Slashdot Mirror


The Heat Is On: Climate Change Causes Birds To Hatch Early (australiangeographic.com.au)

grrlscientist writes: A recently published study reveals that climate change can cause birds' eggs to hatch early. In addition to creating warmer temperatures that trigger early embryonic development in birds, climate change also increases the frequency and duration of heat waves. Thus, warming temperatures are leading to asynchronous hatching of individual eggs within a clutch and increased chick mortality, particularly for birds breeding in the tropics and semi-tropics, and in tropical deserts.

123 comments

  1. Development by phorm · · Score: 2

    Does this cause developmental issues, or does the heat also result in a faster maturation cycle while in the egg?

    In this case, it seems they're equally developed, but latter lays don't hatch at the same time as the others and thus are less developed than their earlier-hatching siblings.

    1. Re:Development by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good question. TFA explains that a female zebra finch will lay one egg a day for five days, but she won't start incubating them until they're all laid. This means that all five will hatch at about the same time, making them easier to care for. If the weather's too hot, the first eggs laid start developing before she starts sitting on them, messing up the timing. And, if it gets hot enough in the nest, the embryos can be damaged or even killed.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Development by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well evidently the latter -- the eggs of the Zebra Finch are laid on successive days but the species' chick rearing strategy depends on the eggs hatching on the same day. This leaves the nesting pair with chicks at different levels of development, which makes it harder for the parents to care for the brood.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Development by phorm · · Score: 1

      It wasn't one or the other, the first one was a question, the second was my understanding of the article.

      Basically it says later offspring get fed less because - being hatched later - they're smaller. Normally they'd be hatched at a the same time because they don't incubate until mom sites the nest, but apparently that's happening at lay now.

      So they start developing earlier, but it doesn't really say if they're not developing fully, just that they're possibly getting fed less due to the not hatching at the same time. Also, since it's indicating the later-laid eggs hatch later, it doesn't seem to be a real case of "early hatch" but rather non-concurrent hatching of a brood.

  2. Dinosaurs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now we know what happened to them! Pre-mature hatching gets u every time!

  3. Re:But not as early as my... by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    hooray now if you had only logged in we would know who to congratulate.

    Also eggs have been around much longer than chickens.

    The birds aren't the only ones hurting with the warmest winter on record people haven't needed to buy nearly as much gas and electric to heat their homes this year.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  4. Flowers confused too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flowers blooming early, too. My daffodils came up in mid January, a full two months early this year.

  5. Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the birds that hatch too early have a higher mortality rate they should evolve out of the species. Birds have a short life cycle so it shouldn't take that long.

    1. Re:Evolution? by hey! · · Score: 0

      There's no doubt that if you choose a suitably long time scale than something like this is insignificant. But as Keynes famously quipped, in the long run we're all dead. Nobody thinks that global warming will end life on Earth, or make a whit of difference after a few million years have gone by. It's the period everyone currently on Earth can expect to live through that's the problem.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:But not as early as my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my neck of the woods (actually desert) it was over 90 degrees and the rattlesnakes are coming out of hibernation early

    I wonder if their eggs are hatching early also

  7. Interesting findings; and related... by skelly33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read another study about a year ago (the link for which I can't find, so I profusely apologize in advance for the lack of citation), which also found that warmer temperatures were causing eggs to hatch sooner... but that the new birdlings were starving to death for a different reason: the timing of their hatching no longer aligns with the bloom of insects which are required for their sustenance. Apparently the insects did not get the memo that the warmer temperatures should also make them spring forth earlier in the season. So they are still business as usual after the young birds are already dying out, but as far as the birds are concerned, the bugs are late to the party... now I wonder if an additional side effect is an atypically larger insect population due to the comparative lack of predators.

    1. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this falls roughly into the same level of "science" as "White Privilege", etc.

    2. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fine. You tell me why the birds are hatching early and then starving to death from a lack of insects, in historically unprecedented ways. Your theory should provide evidence of comparable quality to that in this paper: http://rsos.royalsocietypublis.... It will not be sufficient for you to say "a kid stomped on all the bugs" or something like that.

      It's not like they pulled this answer out of their asses. They presented actual evidence, whereas you are countering that by saying "well OF COURSE you'd say that, regardless of the evidence".

    3. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by belthize · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a fairly significant problem for parts of Northern New Mexico through Central Colorado. I think though that it's kind of the opposite timing from what you describe. The Spruce Beetle larvae are spawning at an earlier time. The eggs of birds who primarily predate on them to feed their young aren't hatching early enough (they're hatching earlier, just not early enough) and are actually dwindling due to starvation while the infestation gets larger. The pine beetle infestation is even worse.

      It's rather stunning to see mile after mile of dead forest in parts of central Colorado.
      http://www.summitdaily.com/new...

    4. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      I feel I should warn you that AM appears to be entirely immune to logic, facts and reason. This is especially true when it comes to anything libertarian in nature, and he is an ardent opposer of climate change because it challenges his deeply held libertarian beliefs that the free market is perfect and will correct every problem.

      I am sure he will either ignore you, or invent another spurious reason why he needs to ignore the the facts.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    5. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 0

      You tell me why the birds are hatching early and then starving to death from a lack of insects, in historically unprecedented ways.

      I don't have to. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of reasons why, including some very horrible man-made reasons (Monsanto).

      And having looked at the dataset, I can conclude that it is incomplete (as shown) because there is no date ranges for each of the data points in the spread graph (fig 1). All it shows is that the heat band (grey box) is the danger zone. They haven't shown increasing temperatures as the cause for the datapoints in that range.

      Lastly, I see that the grant was DP0881019 from the Australian Research Council to S.C.G which I could find no independent information on. I would love to look at the grant parameters to see if there was a built in bias that produced the desired outcome. My guess would be that the grant mentioned or otherwise was related to Global Warming (Climate Change), and not discovering the cause of mortality in birds. This would produce biased results (aka leading to the desired outcome).

      But what do I know about science?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confirmation Bias

      In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

      Did these "Researchers" rule out all other possibilities? Or did that just look and say, "this fits"?

      Because then you can say Correlation does not mean Causation.

      Odds are, they had a suspicion and went looking for evidence that confirmed their suspicion. But unless they ruled out all the other reasonably possible causes, then all they have is a correlation.

    7. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what you write... not much, perhaps you are a lawyer

    8. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by alexhs · · Score: 1

      There's this comic in French. References are also in French, from a cycle of conferences about the climate before COP21.

      Basically, bird communities are moving North with the climate warming, about 100km in 20years, which means they're not moving as fast as the climate is warming (they should have moved 250km North). But the whole food chain should move North and/or adapt to the temperature. Plants and invertebrate adapt immediately (basically, a target temperature is the trigger for spring), but laying eggs happens 40 days before hatching, so they have to make a bet. If eggs hatch at the wrong time, chicks are going to starve (too early because the food is not here yet, and too late is not explained, but from the study it's not happening). Temperature fluctuations also aren't helping.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by radarskiy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Birds have a well-known liberal bias.

    10. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Livius · · Score: 1

      Apparently the insects did not get the memo that the warmer temperatures should also make them spring forth earlier in the season.

      Or... birds and insects do not have identical metabolisms.

    11. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Fragnet · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. The "bloom" of insects is also earlier. And even if that were not the case, some proportion of the population of eggs won't hatch early, giving them a big competitive advantage. It's called the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. I thought they still taught that in schools?

    12. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      Al Gore

      DRINK!

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    13. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know fuck all about science, all you do is try and discredit real scientists with irrelevant mumbo jumbo.

    14. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And having looked at the dataset, I can conclude that it is incomplete (as shown) because there is no date ranges for each of the data points in the spread graph (fig 1). All it shows is that the heat band (grey box) is the danger zone. They haven't shown increasing temperatures as the cause for the datapoints in that range.

      With an analysis of the graph like that I can see why I always think you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The x-axis of the graph is clearly labeled July through June (the equivalent seasonally of January through December in the Northern Hemisphere) and the caption to the graph says the points of the graph represent the daily maximum temperature from 2005 to 2013. On top of that the caption says the grey band is the ideal range for avian embryo development.

      The paper wasn't trying to say anything about anthropogenic global warming, it was just looking at the effect of temperature on the nesting success of zebra finches.

    15. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Maow · · Score: 1

      If the bug population changes at all, they will blame "global warming" er... climate change. It doesn't matter what actually happens, they will blame one thing, and one thing only.

      And you'll be there, denying that climate change is responsible for anything, it doesn't matter what actually happens.

      And there there is the problem, it creates sloppy science, and lazy record keeping.

      [Citation Needed]

      Here's one that proves you're either ignorant (probably willfully) or lying:

      Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science

      I am waiting for the Zika virus to be blamed on global warming.

      And we're waiting for you to tell us which branches of science that you, in your omniscience, condone.

      Meanwhile, here in reality, even Alexander Graham Bell, of the telephone inventor fame, recognized that CO2 had been proven a greenhouse gas 1 or 2 generations prior to him, and that the long term consequences could be significant. A lot of CO2 has been released since then, in case you hadn't noticed or chose to ignore.

      Get with the 19th century levels of discovery; this is a damned tech site.

    16. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keeping your head firmly implanted up your own ass is not healthy skepticism, it's just unhealthy.

    17. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      "global warming" er... climate change.

      Know how I know you're a complete idiot?

      The average (i.e. global) temperature of the earth is getting hotter, i.e. warming, hence, global warming. The change in temperature causes the climage to change, hence climate change.

      Not hard to understand, but apparently far beyond you. You will continue to belive you are smart and have some deep insight because you've spotted that people use different terms for different aspects of the same thing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    18. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not just hatching early, also breeding in the wrong season. We had blackbirds breeding in december due to another autumn heat record, the offspring hatched in january and died quickly because there was no suitable food around - only berries, no insects.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    19. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeez you're stupid if you actually believe that. Interactions between species are not timed together. Evolution occurs over a much longer span of time also, this huge and quick change in temperature is simply killing the birds uniformly.

    20. Re:Interesting findings; and related... by tbannist · · Score: 2

      "Ignore the facts" meaning "healthy skepticism".

      There's nothing "healthy" about your "skepticism". It is entirely one-sided and engineered to insulate your from inconvenient truths.

      Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?

      I would refute your claims, except that you left out all specifics other than the target you wish you discredit with vague allegations, however, assuming you're referring to "climategate", eight separate investigations found that the claims you are repeating were invented bullshit based on quote-mining thousands of emails.

      or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?

      More facts that aren't. Arctic ice losses are consistently out-pacing actual predictions, so there is less sea ice in the Arctic than the IPCC predicted there would be. Also, Al Gore (who is not a scientist) actually said that one study predicted ice could be gone in less than 22 years, and a second study by a U.S Navy researcher warned it could happen in as little as seven years.

      Or the "starving polar bear" facts ?

      What about starving polar bears?

      Or any of the other 97.4% of the predictions gone wrong. Those facts?

      http://www.westernjournalism.c...

      Yea, a link to a conservative blog post written three years ago about a Fox News article about a Nature Climate Change article, is certainly evidence of something... It took me a while to find it, but the actual commentary article says that runs that they did of the CMIP5 models over-estimated warming from 1993 to 2012 according to the HadCRUT4 temperature data. So, it's 97.4% of the predictions from a single set of models as run by three researchers that are overestimating observed warming, and they then point out a number of reasons why that might be the case.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  8. Premature Egghatchulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Premature egghatchulation

    It happens. Even to Zebra finches.

  9. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Bernie Sanders, and I will levy a new multi-billion dollar tax against the poultry industry to alleviate this situation.

  10. And? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    NEWS FLASH: The world has never been static.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:And? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      NEWS FLASH: That's not insight and we know that already.

      NEWS FLASH: that doesn't mean CO2 isn't making the glob warm and the climate change.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  11. I agree that climate change has these effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that climate change is causing longer heat waves and impacting wildlife in many ways. I don't think that's in doubt. Climate change has had dramatic impacts on animal and plant life during most of the history of the Earth. It's led to mass extinctions, migrations, and dramatic changes in habitats. In the distant past, the Earth was almost certainly entirely glaciated, what's called the Snowball Earth Hypothesis. At other times, the Earth has been significantly warmer than it is today, resulting very small if any polar ice caps. There's plenty of evidence for this and it's pretty much universally accepted.

    Yes, there is a lot of variability in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the history of the Earth. In prehistoric times, carbon dioxide levels were many times higher than they are today, though the Earth wasn't really that much warmer. The reason for this was the sun being several percent dimmer, cancelling out some of the warming caused by greenhouse gases. There's also evidence in more recent, but still prehistoric times, that the carbon dioxide variations actually lag slightly behind the warming and cooling cycles. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is very much regulated by the oceans, which have the potential to absorb and release it under certain conditions. The oceans are a massive reservoir of carbon dioxide.

    The takeaway point from all of this? Geological evidence indicates that changes in the sun and the oceans are the primary drivers of climate change on Earth. We are at most a very small part of the climate change currently going on. Climate change has always been driven mostly by natural changes in the sun and in the oceans. The present day is no different. Just because humans are on the Earth now doesn't mean that the sun and oceans have suddenly ceased their roles to allow us to take over. This climate change is caused almost entirely by the sun and the oceans.

    1. Re:I agree that climate change has these effects by Your.Master · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This climate change is caused almost entirely by the sun and the oceans.

      But this isn't borne out by evidence. The sun has cooled very slightly, but the temperature has spiked up: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

      The oceans absorb and release carbon dioxide in direct proportion to atmospheric carbon dioxide. They essentially function to reduce the impact of atmospheric CO2 changes that would otherwise happen, in either direction. The ocean doesn't just burp out CO2 on a whim.

      Every reputable expert on geologic evidence I can find suggest that geologic evidence actually indicates that current climate change is overwhelmingly from human activity, and unusually rapid. There will of course be error bars and overall trendlines from natural sources as well, although it's not even clear that trendline runs in the same direction as current climate change.

    2. Re:I agree that climate change has these effects by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Every reputable expert on geologic evidence I can find suggest that geologic evidence actually indicates that current climate change is overwhelmingly from human activity, and unusually rapid.

      Well there's your problem. Getting your science information from Scientists, instead of Politicians and the industries that own them. Whooooeeeee! what next? Gettin' healthcare from Doctors? That's crazy thinkin'!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:I agree that climate change has these effects by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Whooooeeeee! what next? Gettin' healthcare from Doctors? That's crazy thinkin'!

      No kidding! He should get his health care from his insurance company, like everyone else!

      --
      That is all.
  12. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am the Pope and I'm here to let you know that prevaricating on Global Warming is not very Christian

  13. Caribou as well. by darkonc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Native communities in Northern Saskatchewan are dealing with the problem of caribou herds moving north. Their ranges are no longer within range of hunters from the communities. I theory, the climate change would have probably cause buffalo to move north to replace them, but the buffalo are mostly extinct, now.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:Caribou as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buffalo are mostly extinct? I guess somebody should tell them that, or does NT no longer mean "near threatened". One step away from "LC" or least concern. And their numbers have been increasing, mostly since they're now being farmed. I'd feel pretty bad if I'd had an "mostly extinct animal" burger for dinner last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

    2. Re:Caribou as well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the link you posted? See that map of North America? Pre-1800, half of the continent would have been marked as habitat, now it's a few tiny spots separated by hundreds of miles. There are 15,000 wild bison in existence, where there used to be tens of millions - a 99.97% drop in population. I think you can safely call that "mostly extinct".

  14. Re:But not as early as my... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    Rattlesnakes are ovoviviparous. They don't lay eggs.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  15. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Jeb Bush and I'd really like if someone realized that I'm still here.

    But, I'm too milquetoast to draw attention to myself.

  16. How long will it go on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long, how far will have to progress, and how much damage will have to occur before bull-headed ignorant people actually have to get their heads out of their asses and admit that global warming is a Real Thing? Knowing how stupid the average Human can be it'll be exactly Too Late to do anything about it. My only solace is taken in the fact that I won't live long enough to see the world and everything about it I like destroyed by Global Warmings' effects.

  17. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please clap. And buy some guac bowls.

  18. The war on carbon by istartedi · · Score: 1

    We must immediately divert all resources from the war on drugs, and wage war on carbon. Cook a steak on the grill? Go to jail. It really is that simple. /sarc.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:The war on carbon by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      war on drugs, we have more drugs.

      war on terrorists, we have more terrorist

      war on poverty, we have more poverty

      You are suggesting war on carbon will reduce carbon?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:The war on carbon by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You are suggesting war on carbon will reduce carbon?

      Facepalm - Please tell me you didn't take his post seriously.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:The war on carbon by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      We must immediately divert all resources from the war on drugs,

      I sort of get the impression you're being sarcastic, especially your sarcasm marker. Frankly the war on drugs is one of the stupidest things that the US government ahs ever engaged in. Anything diverting money away from that would be an excellent idea.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  19. Who Do They Think They Are Kidding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those chugs are buying groceries at Safeway's. They don't hunt shit! Who do they think they're kidding?

  20. We're all gonna die!!!!!! by NotDrWho · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The end is nigh!!!!!!

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:We're all gonna die!!!!!! by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      SJW>

      *eyeroll*

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    2. Re:We're all gonna die!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SJW is a useful acronym when "Self-Righteous Man-hating Anti-white Anti-free-speech Bigot" won't fit in the signature.

    3. Re:We're all gonna die!!!!!! by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SJW is a useful acronym for finding who is a Self-Righteous equality hating White redneck-free-speech Bigot, especially if it's in their signature.
      FTFY.

    4. Re:We're all gonna die!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very true. And it seems a lot of these redneckbeards hang around Slashdot for some reason.

  21. Re:But not as early as my... by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    hooray now if you had only logged in we would know who to congratulate.

    Also eggs have been around much longer than chickens.

    The birds aren't the only ones hurting with the warmest winter on record people haven't needed to buy nearly as much gas and electric to heat their homes this year.

    AND more importantly.
    Temperature of egg incubation determines sex in Alligator mississippiensis
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
    This implies a lot of -- well you do the math
    "temperatures less than or equal to 30 C producing all females, greater than or equal to 34 C yielding all males."

    That is a lot of bull crock...

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  22. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is God ... it's me, I am doing it you are all screwed. kthxbye

  23. Re:wrong by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 0

    I am the Walrus, and climate change is impacting my habitat!
    And BTW, I buried Paul.

    --
    We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  24. My friend Junior says... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    My friend Junior says,

    "Fewer birds, means more available shotgun shells and less poop on windshield."

    1. Re:My friend Junior says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forrest Gump posts to slashdot.

  25. temporary change in mortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The increase in mortality is a temporary result of warming. Eventually those that hatch earlier will dominate through natural selection. Then the faster rate of birth that follows will offset all the other problems we have been causing and birds will come to dominate the Earth. I look forward to welcoming our new feathered overlords.

    1. Re:temporary change in mortality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The increase in mortality is a temporary result of warming. Eventually those that hatch earlier will dominate through natural selection.

      Unless, of course, none of them survive.

      Look, it's not like the Earth hasn't seen rapid extinction of some species. But when such extinctions happen, other parts of the ecosystem can change dramatically, due to the loss of predators or prey connected with other species. And such changes may have a cascading effect on other species such as, oh say, homo sapiens.

  26. Re:time to add a new one by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine that, a change that effects the entire planet's atmosphere might cause a whole variety of changes across said planet. Its almost like if you change variables in a chaotic system you can get a wide range of surprising effects.

  27. my submission was plagiarised. by grrlscientist · · Score: 1

    i did not submit that link. my headline and my words were stolen and the original link to the story i submitted -- http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr... -- was replaced with the australian geographic link. honestly, the australian geographic story pales compared to the story that i shared.

    1. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably because of this "Thank you for visiting Forbes. We noticed that you have an ad blocker enabled." Which makes the site useless to many of us.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    2. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The editors are actually editing stuff? How'd that happenn?

    3. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Interesting.

      Of course, if they had posted the correct link, then a significant portion of the people would not have been able to read it without unblocking Forbes, which is probably not going to happen due to the perceived abuse of the Forbes site and its ads.

      However, if you got enough interest to get it posted, you probably should have had your story posted with the proper link, and ignored the naysayers.

      For the record, I ad block Forbes myself, which is too bad really, and I do find them a bit obnoxious (while entirely within their rights) when they block those who block their ads. If they would commit to not having abusive ads, they'd probably do better.

      Best compromise, your link and the other link for those who are Forbes challenged. After all, it seems that it was a free service to dig up another link.

    4. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      You are in serious need of a better blocker. Try NoScript.

    5. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      forbes.com

      Well right there is the problem. Malware enabling site Forbes.com insists that before we see anything there, we have to disable our adblockers and allow them to serve us up a nice stew of malware.

      was replaced with the australian geographic link. honestly, the australian geographic story pales compared to the story that i shared.

      Too bad. Since I can't see it, unless I agree to the malware, I just don't bother going there any more. Forbes is the internet version of unsafe sex.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You are in serious need of a better blocker. Try NoScript.

      You don't use both?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by grrlscientist · · Score: 1

      but the point is that I DID NOT POST THAT LINK. my words were stolen to promote a poorly written substitute to the story that i quoted and that i intended to share. if the plagiarist wanted to promote a different story, then that person should never have used MY NAME nor MY WORDS to do so. this bait-and-switch plagiarism should not be allowed to stand on this, or any, reputable site. FYI: here's the link to the story that i shared: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr... i am sure you'll agree that the piece i shared is far superior to the bait-and-switched australian geographic story.

    8. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I DID NOT POST THAT LINK. my words were stolen to promote a poorly written substitute to the story that i quoted and that i intended to share. if the plagiarist wanted to promote a different story, then that person should never have used MY NAME nor MY WORDS to do so. this bait-and-switch plagiarism should not be allowed to stand on this, or any, reputable site.

      Your words and your submission were used to promote a discussion (reading the linked article has always been somewhat optional). Speaking of linked articles, it is extremely disingenuous of you to write "A recently published study reveals that climate change can cause birds' eggs to hatch early " while linking to a puff piece written by you and not to the actual study (as I just did).

      That aside, I agree, it was wrong of the editor(s) to substitute the link you gave them with an alternative, especially without, at the very least, including an editor's comment to such an effect, and including your original link. While I can understand their logic / thought processes - new owners, wanting to make positive changes to slashdot, taking into account their audiences' preferences, and considering Forbes' less than stellar reputation here - it was a heavy handed 'fix', and unfair on you.

      FYI: here's the link to the story that i shared ... i am sure you'll agree that the piece i shared is far superior ...

      Containing such gems as ""It’s hard to think about 40 C [104F] when it is 2 C [35.6F] here in Milwaukee, but after doing the conversions I was starting to sweat thinking about those poor birds”, said ornithologist Peter Dunn," your surety is somewhat misplaced. About the best I can say is that your article was longer

      Posting anon I'm afraid so as not to undo some moderation.

    9. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the sound your mouse makes when you clicked on the Submit Story button?
      Thats the sound of you giving your story to slashdot to do with - or not - as they please.

    10. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      my words were stolen to promote a poorly written substitute to the story that i quoted and that i intended to share. if the plagiarist wanted to promote a different story, then that person should never have used MY NAME nor MY WORDS to do so. this bait-and-switch plagiarism should not be allowed to stand on this, or any, reputable site.

      First off, calm down. Bait and switch - I do not think it means what I think you think it means. And given that the folks who make those decisions have been catching a load of bad feedback from references to Forbes.com, they did think your story was interesting enough to search out an alternative link.

      That's all. I do suspect that you will never again have to worry about them "plagiarizing" any submission of yours in the future.

      FYI: here's the link to the story that i shared: http://www.forbes.com/sites/gr...

      i am sure you'll agree that the piece i shared is far superior to the bait-and-switched australian geographic story.

      I'll never know, because I won't ever see that article, because I won't disable my adblocker. By the way, this isn't just petulance upon the part of many Slashdotters http://www.tripwire.com/state-...

      https://adland.tv/adnews/forbe...

      http://www.networkworld.com/ar...

      Angler Exploit Kit and CryptoWall ransomware https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...

      Befause Forbes is such a noted provider of these malware exploits, and demand you enable the mechanism to allow them installed on your computer in order to see their content - Naaahhh ain't happening.

      Regardless - you cured your own problem with your outrage.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by grrlscientist · · Score: 1

      as community members, we have the responsibility to make sure that the powers-that-be act in accordance to the guidelines they set forward. they should not be allowed to act in a random way, nor to act unethically, nor to act against their own stated policies. so first, because slashdot accepts forbes submissions in other topics the board, even within the week, why did they randomly decide to not accept this particular one? and further, why did they decide to sneakily substitute a different URL -- thereby plagiarising my name, and my words, and erroneously implying that i endorsed that inferior submission, instead of creating a new submission of their own? why did they sneak in to the database yesterday and silently change their substituted URL to the forbes "welcome" page when that was NOT the URL i submitted, either? why not change the database BACK to the actual URL that i submitted and apologise for their misbehaviour, especially since i added the expunged URL to an upthread comment where it was easily seen? oh, and don't forget, but the editors should tell me, SHOULD TELL US ALL, publicly, why did they delete my message that i posted here, in this very thread, yesterday? as slashdot states at the beginning of each story's comments: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way." that statement implies that the editors will neither edit nor delete any comments, yet they CLEARLY DO -- when the comments displease them by, say, calling them out for their lack of transparency and for their misbehaviour. and, as a community member who would like to be part of a reputable site, why am i supposed to "shut up" -- as one commenter told me to do upthread -- when i notice these egregious discrepancies, when i have done absolutely nothing wrong by commenting publicly upon them? oh, and one last thing -- this is just for the editors at slashdot: i've taken a screenshot of this comment and will happily repost it if you decide to sneakily delete it as you did with yesterday's comment.

    12. Re:my submission was plagiarised. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Your outrage in comparison to the harm you've "suffered" is truly remarkable.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  28. Re: This will make those Republicans so happy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    Let's not forget that he was there to murder birds.

    But not bird fetuses, which is what really matters.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  29. Re:time to add a new one by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    especially "earthquakes" and the spin of the earth.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  30. Would You Please Stop Exhaling All That CO2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you please stop exhaling all that CO2?! You're killing me. You're literally killing the planet.

    Just stop breathing! You filthy polluter.

  31. Re:But not as early as my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kinda
    They have eggs, which are incubated and hatched internally
    I did say hatch, never mentioned the eggs being laid

  32. Confirmation Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Confirmation Bias

    In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

    Did these "Researchers" rule out all other possibilities? Or did that just look and say, "this fits"?

    Because then you can say Correlation does not mean Causation.

    Odds are, they had a suspicion and went looking for evidence that confirmed their suspicion. But unless they ruled out all the other reasonably possible causes, then all they have is a correlation. Did they work with ornithologists? Vets?

    This is what happens when Government Grant money flows freely to people that toe the party line...Sloppy Science.

    1. Re:Confirmation Bias by reboot246 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Good post, but you'll probably get modded down. Slashdotters can't stand reason. Most aren't scientists and have no clue as to how science actually works.

    2. Re:Confirmation Bias by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or you could go actually read the original paper to see if you could detect any confirmation bias. I did and it's not that hard to read if you have a little biology literacy.

    3. Re:Confirmation Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Oreally?

      Did they discuss other possible causes? I didn't see that. Did they rule out other possible causes? I didn't see that either.

      What I saw was them starting with a premise that "global warming" was causing that and they constructed an argument to support that.

      That is NOT Science.

    4. Re:Confirmation Bias by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The paper was about the effect of temperatures on the nesting success of zebra finches. As part of the study they looked at natural conditions but they also tested the effects of artificially raising the temperature. The paper barely mentions global warming.

    5. Re:Confirmation Bias by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      here in the UK where we have hot and cold seasons like, spring is arriving a lot earlier than it used to and the spring plants are also growing earlier which may also screw the birds breeding cycles up as they'll have to match the food growing season

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re:Confirmation Bias by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's playing havoc with hedgehogs too, they come out of hibernation too early.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Re: time to add a new one by Namarrgon · · Score: 2

    That list has a duplicated item. This is clear proof that the whole list has been fabricated by a conspiracy of neocons to drive their global agenda! I demand to see the emails of the authors!

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  34. So what you're really saying is... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    I can get my chicken filet sandwich that much sooner!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  35. Birds adapt but humans can't! by ishmaelflood · · Score: 0

    So birds in their wisdom can adapt to climate change but the weeping willies say humans can't.

    1. Re:Birds adapt but humans can't! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So birds in their wisdom can adapt to climate change but the weeping willies say humans can't.

      Of course we can. Those adaptations might not be all that much fun for some of us though.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:Birds adapt but humans can't! by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

      I by adapt - you mean abandon coastal settlements like NY or NO. Have fun with that.

      --
      This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  36. you folkds just don't understand... by slew · · Score: 1

    Actually, Justices Kagan and Scalia were hunting buddies... really...

    You liberals just don't understand that all of Washington is the same. You seem so desperate to hate on Republicans, but every attribute you come up with actually applies to both parties.

  37. Re:wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this is God. Disregard that other guy, it's Lucifer. Anyway, just saying that I'm not doing it, you all are doing it to yourselves. I said I wouldn't flood the earth again, I didn't say I'd stop you from fucking it up yourselves.

  38. title is very misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is just one species covered in the study. this study is very limited to location. i don't see any global correlation to any other species are geographic area. very poor study. I am not sure if this would even qualify as real hard science. more like a backyard bird watchers experiment.

  39. Re:But not as early as my... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Rattlesnakes are ovoviviparous. They don't lay eggs.

    Do you think AC will even know what that means?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  40. Is it good? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Would that result in an overpopulation of birds, and further global warming, and hatching even earlier, until birds stop laying eggs and reproduce like humans - birds coming directly out of them rather than hatching from the eggs

  41. Re:wrong by KiloByte · · Score: 1

    Screw birds, my kitteh already changed to summer fur after all the warm days... then it snowed today.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  42. Re:time to add a new one by Maow · · Score: 2

    How the ever-loving fuck did this get modded +4 Informative?!?

    Slashdot has been looking so much more positive lately (thanks whipslash) but the mods on this topic, WTF?

    Another tech site (like El Reg) where a science topic can't be discussed rationally due to the denialist BS.

    It's a fucking shame. Truly shameful that technologists let their personal tribal biases and politics get in the way of real, actual science.

  43. Re:But not as early as my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rattlesnakes are ovoviviparous. They don't lay eggs.

    Do you think AC will even know what that means?

    Not only knows what it means, but, like all of us, except you, knows that ovoviviparous animals don't have placentas, but develop eggs with yolks that hatch internally, like he said.

    Idiot.

  44. Blame the birds. by BeCre8iv · · Score: 1

    They shouldn't believe the global warming hype

    --
    This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
  45. Re:time to add a new one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah.. pretty cool huh. The shifting of ice mass and rising oceans changing the axis of rotation and spin speed ever so slightly. It's all happened before so it's not a big deal(?)... just neat to predict and measure.
    Is the earthquake stuff pretty minor as well? We get more from fracking than our contribution to climate change?

  46. It's a catastrophe for cuckoos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the time they return from their winter habitats, the local birds have finished breeding.

  47. Re:time to add a new one by slashping · · Score: 1

    As the earth gets warmer, it is likely that long lists of items will have errors in them.

  48. Climate changes, life adapts by blindseer · · Score: 1

    In all of this planet's history we've seen more significant changes in the climate and at rates much greater and slower than what we've seen. The flora and fauna has adapted before and will adapt again.

    The interesting thing about how climate, flora, and fauna interact is that a change in any one produces a change in the others. Climates do change, fauna and flora adapt, and a new climate is produced.

    At one time I would have been upset about the potential extinction of a species but no more. I remember hearing over and over again on how many species die off due to climate change. All of that got erased in my mind when I heard how many new species developed in that time. It is quite possible that we are seeing the greatest biological diversity that has ever existed on Earth.

    Species die off, that's life. In fact it is required for species to die off for new, more robust, species to take its place in the ecology.

    I've also discovered on how the concept of a species is very fluid and not well defined. For the longest time I thought a species was defined as a population in that a pair of mates could produce offspring capable of reproducing with another mate from that population. Then I find out that not only are grizzly bears and polar bears closely related enough to produce viable offspring it is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between the two species in certain parts of the world. Grizzly and polar bears have a range that overlap. When it comes time to breed the bears don't care much about what color the fur is of their mate. The cubs will adopt the feeding habits of the mother. Brown bears are easy to find and kill in the snow, and white bears stick out in the forest. The color of the coat is largely based on the climate the bears are found, not the genetics of the population as a whole.

    What do bears have to do with birds? If these birds die off because the climate is too warm for them then I expect that same species to develop habits and genetics to adapt. In a matter of years this problem will solve itself and the birds will live on.

    This is only seen as a problem because some biologists are grabbing on the keywords of the day to get publicity and, no doubt, funding.

    In short, move along, there's nothing to see here.

    To those that think I'm heartless, bought out by the oil lobby, and/or whatever else that might be used to turn me into a sub-human I say this... bite me. This is basic biology at work. Had this happened in another time, in another place, this would not be headlines. It'd be turned into a graduate paper at best and filed in a university library where no one would ever read it again.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  49. Hurry up, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet I still can't grow oranges in my back yard.

  50. Re:wrong by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Ignore both of them. They're just minors in the pantheon. The council vote is what counts and we voted long ago that you're essentially just a TV show.

  51. Anecdotal by kbahey · · Score: 1

    Anecdotal observations ...

    In Southern Ontario where I live ... this year I have been hearing many song birds in early and mid February. Today (Feb 20), it was a male cardinal singing. A couple of weeks ago, it was Red Winged Black Birds, and American Goldfinches.

    This is very unusual. It was not until March that we would hear them. I am not saying they are migratory, since some of them choose to stay and feed of bird feeders in people's backyards. But the act of males singing is the unusual part ...

    It is an El Nino year though, and winter has been unusually mild.

  52. Cold is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The PDO is in its negative phase for about 12-15 years so half way through, the AMO has peaked and is on the way down for about 5 years now and the sun has peaked at the weakest level in centuries. Yes we just had a big el-nino but we had one of those in the middle of the 1945-1977 negative PDO as well.

    So now it will get cold as la-nina hits and the 3 negative phases take hold. It will be a good test for the "CO2 is the control knob of climate" idea. We are still putting more CO2 out than ever before and our atmosphere levels are rising steadily. So if that idea is correct it should be able to overcome the natural cycles. If we drop 1 degree C or more over the next two decades while increasing atmospheric CO2 levels then the idea is wrong.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

  53. Re:But not as early as my... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Rattlesnakes are ovoviviparous. They don't lay eggs.

    Do you think AC will even know what that means?

    Not only knows what it means, but, like all of us, except you, knows that ovoviviparous animals don't have placentas, but develop eggs with yolks that hatch internally, like he said.

    Idiot.

    Oh, so you looked at Wikipedia after being bitch slapped, eh?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  54. AGW the new DDT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, looks like if birds are hatching early because they are warmer, then I guess evolution will take care of the issue of incubation and how birds do it. We are doomed.