Visible climate impacts on Adirondack Wildlife

[adk]

Over the past several years, I have seen a change in the flora and fauna in the Adirondacks and I am curious if anyone else has seen the same;
Example: In years past in the northern most sections of the park I almost never saw Opossum, now witnessed via road kill they seem to more common.
Plants along the highway/ roadway seem to be changing. (More specifics later).
Less snowshoe hare sign in the snow and more skunks, gray squirrels etc.

Has anyone seen the same?

[Tug Hill]

Yes, and there are more coyote, Black Bear, moose, turkey, Canada geese , bobcat , people , etc. , than a few years ago. Climate change cultists can correlate anything and everything to climate change.

I look forward to global warming, maybe more of my tomatoes would ripen before being froze off ?

[Golddragon214]

Ive seen less Amphibians in the woods than I have ever seen. Only a few toads and almost no red Spotted newts. Ive noticed than birds seem to be in their usual areas' White Throated Sparrows near Cascade Pond, outside of Blue Mountain lake as well as Common Loons.

[adk]

Originally Posted by Tug Hill

Yes, and there are more coyote, Black Bear, moose, turkey, Canada geese , bobcat , people , etc. , than a few years ago. Climate change cultists can correlate anything and everything to climate change.

I look forward to global warming, maybe more of my tomatoes would ripen before being froze off ?

I'm glad your seeing more of some of the critters you mentioned except the bipedal one. Although I am completely under the impression that you target what you see with more than a camera but in fairness I am only assuming. I've never heard the cultist term when talking about science (usually that's saved for religious fanatics like politicians) not hardened science that's been out for so very long. Science is spooky isn't it? Hey listen, I would love it if you were right (I really would) and those crazy climate scientists in NASA, NOAA and every government on the planet were just kidding, that would be fantastic. I suppose that the 21st year in a row, that world leaders from every major country on Earth, met to talk about the serious dangers to our planet is just a rumor. Or that it was the largest meeting it the history of France (COP21) was just a picnic.

Years ago (many) I stopped debating people about facts versus strong contradicting opinions because people with strong opinions don't care about facts to begin with but since I have a couple minutes let me try.

We (humans) do things for safety's sake all the time. You know, like seat belts and insurance etc. We do these things incase there is even a small potential for a bad outcome to protect ourselves, even things with incredibly small odds. My house burning is one in a million but still I'm getting the insurance. There is a very small chance you get hit by lightening sitting on a metal chair in a storm but just in case those with a bit of brain power will move. Ok so now with climate there are scientists who feel this is not only a threat but in fact, the single greatest threat in the history of our time on Earth, something that could stop us from reliably growing food for example or being able to fish. Even if you think the "odds" are one in a million, You would actually risk all that, because you just are that sure you are right, it's a conspiracy or wrong or whatever. I know there are many who think like you do. Donald Trump got the nod and that is clearly proof of the large amount of people living in wonderland. That's why we are here, because so far oil companies (like cigarette companies) can still spend millions in crap science and dis information so many people, like you can believe its a conspiracy or a positive thing, instead of a mass extinction that we are now a part of. I suppose if it were like a Hollywood movie (the whole thing happening in 2 hrs) lots more would have an epiphany of consciousness. But it's easier to just ignore, it for now.

i do however really appreciate the occasional tomato on toast sandwich which I will do once I finish responding to your post.

PS: How about that gravity theory, more cultists I suppose. Everyone knows that's a conspiracy by liberals trying to weigh down the republicans.... Funny thought; I don't think Mother Nature cares about our opinion of gravity, climate change etc...

[adk]

Originally Posted by Golddragon214

Ive seen less Amphibians in the woods than I have ever seen. Only a few toads and almost no red Spotted newts. Ive noticed than birds seem to be in their usual areas' White Throated Sparrows near Cascade Pond, outside of Blue Mountain lake as well as Common Loons.

Very interesting insight - amphibians are most certainly an indicator species. They are also directly impacted by hydrology from vernal pool availability, I wonder if it's droughty in the areas you mentioned or if they are lower in number could it be caused by the worldwide (chytrid fungus) that's impacting amphibians? Hope not I am a big fan of the little fellas...

[Tug Hill]

Adk,
I think if we met face to face we would get along fine, and I don't have time to refute your claims about science, because histories trash bin is full of false science. but why are you so angry ?
I think I' m going to take "Shultz's "advice.

[adk]

Originally Posted by Tug Hill

Adk,
I think if we met face to face we would get along fine, and I don't have time to refute your claims about science, because histories trash bin is full of false science. but why are you so angry ?
I think I' m going to take "Shultz's "advice.

I assure you I am not angry at all so forgive any post that you think might be in that stance. I am merely highlighting what I believe is fact based on studying the subject intensely. The Adirondack wildlife on this forum and in reality needs some passionate focus so my hope is maybe this will inspire both...

[montcalm]

Originally Posted by Tug Hill

Climate change cultists can correlate anything and everything to climate change.

Ummm... you mean like scientists?

[dmartenvt]

I do get concerned when I see fewer wood frogs in the vernal pool in my woods. They'd been declining over the last few years, but this year I saw quite a good bounce back in the number of eggs. I wasn't around during the hatching/maturing this year though. Obviously, I can't draw any conclusions, but I had been fearing the dwindling population would just die off.

i see a lot more deer this year - easy winter. The plant life has been relatively unchanged in my 10+ years of watching on my own property and changes more with the amount of rain - very few Indian pipe, no good mushrooms to gather this year because it's been so dry. But my small property isn't enough to draw conclusions. I've never had many snowshoe hare, foxes and coyotes seem about the same. I haven't noticed lots of chipmunks lately but haven't seen any gray squirrels, and no possums but do see more of them in VT.

I once did a possum "rescue" - moving a mature adult from a basement in Burlington VT who was under threat of landlord extermination - we found a shed it could winter over in and people who agreed to ensure it had a source of food for the winter- we did the crate transfer on the statehouse lawn - which is a normal place if you live in northern VT to meet. It was kind of funny to watch the tourists look at the women transferring a very large possum from one car to another.

[Hard Scrabble]

Good Lord!
We are not the center of the universe.
Our Earth has been changing for tens of millions of years.
Recorded weather statistics have been established for what??? Two hundred years??
A drop in the proverbial bucket.
Relax, guys the earth will change with you or without you.
We can achieve local effects, like pollution in our rivers and lakes. Commendable.
But the Earth will change with us or without us.
Jim

[TCD]

Yes, I've seen some changes. And they are well documented in various places.

>The climate got warmer from 1979 to 2000. No one knows why.

>Temperature leveled off at a new set point. No one knows why.

>Long term effect of the new set point on large systems take time to happen, so we are still seeing changes, and will for a while.

Beyond that, there is a ton of speculation, masquerading as science, to the point that it has become a religion. Look at real data and think critically.

[IndLk_Brett]

Originally Posted by Tug Hill

Climate change cultists can correlate anything and everything to climate change.

Personally, I find it very telling that the large contingent of people who truly believe that the Earth is flat (if you are unaware there really is a whole, current movement of these "flat-earthers"(just search 'flat earth' on YouTube)) use many of the same 'arguments' and insults about science being just a cult or religion and some kind of big, nonsense conspiracy as do the people who scoff at the mere mention of global warming.

Sadly it seems that by the time the evidence becomes so obvious and widespread that everyone can plainly see it for themselves, rather than merely having to trust the many experts who have studied it, then it will likely be too late to alter the course we have set.

I sure hope not though. The mass extinction that could result would be a horrific prize for winning a debate.

[IndLk_Brett]

Originally Posted by Hard Scrabble

Recorded weather statistics have been established for what??? Two hundred years??

Scientists have actually drilled way down into ice at the poles and been able to remove core samples of ice tens of thousands of years old. That ice contains tiny air bubbles which they are able to then isolate and study. Using the information contained in those samples they can get a very clear record of what the atmosphere and environment were like well before any written records were made. They are like tiny time capsules. It's fascinating stuff really.

[TCD]

Yes. Interestingly, those ice cores show very nicely the approximately 100,000 year cycles of warming, one of which we are in now. More interestingly, when you compare the temperature history with the atmospheric CO2 history, the record shows that in each of these cycles, the CO2 level goes up AFTER the temperature begins to rise. Now I understand the difference between coincidence and causality, so I would not suggest that this demonstrates that increased temperature CAUSES increased CO2. But I would hope folks would also not try to falsely claim causality in the other direction. This is rendered more interesting by looking at the rapid increase of CO2 while the temperature increase has stopped. Obviously, human activity has greatly increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere. Whether this has ANY causal effect on temperature is very unclear.

(Was going to attach a graph, but the site is not accepting attachments right now...?)

[montcalm]

Originally Posted by TCD

Yes, I've seen some changes. And they are well documented in various places.

>The climate got warmer from 1979 to 2000. No one knows why.

>Temperature leveled off at a new set point. No one knows why.

>Long term effect of the new set point on large systems take time to happen, so we are still seeing changes, and will for a while.

Beyond that, there is a ton of speculation, masquerading as science, to the point that it has become a religion. Look at real data and think critically.

I'm not sure where your data came from, but I trust these guys. They actually use science in way that if you didn't, there is no way they could have done what they did, and do. And they did do it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

"The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998"

"The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record."

I believe 2016 is set to break that. The trend continues.

[TCD]

I used to trust them, until they artificially adjusted all the data to try to make this:

>Temperature leveled off at a new set point.

go away. This pause is extremely inconvenient for "true believers", and making it go away is a little too convenient for me to trust.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-to-disappear/

Read enough about this, both real science and political reporting from UN summits, and you will see that this is really only about wealth transfer. That's all, despite all the indoctrination that goes on. In fact, at the most recent summit a coalition of "developing" nations basically said "So what if the science is junk. Just give us the damn $100 billion."

[Hard Scrabble]

The Northern U.S. and Canada was once covered with ice thousands of feet deep.
Glaciers dug out the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes of N.Y without human human influence.
Those glaciers melted.
We are not the center of the universe.
Jim

[IndLk_Brett]

Originally Posted by Hard Scrabble

The Northern U.S. and Canada was once covered with ice thousands of feet deep.
Glaciers dug out the Great Lakes and the Finger Lakes of N.Y without human human influence.
Those glaciers melted.
We are not the center of the universe.
Jim

Never once said, claimed, or even thought we were or are the center of the universe. That really has nothing to do with anything here. Obviously you don't need to be the center of the universe to have an effect on something. Beavers, for example, are hardly the centrepiece of the Adirondack ecosystem, yet they can still have a large impact and influence on it as you likely have seen.

Or just ask any trout fisherman who has lost some of his favorite backcountry ponds and lakes to acid rain whether or not humans need to be the center to have a negative effect.

[Stew0576]

The thing I always remind myself about when these topics come up is that even though I have the right to be right other's also have the right to be wrong, respect other's even if you don't agree, that's what makes America great.

[montcalm]

First off, only one man can make America great... again... or so he says.

Second, I'm sorry but some random whackjob with a blogspot claims some conspiracy theory on adjusting for a pause. I've never seen such a thing in all the Great Lakes ice data or Adirondack ice data. There are wild swings year to year but trend has continued. It will continue, perhaps with small ups and downs and little flat sections, but the earth is going to warm.

There's one really, really simple way to prove this to yourself. All that stored energy in fossil fuels came from what? Organic matter, most likely in the form of plants. We know from basic biology that plants use CO2 to capture the energy of the sun in sugars and store more carbon in their cellulose than they give off during respiration. In order for that volume of CO2 to be stored away in the earth for us to tap into their must have been a lot of plants for a very long period of time. What do plants need to thrive? Sun and heat for one thing. Our biggest forests are dormant or near dormant for most of the year; the Taiga. Imagine if the Taiga was a rainforest; dense jungle thriving all year round. This is what you would need to create the amount of oil that we have extracted from the ground. It's also expected that our caps will melt within the next 100-150 years and that the Taiga will be snow free. Whether or not there is enough moisture and lack of human intervention to create these large forests again, is anybody's guess.

Despite everything you may second guess about politics and money, conservation of mass and energy still works.

And despite the weak arguments that glaciers melt, that's not the issue. Of course they do, the earth has cooled and warmed many times, and life had thrived in the Carboniferous period. The issue has to do with rates. As far as the fossil records can tell, extinctions are the product of extreme changes in conditions changing very rapidly. Life is very adaptable. It seems almost infinitely adaptable as long as liquid water is present. The issue for many species is how quickly things change which doesn't allow them time to adapt to the environment. It's very obvious when we look at human interaction with many systems. Our abrupt changes to an ecosystem can cause extinction of species who have filled a certain niche if we disrupt that system. Just look at the number of species we've endangered throughout our industrialization. To say it's not our fault would be complete denial. This is no different. Rapid change will force species to adapt or go extinct. The polar bear gets a lot of focus now because it has filled an extremely specialized niche in hunting on sea ice. Polar bears are truly very poor hunters if they do not have the sea ice. They've started moving south to find food, and soon may mate with Grizzly populations and dilute the species, or take it away altogether. That's an ideal situation. The other situation is they just go extinct all together except the few we might keep in zoos to remember an era gone by.

Species evolve and others go extinct. The evidence in the fossil record is overwhelming. The alarming thing is how many species that we have threatened currently and will continue to pressure with our influences, be it to climate, or any other end.

The earth as we know it now will (most likely) not end in a big bang. It will be a slow, gradual decline as we have witnessed almost since the start of the industrial revolution.