ci...@cornell.edu<mailto:john.ci...@cornell.edu>> Reply-To: John <john.ci...@cornell.edu<mailto:john.ci...@cornell.edu>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 11:50 AM To: david nicosia <daven1...@yahoo.com<mailto:daven1...@yahoo.com>>, "Kevin J. McGowan" <k...@cornell.edu<mailto:k...@cornell.edu>>, Peter Saracino <petersarac...@gmail.com<mailto:petersarac...@gmail.com>>, Jody Enck <jodye...@gmail.com<mailto:jodye...@gmail.com>> Cc: "atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>" <atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>>, CAYUGABIRDS-L <cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] New Mexico Mass Motality Apparently you don’t know that the old Department of Atmospheric Sciences merged with the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences years ago. EAS continues to offer the former CALS department’s Atmospheric Sciences major. From: david nicosia <daven1...@yahoo.com<mailto:daven1...@yahoo.com>> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 9:01 PM To: "Kevin J. McGowan" <k...@cornell.edu<mailto:k...@cornell.edu>>, Peter Saracino <petersarac...@gmail.com<mailto:petersarac...@gmail.com>>, Jody Enck <jodye...@gmail.com<mailto:jodye...@gmail.com>>, John <john.ci...@cornell.edu<mailto:john.ci...@cornell.edu>> Cc: "atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>" <atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>>, CAYUGABIRDS-L <cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] New Mexico Mass Motality Let's get back to birds. This is a birding listserve. I have studied this at length and disagree. I do believe in man-made global warming but I don't believe it causes record cold. The climate has warmed 1C so we still can see record cold with our current climate. The frequency is less though, not more. Most meteorologists I know also don't agree that record cold is consistent with global warming. Some climatologists do. If you want to discuss further, please direct the emails offline and not on the entire listserve. I would be happy to discuss this issue (again offline) with the Dept Atmospheric Science folks at Cornell too if you want. I know most of them well. They are good people and also very intelligent. Best Dave Nicosia On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 08:41:37 PM EDT, John Luther Cisne <john.ci...@cornell.edu<mailto:john.ci...@cornell.edu>> wrote: Record cold over North America is indeed consistent with global warming. It is a regional consequence of the global phenomenon. To explain it simply (as I was supposed to do in the elementary course I taught of years and years, “Evolution of the Earth and Life”), the principle of the thing is that Arctic Basin warms not only by importing warm air from the south, mainly over oceans, but also by exporting cold air to the south, mainly over continents. Export of air from the north makes space for import of air from the south, so to speak. For now, at least, the export of cold air from the Arctic is concentrated over North America. Certain of my colleagues in the Department Earth and Atmospheric Sciences will be able to give everyone a far better and more detailed explanation. From: <bounce-124948208-77975...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:bounce-124948208-77975...@list.cornell.edu>> on behalf of "Kevin J. McGowan" <k...@cornell.edu<mailto:k...@cornell.edu>> Reply-To: "Kevin J. McGowan" <k...@cornell.edu<mailto:k...@cornell.edu>> Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 8:03 PM To: david nicosia <daven1...@yahoo.com<mailto:daven1...@yahoo.com>>, Peter Saracino <petersarac...@gmail.com<mailto:petersarac...@gmail.com>>, Jody Enck <jodye...@gmail.com<mailto:jodye...@gmail.com>> Cc: "atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>" <atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>>, CAYUGABIRDS-L <cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>> Subject: RE: [cayugabirds-l] New Mexico Mass Motality “Record cold of this magnitude is not consistent with global warming. “ Why not? Global warming doesn’t mean warming happens all over the globe evenly. I’ve been watching our area in the northeast for the last decade, thinking mostly about Snowy Owl incursions, and I’ve noticed strange changes in the distribution of cold across the arctic, perhaps changes in the “polar vortex” that seem to isolate the NE as a cold spot while Alaska warms up. The last ten years have shown Ithaca regularly with winter temperatures lower than Nome, Alaska. That isn’t right. Global warming at the poles doesn’t mean every place warms up, it means that the consistencies of weather patterns we could count on could be disrupted. Colder Ithaca winters and heat waves in Alaska are totally consistent with a global warming scenario. Freak arctic blasts into the rockies while the north pole melts also points to something freakishly abnormal happening, totally consistent with global warming. Kevin From: bounce-124948138-3493...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:bounce-124948138-3493...@list.cornell.edu> <bounce-124948138-3493...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:bounce-124948138-3493...@list.cornell.edu>> On Behalf Of david nicosia Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 7:46 PM To: Peter Saracino <petersarac...@gmail.com<mailto:petersarac...@gmail.com>>; Jody Enck <jodye...@gmail.com<mailto:jodye...@gmail.com>> Cc: atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>; CAYUGABIRDS-L <cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu<mailto:cayugabird...@list.cornell.edu>> Subject: Re: [cayugabirds-l] New Mexico Mass Motality The western U.S has a history of extreme temperature changes. This event ranks number 3 for the biggest temperature swing in history and it occurred during fall migration. Most of the other big swings in temperature occurred in the winter. What is dramatic is how cold it got and the early snows that fell. Temperatures in parts of the Rockies fell to 9F with winds over 50 mph. That is insanely cold for so early in the season. The Arctic high pressure that came across the Rockies has denser and heavier air which flows downslope into California, and Oregon warming by compression leading to high winds and VERY dry conditions. This fuels the tremendous fires. So in a sense it is the brutal unseasonable cold air that is the real cause of the conditions that caused the fires. I assume the fires, combined with temperatures in the 80, 90s and 100s dropping to the teens 20s and 30s in many areas in the Rockies with early snows was too much for many birds to handle causing the high mortality rates. I have read that people are blaming climate change on this. I don't see it because it is the intense cold that really fueled the fires in CA and OR and probably had a negative effect on the birds. Record cold of this magnitude is not consistent with global warming. On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 05:18:09 PM EDT, Jody Enck <jodye...@gmail.com<mailto:jodye...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thank, Pete, for passing along the Guardian article. Additional information has been forthcoming recently. Hypotheses include movements related to smoky conditions in some states, coupled with those weird temperature swings recorded last week (90 to 100 F one day and below freezing, with snow, the next day). Seems less likely to be a nefarious even (e.g., poisoning) than something more likely caused by challenging environmental factors. I hope more information comes out soon. Jody W. Enck, PhD Conservation Social Scientist, and Founder of the Sister Bird Club Network 607-379-5940 On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:03 PM Peter Saracino <petersarac...@gmail.com<mailto:petersarac...@gmail.com>> wrote: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/16/birds-falling-out-of-the-sky-in-mass-die-off-in-south-western-us-aoe On Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 6:47 PM Tom <atvaw...@gmail.com<mailto:atvaw...@gmail.com>> wrote: I just learned of the mass mortality of migrating birds in New Mexico. I read a CNN report. Is there any new information on the cause? They’re talking hundreds of thousands, even millions. Tom V Sent from my iPhone -- Cayugabirds-L List Info: http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsWELCOME http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsRULES http://www.NortheastBirding.com/CayugabirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm ARCHIVES: 1) http://www.mail-archive.com/cayugabirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html 2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Cayugabirds 3) http://birdingonthe.net/mailinglists/CAYU.html Please submit your observations to eBird: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ --
