Home

-Site Rankings

-Hits

Discussion

Recent Discussion

Create New Topic

Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)

Previous topic: Next topic:

Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004) topic started 1/10/04; 11:03:27 AM last post 5/6/05; 12:26:27 PM

Dr. Hays Cummins - Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/10/04; 11:03:27 AM (reads: 42828, responses: 41) Please Ponder and Post after reading the essay: "Biological Consequences Global Warming". Reflection Essay Format: -Title -What was "Done" (methods. true source of data) -What was learned (results) -What it means (what did I get out of it.) -How did/will this article change my thinking. Add your comments here! miller43@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/15/04; 2:46:39 PM (reads: 44076, responses: 0) The article relates how climatologists are working to determine what climate changes are occuring naturally and which ones are human induced as well as how this will effect predictions of how the future climate will act.   These predictions are catagorized into 4 categories: Effects on physiology, distribution, phenology, and adaptation.  It was noted that CO2 is strongly considered in agent in the concept of global warming, creating a carbon sink and promoting plant growth.  It is also believed through tree ring and ice core analysis that this warming trend has persistented since the mid 19th century and has in recent years blossomed.  Examples of changes in species abundance and distribution were discussed for plants, insects, marine life, and terrestrial life all promoting the belief that global warming has altered how they exist in a rather short period of time.  This article was able to express with data that the increase in changes in a lifeforms' traits are correlate with trends in global warming.   The idea that life cycles of plants and animals are influenced by global warming was well related using statistics to show that birth/growth rates are occurring earlier annual just in relation to the past few decades.  Also, using these statistics, convincing deductions on how changes in one species would effect numerous other species were postulated.  The suggestion that global warming is altering the amount and location of precipitation as well as ocean temperatures, expressed another path through which an endless amount of lifeforms could be influenced.  Much of the information provided in this article was presented in such a manner and amount as to create a real sense of concern for an impending increase in global temperatures.  The way it expressed successive downfalls from one or more changes by a species or in an earth sphere to many others, stressed the way in which an increase in global warming will effect all organisms in one way or another at the current rate at which it is perceived to be moving.  Add your comments here! pudgemobile@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/15/04; 9:49:25 PM (reads: 44124, responses: 0) Lesley Hughes begins her review concerning biological consequences of global warming with four hypotheses that should occur due to human induced climate change.  These are: 1. Changes in CO2, temp or precip will affect developmental and metabolic rates of organisms 2. Temperature and climate changes will force species populations to move 3. The increased number of degree days may change the phenological relationships among species 4. Species with short generation cycles and rapid population growth may adapt to the changes Ms. Hughes then uses 49 different references documenting the changes in behavior, population numbers, physiology, environment, climate and location of  species that live in many biomes of our world.  Most of the changes are correlated to an increase in either temperature or CO2 levels. Ms. Hughes also uses graphs and boxes as evidences for her hypotheses. She depicts two graphs, one showing the increase in temp over the millenium using ice pack and preserved tree ring data analysis, and one showing the increase in seasonal CO2 over Mauna Loa in Hawaii.  Her boxes contain information on rising land and ocean temperatures, sea level increases, and the reduction of sea ice and glaciers. Although singularly none of the phenomena she states seems important,  together this information is astounding.  She has not written about one part of the world but the whole Earth.  Ms. Hughes was not the collector of this data but she has done an amazing job in compiling this information into one report.  Even if someone doubts the reasoning for her conclusions, you must stand up and take notice. Interestingly, Ms. Hughes says this is the beginning of our research, as she feels more data is necessary for certainty in conclusions.  She states positive results are more likely to be published and negative ones forgotten.  She says there are other possible reasons for these phenomena to occur, but that her explanations are the best tested ones.  I would have to concur with Ms. Hughes, that yes human induced climate change is the most plausible reason for all these changes, but there may be another explanation. Add your comments here! caritymr@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/18/04; 4:46:03 PM (reads: 44063, responses: 0) What was done? (methods, true data) Methods:  In order to predict the effects of climate and atmospheric change (caused by humans) on species and communities, Hughes suggests we categorize predictions [read: possible effects] into four categories:  1)  Physiological effects = metabolism and developmental rates may be altered by changes in CO2 concentrations, temperature and precipitation.  2)  Distribution effects = species may move up in elevation or latitude with increasing temperatures.  3)  Phenological effects = events triggered by an enviornmental cue may be altered because of climate changes.  4)  Adaptation =  microevolution may occur in species with quick generation times and rapid population growth. Hughes collected information from various sources to bolster her four claims.  For instance, in support of the claim about physiological effects we were told about the growth of the bristlecone pine.  Because of increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, photosynthetic rates increased, and thus so did the cambial (cork cambium [bark]) growth of the pine.  Carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight are the resources needed for photosynthesis.  Many examples were cited to support each of the four claims, suggesting that indeed climate has played a considerable role in somehow manipulating these four variables. True data:  As was pointed out in class, the data represented in figure 1 has a considerable amount of deviation from the mean (two standard errors).  So, hypothetically the climate at present may be relatively close to what it was a thousand years ago.  Also, another notion that was brought up in class that I am inclined to agree with is the concept that we're not seeing the "whole picture" here.  What I mean is that it is very conceivable that the portion of the graph we're looking at is a small chunk of data that is actually more 'tame' than the rest of the trend.  In the time prior to year 1000 the temperatures could theoretically be raising five degrees every day. We don't know from this graph.  If this is the case, then we should be worrying about something entirely different (a cooling phenomenon).  The other data/research cited in the paper seems (at surface) to be reputable.  However, one could say that the author of the paper may have taken some of the figures/statistics out of context.  We wouldn't know unless we pulled up her resources and read them as well.  I think that is part of what one should do if they want to validate the data.  This is another one of those 'he-said/she-said' occurrences. What was learned?  (results) It was found that climate in the past century is indeed effecting physiology, distribution, and phenology in some species.  The author suggests that the best resource for data supporting this notion is data which has been collected over a long period of time, instead of a 'snapshot' of data.  Also, the author points out that: "although natural variation, or nonclimatic factors, might be responsible for some of these trends, human-induced climate or atmospheric change is the most parsimonious (simple) explanation...". What did I get out of it? I really enjoyed this article.  I thought the premise for the article was great.  All of the information was well thought through, and put together in a sensible fashion.  The one problem I do have with the article, though, is the fact that everything in the paper (all of the research, experiements, etc.) are being held together by the tenet that increased global climate is to blame.  While it may be true that all of this is happening we're still not entirely sure if this recent climatic change is part of a bigger cycle or something new.  We only get data in this paper from as far back as 1000 years ago.  Even this data is two standard errors from the mean, which looks considerable given the gray area on the graph. How did/will this article change my thinking? If anything this article opened my eyes to the effects increasing global temperatures has on both flora and fauna.  I feel like a lot of people (myself included) don't bat an eye at what is happening with organisms around us unless they directly [obviously] effect us.  The fact that a species of grass in Antarctica has blossomed from 500 individuals to 12,030 individuals doesn't really make that big of an impact on someone in North America who is not knowledgable about it. However, when the author of the article shows time and again, example after example of how organisms are being effected in many ways, that starts to become eye-opening for me.  Bottom line:  great article.  I'm really glad I read it.  Add your comments here! hamannmm@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 2:57:31 PM (reads: 44035, responses: 0) What was done? Lesley Hughes begins her article by stating the two main challenges of climatologists: 1) Distinguishing what is human-induced climate change and what is a natural flux of seasonal and annual cycles and 2) Predict probable climate scenarios for the future.    Using 49 cited sources, Hughes develops the notion that small changes lead to large one.  Basically, this article explores how the environmentally triggered microevolutionary change leads to macroevolution.    -Methods: Hughes classifies all predictions into at least one of four categories: 1) Effects on physiology. Atmospheric and climatic changes that alter the metabolic and developmental rates in animals as well as alteration of processes- such as photosynthesis, respiration, and growth composition- in plants.  2) Effects on distribution.  The shifting of isotherms will lead species to move upward in elevation and toward the poles.  3) Effects on phenology.  Environmental alterations will lead to the "decoupling of phonological relationships between species."  4) Adaptation.  Species with short generation times and rapid growth rates have greater chances for microevolutionary changes.   Hughes' presentation of a plethora of physical and biological examples makes the argument a very collective one.  All predictions that are used are stated to support that climatic and atmospheric trends are already affecting species.    -True data: All of Hughes' examples were "true" in the fact that someone else said them.  However, many scientists might have contributed a problem to something other than climate change.  For example, if I were a scientist that was looking at stomatal density I might contribute the change in density to the overuse of pesticides and herbicides.  Hughes™≠ word choice really bothered me because it sounded like she was nullifying her own data.  Using words like might in the foundation of her argument only made the upper, more dramatic examples less in my eyes.  Her box figures were very interesting and presented some helpful examples, but I was not super impressed with her figures.  Figure 1 does not state from what it was reconstructed nor does it have a standard deviation that is convincing.  In my opinion, Figure 2 is the most famous figure of climate change.  I just don™≠t feel like she has substantial data even though her argument is convincing.    What was learned?  What were the results? The results of this article were the many (what are assumed to be) "concrete" biological and physical examples of alterations due to climate change.  I was most impressed by the wide array of information this article offered.  You always hear about glaciers and ice caps melting, but how many people actually knew the number of blades of grass on an island in Antarctica. Although some of Hughes' conclusions were common sense (for example "the most convincing data comes from studies where intensive monitoring has occurred"), I still felt that the paper was very effective persuasively speaking.    What did I get out of it?   Lots of interesting facts, but Hughes' final lines are an excellent summary of what I got out from this article. "The most sobering thought is that even if only a fraction of the examples reviewed here are indeed a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect, they have occurred with warming levels at only one-fifth, or less, of those expected over the next century."   How will/did this article change my thinking?   Ultimately this article is a great way of saying that digging deep for a wide variety of data pays off.  I think many researchers might have not looked as far as Lesley did.  However by doing so, Lesley was able to write an interesting article that captured my attention and taught me a lot about the minute examples of global warming and other atmospheric changes.  Add your comments here! greenerr@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 3:08:33 PM (reads: 44060, responses: 0) What was "Done" (methods. true source of data) Unlike the previous article, Hughes focuses on the data that there is an increase in temperature and its risks on living organisms from minor temperature changes. With her argument centering on the ecological and physiological effects she shows a graph that depicts an increase in temperature over a 1000 years. Although the black lines show an increase of 1 degree in just under a century, I find it important to note that the decrease of 1 degree spanned around 900 years and we have managed to increase it under 100 years. If arguments center around climate trends, then why have we created this change in which the data shows normally takes a millennium? Since there is predictions that life will be affected in some way then the arguments that also say that 1 degree is nothing becomes invalid. However the grey dashes are made hard to see which might also indicate that this data is not valid because measurement of temperatures since the year 1000 rely on faith that the methods are consistent done properly. What was learned (results) If we presume that the data is accurate then Hughes prediction of ecological disturbances will have major consequences on life processes. Since all life is symbiotic, what hurts one organism will come back and hurt us. This disruption and displacment will have major negative connotations on humans and all organisms. What did I get out of it? I found this article to bring up some very good points and the contrast between this article and last weeks shows that convincing the population relays on what the big three have done: using words such as "dramatic" and "accelerate". In the end the big question remains is, is it worth doing nothing when the concequences of being wrong are disastrous? How did/will this article change my thinking? After reading this article I realized that if 1 degree change will have no affect on us as humans except a small increase in our utilities bill as Dr. Boardman pointed out on Thursday then we would be allowing a greater increase in emissions and faster consumption of resources and energy. With this small increase it would seem plausible that we would be aiding in temperature increases with needing to consume more over longer periods of time. Like I mentioned before, is it worth it? Add your comments here! murphyj4@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 3:31:27 PM (reads: 43946, responses: 0) What was "Done" (methods. true source of data) The author of this article draws from a total of four different effects and reactions climate changes over a broad range of subjects and areas. Hughes notes several indicators she used in her study, such as tree rings and ice cores and sea levels to set up scenarios to gage climate change of a period of time. What was learned (results) Hughes results indicated a recent trend in global warming in recent history. It is also noted that CO2, an important green house gas has been increasing. Although the seasonal rise and fall of CO2 levels still occurs it now occurs over a shorter period of time. Because of the wide range of tests taken and data gathered it allows for multiple and very different sources to back up the authors claims. What did I get out of it? I found this article partially interesting. I noted that it took a less flamboyant tone than the pervious article while still managing to get the point across without making the reader wade through mounds of data. I am glad I had the opportunity to read this article, because for me it tied multiple sources together and as a result I could see the results of global warming over a broad area of effect. How did/will this article change my thinking? If anything we had humans tend to focus on ourselves when we think about any any changes in our climate and their resulting effects. This article looked at multiple effects, this broad range of allowed the reader to bring together and analyze the subject over a broad range of data. With out the often present "end of the world" tone, that is present in many articles on this subject. Add your comments here! dormancs@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 4:21:50 PM (reads: 43979, responses: 0) This article presents information on effects of climate change worldwide. Lesley Hughes categorizes the consequences of climate change into four divisions: effects on physiology, effects on distributions, effects on phenology, and adaptations. Several examples of the various changes that have occurred are shown by comparing data collected about species and climate from the beginning of the 20th century and earlier to data taken at the end of it as well as by looking at sets of data that were taken continuously over a long period of time. The data supporting these statement comes from a large number and wide variety of articles. The results of this article showed that the changes in climate have affected species, causing them to change the location of their population, physical traits and life cycle events. Most of the climate change is caused by humans. What makes the results of this article so persuasive is that the data and examples given come from all over the world, not just a single geographic area. I found this article to be very persuasive as well as interesting. While I had heard about the effect global warming was having on species in the Cloud Forest I did not know of any other specific examples of the effects of global warming on species. I found Hughes figures and graphs to be very helpful in outlining her arguments and getting her main points across. While I have been conscious of the effects long term climate change can have, this article along with the discussion in class made me realize that even though a change of one degree does not seem like much, it can have a significant effect on other species. Add your comments here! nagyrc@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 7:14:03 PM (reads: 44020, responses: 0)   This article describes many individual studies of species that have been conducted primarily over the last few decades.  Specifically, these studies have looked at such issues as physiology, distribution, phenology, and adaptation of both plants and animals.  They looked for correlations between the data from these studies and the predictions and trends of global warming from other studies. From these studies, many cases were provided of seemingly direct relationships between these organisms and the trends and effects of global warming including changes in temperature and precipitation.  Some of the statistics were shocking.  For example, the changes of Californian reef fish with "up to 92% decline in species abundance" was particularly alarming.  There were many other cases that also had persusive data indicating that the global warming was directly influencing the lives of many organisms.  Additionally, it was brought up that although only certain species have documented results of alteration, these will then cascade through the trophic levels, indirectly affecting many other species. From this article, it seems as though they have proof of the impacts that global warming changes are having on species throughout the world.  However, it also acknowledges that these changes could be due to natural variation.  I think that it is important for other studies to be conducted on species to further the supporting arguments.  The length of these studies is also an important issue to consider.  While a study conducted for a few decades may seem like a long time, in geological time, this is no significant period at all.  This may be just too short of a time to be able to attribute the results to the warming trends. This article greatly surprised me that changes have been observed in so many different species.  I feel that these studies and future studies will be important for persuading people to acknowledge the effects that we are having on other species through our actions.  However, I was skeptical as I read the article because of the length of the studies could be considered long term or short term depending on how you look at it.  Additionally, I feel that natural variation could play a bigger part than was suggested in this article.  Add your comments here! Headenln@m... - Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2   1/19/04; 8:41:13 PM (reads: 44112, responses: 0) In this article a variety of data, taken by others, is used to relate climate change to biological change. The author focuses on the idea that the temperature is rising and that will affect the biodiversity that is able to survive in a given region. This article makes four predictions about the effects of human created climate change and natural climate change on the environment. Those four predictions are: effects on physiology, effects on distributions, effects on phenology, and adaptation. There are 49 sources of cited data found within this article, all of which are other articles found in journals. The article made a very convincing argument that climate change is happening and thus is affecting the biodiversity of the planet. The author shows that the changes in global temperature have affected the organisms living in that area but she also states that it is important to look at changes overtime instead of a „snapshot‰ in time. Overall I really enjoyed this article. I‚m glad I got to read this article. I was surprised to see that there was as much data on individual species reactions to climate change. This article showed me a lot of things that I had not considered as problem associated with climate change. It also gave me some „proof‰ (used for lack of another word) of the so-called global climate change problem. This article had a lot of really interesting facts that showed some of the factors of climate change which could affect me. The spread of vector borne disease was never something I considered when looking at climate change. It would be hard to think of what it would be like in the US if malaria were as big a problem here as it is in places like Central America and Africa. Add your comments here! carveykn@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 9:52:35 PM (reads: 44031, responses: 0) What Was Done Hughes complied different data sets and studies to prove whether or not human impacts on the environment have been changing the earth and the species living on it.  She focused her study in four parts, demonstrating the effects in each- physiology, distribution, phenology, and adaptation.  She analyzes the changes and effects of different studies done about a range of species as well as combines data sets to compare to the fact that the temperature is indeed increasing. What was learned The examples mentioned provided a fairly strong foundation that there are many changes happening as the result of a global warming.  Hughes gave a variety of examples that all supported her assumption, and as long as these studies included are true, then  we can infact believe (or at least take interest in the idea) that the climate changes caused by humans are beginning to create long term changes in species, possibly irreversible. What it means The article was not entirely absolute with every statement mentioned; rather, the approach of mentioning possible correlations gave the author a lot more credit.  Different connections made between changing species and global warming could be investigated more to be proven absolutely true, however, Hughes makes sure to state that natural variation could explain several of the examples.  How did this article change my thinking While the previous article left me with more of a sense of being careful of what data to trust, Hughes's conclusions left more of an impact and concern in my mind.  The facts and correlations made throughout the article were concerning, seeing the effects of a change that appears at first so insignificant.  At the same time, half of the power came from the way it was presented with less of a pessimistic attitude like many similar articles on the subject matter contain. Add your comments here! smithdb1@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 10:28:30 PM (reads: 44081, responses: 0) Lesley Hughs presents an article that examines the possible affects of global warming on plants and animals.  She examines research that has been conducted on recent changes in plant and animal physiology, effects on distribution of species, changes in phenology, and species adaptation.  Over the past few decades measurements of plant growth and densities, species distributions(marine and terrestrial), and life cycles and growing seasons of plants have been conducted to prove that climate change could be related to any significant changes in biodiversity. The following data has been found to show a connection with climate change and  changes in patterns of biodiversity. By using tree ring data and satellite imagery, plant growth and densities have been found to be increasing in the last century.  Distributions of two species of plants in Antartica have been found to increase due to greater seed germination and seedling survival.  The upward movement of alpine plant species have been recorded in the last century. 22(63%) of 35 non-migratory species of butterflies in Europe have been found to shift habitat range northwards by 35-240km in the last century. 20 of 65 bird species in Britain have showed trends towards earlier egg laying from 1971 to 1995. I feel that more evidence needs to be conducted to really show that climate change and changes in biodiversity are more linked.  As it was said before by Chelsea, most research has only been conductd over the last few decades, which is not that long in geological time.  However, I feel that this article did present data better than the last article we read in terms of the scope of research conducted. I feel that changes in the patterns of biodiversity could very well be linked to global warming.  If species are changing their range and distribution and plants have been found to increase in overall growth and density, this is a good indicator that condtions for living things are indeed changing.  A small increase in global temperature could change the adapability of any species to its environment, especially those most most sensitve to ecosystem changes. Add your comments here! maikutdl@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 10:58:46 PM (reads: 43993, responses: 0) What was "Done" (methods. true source of data) To predict the effects of human-induced climate and atmospheric change on species and on communities.  These predictions are categorized in 1.)Effects of physiology: changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, or precipitation will directly affect metabolic and developemental rates in many animals and processe such as photosynthesis, respiration, growth and tissue composition in plants, 2.)Effects on distributions: a 3 degree Celsius change in mean annual temperature corresponds to a shift in isotherms of approx. 300-400km in latitude or 500 in elevation, 3.) Effects on phenology:life cycle events triggered by environmental cues such as degree days might be altered leading to decoupling of phenological relationships between species, and 4.)Adaptation:species with short generation times and rapid population growth rates might undergo microevolutionary change in situ. A number of studies have been done to determine what species have been affected by the climate of the 20th century and anomalous atmosphere.  There are many "issues" that may have an affect on this possible change causing there to be no certain answer.  These studies are known more for being events leading up to a more confident, but not completely correct answer.   What was learned (results) Through many studies, it is known that species abundance has increased in higher altitudes and near the poles.  Whether the species is a marine organism, insect, plant (mobile/inmobile), or if there was a change in the temperature of water, a change is occurring in the environment and is causing a change in the way a species lives and the place in which they live.  Although there have been changes due to natural selection, it is known that human-induced occurrences have caused quite a bit of change as well.     What it means (what did I get out of it.)/How did/will this article change my thinking I believe that the most important message from this article is that a change is occurring on planet Earth.  Although, as homo sapiens, our way of life and location of residence has not been affected directly, it is indirectly.  Plants that may have an affect on us in some way, or insects that we may need to help keep crops healthy, etc..are being affected already by this change in the climate.  The movement to higher altitudes and towards the poles has been occurring and sooner or later, we will be doing the same thing.  We will be moving around to areas on the Earth in which we can "handle" (temperatures).  I believe that keeping an eye out on the amount of CO2 being released and other human activites that may cause a change may be a good idea.  I want an Earth in which children many many years from now will be able to enjoy without having to worry about whether the air they are breathing is healthy and whether the temperatures are warm/cold enough to handle.      Add your comments here! Brad Shumaker - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/04; 11:00:57 PM (reads: 44015, responses: 0) Response: Bio. Consequences of Global Warming What was "Done" (methods. true source of data):             The article written by Lesley Hughes covers different potential effects of human induced atmospheric and climate changes on species and communities.  She specifies four specific parameters that are discussed in the article; effects on physiology, effects on distribution, effects on phenology, and adaptation.  She derives much of her information from the plethora of sources that she lists after the conclusion of the article.  This article was also published and reviewed by other endorsing scientists.  Also she discusses the fact that the overall discussion in the article relates to consistent trends that can lead to convincing predictions, so she states her fallibility right off the bat. Results:             The learned information was that specific animals, insects, plants, and marine species are being affected by the global changes mainly being the change in global climate.  These changes are; plant productivity and growth, species distribution and growth (expanding regional habitats latitudinal, longitudinal, and vertical), and life cycle timing. Meaning:             It was an interesting article to read, though it focused primarily on climate scenarios for the future and present trends that are being tested.  These issues are important, but I wish she would have covered more about, if human induced climate change is the reason for these seen changes.  Both issues are relevant, and I suppose only so much can be covered in a 6 page article.  The presented information was interesting and viable. Changed thinking:             I was fairly familiar with the material in this article, but these ideas of changing ecological settings personally has me scared.  If humans are making large contributions to the climate and global changes that are happening I question if we are beyond the point of no return.  This article and other that I have read like it also make me question exactly how much of an impact we are having and if we aren‚t then is there anyway to change the situation, or should we even attempt to change the situation?  If these things naturally occur is it our duty to change them?  Add your comments here! panzake@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/20/04; 12:42:55 AM (reads: 43965, responses: 0) Lesley Hughes put together a paper that outlines some of the effects of global warming.  She breaks up the information into four categories: effects on physiology, effects on distributions, effects on phenology, and adaptation.  The majority of her detailed research falls into the changes in species distribution and abundance category.  It was difficult for me to decipher what information, if any, from this article was original research work by Hughes.  It was presented in a way that made me feel it was just a compilation of others works.  The results of her research were broken down into three categories.  #1The changes in CO2 in the atmosphere have an effect on plant physiology.  Certain data shows increases in plant growth and a lengthening of the active growing season.  #2Shifts in distribution were seen as more species move towards the poles and upward in elevation.  Her examples included plants moving upward in elevation in alpine areas, butterflies moving northwards, and a decrease in the number of zooplankton off the coast of California.  #3 Changes in life cycle timing is the third category.  Hughes provided information on the increase stages of insects, birds, and plants. I feel that what I gained from this article is a stronger sense of the extreme consequences of global warming.  The branching down of problems started from global warming is more extensive than I was aware of.  When you hear about global warming, your first thought isn't: I wonder if that is going to affect non-migratory European butterfly species.  I don't think people, including myself, understand the level to which global warming affects ecosystems, or how complicated the chain reactions can be. So many people argue what the actual effects of global warming are.  The industrialists will have you believe that the environmentalists made it up, and the environmentalists will have you believe the industrialists are ruining the planet.  With so much controversial information from either side, it is good to have an article with specific examples of the effects of global warming on specific species. I will take from this article a greater understanding of the effects of global warming and also the knowledge that although what is happening cannot specifically be pinned on global warming, it is the most likely cause.        Add your comments here! Gattje@m... - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/20/04; 1:53:47 PM (reads: 43899, responses: 1) The author, Leslie Hughes wrote this article about the effects of human induced climate change on many different species and how exactly it effected them. She used many outside sources for her data, and I'm not sure if any of it is her own research. She divides her data into 4 different effects on species: physiology, distribution, phenology, and adaptation, to demonstrate the effects climate change have had on individual species. What was learned from this article was basically, the rising climate is having a drastic effect on everything, either directly or indirectly. Hughes goes into detail on the effects or many different species in different types of habitats: terrestrial, marine, insects, plants, birds, butterflies, etc...She concludes from her research that;species are moving their habitats towards the poles or to higher elevations, local populations at lower latitudes and "range boudries" are dying off, there is an increasing invasion of more mobile species in places where local populations are dying off, and important interactions between certain species, such as polliniation, are being thrown off because of certain environmental cues that are dependent on temperature or daylength. Basically, what is thought to be human induced climate change is effecting species in many different ways. From this article, i really got a taste of the true effects global warming is and will have on our environment. Little changes can have such a drastic effect on some species, especially ones that time their life cycles according to temperature. If one species is affected, there will be just as much of an effect on another species, its a domino effect because everything is so interrelated through foodwebs and ecosystems. Global warming has much more severe effects than most people realize, and the author shows us that by looking at individual species. This article made me more worried about Global warming. If one degree over 30 years can have such an effect, who knows what will happen in the next century?? Do i want to raise my children to live in a world that is slowly falling apart? this article scared me, because though butterflies and trees don't have a direct effect on me, soon enough i think we will start to feel the effects, and more than just a warmer temperature. Though some dont believe it is a problem, i really do think it is actually happening. Add your comments here! Rob - Re: Reflection 1b: The real truth behind ignorant dreams   1/18/05; 12:19:07 AM (reads: 44353, responses: 0) Four different effects of a global warming scenario were analyzed in Lesley Hughes‚s discussion on the causal relationships between CO2 levels and the biological response. Hughes structured here essay in response to four natural responses that range from plant and animal physiology, species distributions, phenology, and adaptation. Most data show only effects on individual species at this stage. Rising global temperatures are exerting a far greater force in changing species distribution than once thought due to recent comparisons of biological responses from early century data to the present (up to 1998). We are learning now that animal and plant species from terrestrial mammals, birds, insects, marine organisms, plants, and the intimate seasonal cycles that all living things share are being disrupted either directly or indirectly from rising CO2 concentrations. Nothing will ever be the same as we rocket towards an apocalyptic change of 3 C by 2100 which could permanently disrupt the very fabric of nature in the displacement of millions of species either north or above-elevation of their normal biotic zones. This will undoubtedly leave our planet a very different place than our ancestors found it before the advent of industry. I got from this article a mere taste of biologic pandemonium caused by global warming. While I understand that Hughes did little of her own experimentation to arrive at the conclusions, the data is there regardless and she presented the facts with a fair amount of prudence presenting both positive and negative changes in specie behavior. Most of the data was focused to support the disastrous affects global warming asserts on Earth‚s biotic zones by interrupting the critical barriers of diversity that separate and distinguish species' climatic ranges. Evidence of invertebrate populations show a staggering trend toward either extinction in southern peripheries where natural boundaries were restricted or shifts northward in latitude/vertical in elevation where boundaries were adaptable (the case with many populations of European birds). Many data on the phenologic effects still need time to be gathered and analyzed for a correlation in responsive behavior. This point will prove critical to understanding the adaptive processes of plant/animal symbioses such as activity between pollinators and flowering plants in response to heating degree days. Though the large-scale displacement of butterflies, plankton, and pine seedlings seem remote from affecting the distribution of major organisms around the world, this all needs to be viewed as a sign of imminent catastrophe. The ENTIRE scientific community and our dead-beat government have been asleep at their desks too long to smell the changing air around them. This should be the world‚s wakeup call, yet sadly we have been saying this for over a decade and little if nothing has been done to quell the terror rising in the distance. How many rare and potentially vital organisms will have to die until our world of „brilliant‰ thinker‚s step in to intervene? How can we help persuade the ignorant that everything we value but have yet to realize is literally hanging in the balance of time? Add your comments here! Kate Echement - Re: HA! Told you so!   1/18/05; 11:38:19 AM (reads: 42925, responses: 0) What was done (methods, true source of data): Lesely Hughes from the Dept. of Biological Sciences and Key Center for Biodiversity and Bioresources at Macquarie University, Australia researched the consequences of global warming. She looked at 4 different levels that can be and are affected by global warming, physiology changes, distribution, phenology, and adaptation. Most of her data is found in other published research papers, she merely pulled it all together to show different angles of global warming. What was learned (results): Global warming IS occurring, the main question should be how soon would all the changes be seen. Even the slightest change in temperature triggers numerous events to occur. Animals change their location in such a drastic way as to cause extinction in a given area; there is an increase in biomass in forests; migration patterns are effected; changes in sea temperature causes the relocation of both fish and birds; diseases are being found in unusual areas. Everything is connected! Yet despite all the support more research needs to be conducted in order to understand how to react and what to expect. What it means (what did I get out of it): I understand that global warming is occurring and something needs to be done in order to prepare for the changes we are going to experience. More research definitely needs to be done on this subject so the general public and our 'intelligent' government can understand the importance of what is happening. Global climate change does not only affect the animals and the ecosystem (even though that alone should be enough cause for action), but our very survival as well. People do not seem to understand that this shift in temperature changes the types of crops grown and spread of disease to name a few. Venice is not the only city that will be sinking if the polar ice caps continue to melt. How did/will this article change my thinking: I have already known about the drastic consequences of global warming/climate change and this article only gave me more information to use to inform non-believers. I understand that nothing is absolute and more work is to be done, but it is stupid to sit by and wait till the results come in. Being more enviro-friendly is one way that individuals can 'help' while our government twiddles their thumbs. Add your comments here! Doug - Re: The Other Side of Global Warming   1/18/05; 8:22:59 PM (reads: 42937, responses: 0) Amy This article stated that one of the many challenges climatologists face is predicting the effects of probable climate scenarios for the future.  However, for ecologists and others, the challenge is to predict the effects of climate change on the natural world, or on species and communities.  The author summarized these into four different groups - effects on physiology, effects on distribution, effects on phenology, and adaptation.  The author then used examples found in nature as evidence or data which related to each of the four groups.  For example, the shift in the location of certain butterflies as a result to warmer climate was used to show changes in species distribution.     The increase of the earth's temperature does not only affect humans, but also greatly impacts other species.  Tree-ring records indicate that an increased rate in the growth of plants is occurring, more than likely from the added concentration of carbon dioxide.  Native vascular plants in Antarctica whose growth is limited by temperature have dramatically increased their numbers due to warmed temperatures.  Also, the upward movement of many plant species can be found in alpine areas.  An increase in the earth≠s temperature has even changed certain species life cycle timing.  It has been predicted that warmer climate will hurry insects through the larval stages, therefore causing the insects to become adults sooner.  The effects of global warming on the natural world are not limited to the four categories, and many are not yet known. This article focused on the biological effects of global warming.  It presented a variety of data that was collected from various scientists.  Each example presented was used to show the effects of global warming.  Therefore, I think the main point of this article was to indicate that change is going to occur (or has already occurred).  Some species will be forced to adapt to a new type of climate, some will have increased growth rates, and some may become extinct.  Humans will also need to adapt to these new changes.  This article presented a different side of global warming.  All too often the only side of global warming mentioned is how it will effect humans - more storms, flooding, increase in sea level rise, etc. - and how humans will need to respond to it.  This article, however, examined the biological aspect of global warming and how it will be affected.  Truthfully, I never actually thought about the butterflies or the plant species that would be impacted by an increase in temperature.  This article allowed me to think more about global warming than just how it would affect humans.    Add your comments here! Zach Moning - Re: Real effects and a need for action   1/19/05; 12:45:28 PM (reads: 42842, responses: 0) What was done: A study from the Dept. of Biological Sciences and Key Center for Biodiversity and Bioresources at Macquarie University, Australia was conducted on the effects of global warming on physiology changes, distribution, phenology, and adaptation. The data in the study was taken from previous experiments and compiled. What was learned: First and foremost, the question to be asked is not whether global warming is going to effect the Earth, but how quickly, when and where. Small changes to global temperatures have already affected the behaviors, patterns, habitats, and other aspects of the lives of a number of animals and plants. Also, further evidence is provided that humans are, indeed, contributing to global warming. What it means: Despite claims from such the opposition (from oil companies to Michael Crichton), global warming is, indeed, a problem. Effects of it can already be found. We are no longer sitting around, idly speculating that this whole rising temperature thing may cause problems. We are finding said problems. The effects on humans have not yet been fully revealed, but evidence continues to surface that they will. How did/will this article change my thinking: This article has provided me with further evidence to use in my arguments when I attempt to inform people about global warming. Unfortunately, I don't see how it's going to work on people who insist on dismissing anything about global warming as "junk science". Perhaps I could show them what real junk science is. Maybe a link to a Greening Earth article with an explanation as to why it's ridiculous would help... Add your comments here! Doug - Re: I Think a Cloud is Following Me.....   1/19/05; 4:13:53 PM (reads: 42821, responses: 0) What Was Done: This study looked at the effects of global warming on a variety of ecosystem and its inhabitants.  The four main points the author made were that carbon dioxide effects metabolism and development, distribution, phenological development, and population growth rates of species.  The author also included graphs showing the increase of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution. What Was Learned: Figure 2 illustrates the impact of an increase in carbon dioxide on all facets of the environment.  The end result is always a change in the dynamic of the species' framework.  This graph clearly shows that interactions between species and their environments is linked to carbon dioxide levels.  This means that we do have be more mindful of our emmissions since the spiral associated with increased carbon dioxide could alter most of the biotic interactions on the planet. What it Means: This means that we have to start being much more mindful of our carbon outputs.  Sea level rise is not our only problem.  Failure to quell this situation could lead to cataclysmic events.  Although no timeline is included in the author's analysis, we have no reason to think that many of these effects (of carbon dioxide) cannot happen in our lifetime.  Humanity seems to be readily able to put blinders on towards the future, but it is not outlandish to think that we could live through some of these problems. What I Learned from this Article: Although most of my coursework at Miami has made me understand the severity of carbon dioxide, this article did a great job of explainig the feedback loops associated with the initial change in equilibrium.  I also was not aware of how quickly some of the migrations of plants and animals can occur due to changes in average temperature. Add your comments here! Doug - Re: I Think a Cloud is Following Me.....   1/19/05; 4:14:08 PM (reads: 42853, responses: 0) What Was Done: This study looked at the effects of global warming on a variety of ecosystem and its inhabitants.  The four main points the author made were that carbon dioxide effects metabolism and development, distribution, phenological development, and population growth rates of species.  The author also included graphs showing the increase of carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution. What Was Learned: Figure 2 illustrates the impact of an increase in carbon dioxide on all facets of the environment.  The end result is always a change in the dynamic of the species' framework.  This graph clearly shows that interactions between species and their environments is linked to carbon dioxide levels.  This means that we do have be more mindful of our emmissions since the spiral associated with increased carbon dioxide could alter most of the biotic interactions on the planet. What it Means: This means that we have to start being much more mindful of our carbon outputs.  Sea level rise is not our only problem.  Failure to quell this situation could lead to cataclysmic events.  Although no timeline is included in the author's analysis, we have no reason to think that many of these effects (of carbon dioxide) cannot happen in our lifetime.  Humanity seems to be readily able to put blinders on towards the future, but it is not outlandish to think that we could live through some of these problems. What I Learned from this Article: Although most of my coursework at Miami has made me understand the severity of carbon dioxide, this article did a great job of explaining the feedback loops associated with the initial change in equilibrium.  I also was not aware of how quickly some of the migrations of plants and animals can occur due to changes in average temperature. Add your comments here! Jason Fox - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2   1/19/05; 4:53:52 PM (reads: 42905, responses: 1)     Methods: Lesley Hughes, in order to help clear up the evidence of global warming, looks at how the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is affecting the physiology and distributions of different species of plants and animals . The hypothesis is to see whether the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has led to an increase of distribution of CO2 absorbing plants, or the migration patterns of different birds and terrestial mammals. For research, Hughes takes statistics from numerous sources taken in the last ten years of the article's publication, and tries to find a correlation between these and the atmosphere. Results: Hughes believes that there is a correlation between the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the changes of different species. Among the statistics found was finding that the distribution of different bird species had been moving farther north for the past twenty years. There has also been an increase of highly mobile, opportunistic species into areas where local species were in decline. Hughes can only assume that these changes are due in part to global warming. What it means: I really did not get much out of this text. I think that in the next few years the consequences of global warming will become apparent to much of the general public. Personally, I think that the shrinking of the ice caps should be enough to show that global warming is certainly going on. While I am surprised that he did not go into the source, I am glad that he did not to that. I really don't think that this has affected my opinion on global warming at all. I still feel that it is going on, and this article only helps to reinforce that opinion. However, I think that while his data is accurate, I don't think that it was originally intended to be used for this purpose. Hughes was using this data to try to find justification for this claim that global warming has already affected the plants and animals on this earth. Add your comments here! Emily Barcelona - Re: at least we know where the data came from...   1/19/05; 9:42:50 PM (reads: 44469, responses: 0) What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> Lesley Hughes from the Department of Biological Science and Key Center for Biodiversity and Bioresources at Macquarie University in Australia uses the article „Biological consequences of global warming: is the signal already‰ to present her four categories that summarize the changes cause by global warming.  The categories are the effects on physiology, distribution, phenology and adaptations of specific species.  Unlike the previous article we read, she sites all her sources for data and this journal is a review.  There are also graphs and figures shown and referenced throughout the article. What was learned (results)<o:p></o:p> The article shifts focus from just whether global warming is occurring or not to how fast and what are the effects on the Earth and its systems.  Hughes sites changes in tree ring records, plant and animal ranges and in oceanic communities.  She focuses on long term studies to help isolate which factor is actually changing these factors.  What it means (what did I get out of it.)<o:p></o:p> This article enforces the fact that yes, the Earth is warming up, but still unknown is how fast and what will really happen in the coming years.  It is scary to think of how much change has already occurred and that the temperature is showing no signs of leveling out or decreasing.  This article also shows the incredible need for better and more in-depth long-term studies of communities and individual species for better comparisons between now and the future.  How did/will this article change my thinking.<o:p></o:p> This did not so much change my thinking as give me more support for the thoughts I already have.  Yes the Earth is warming up, yes we factor into it, but most importantly, how is this going to change our world and how soon?  I agree with Hughes and her ideas about expanding long-term studies to establish comparisons to figure out a trend.  With an established trend, we might better prepare for the future. Add your comments here! George-Paul Richmann - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2   1/19/05; 10:26:09 PM (reads: 42877, responses: 0) What was done? Hughes examined how different animals and plants were affected by the increase in global temperature and the increase in carbon dioxide. The basic premise was that plants and animals would respond in one of four ways; physiologically, distribution of populations, phenology (natural timing), and adaptation.   What was learned?  There is evidence that shows that some animals and plants are being profoundly affected by the increase in CO2 and or the increase in temperature. I found it interesting that plant growth was effected by CO2 to such a great extent. It is really clear to see how important plants are to the management of CO2 when Figure 3 is examined.  What it means?  Humans are having a profound effect on the environment in a real and tangible way.  How did this change my thinking?  Nothing profoundΣI thought it was very interesting how some animals and plants were successfully adapting. I thought that I would take millennia for animals to adjust to a large scale environmental shift. This report shows that animals and plants are changing in real time. Add your comments here! David Emerman - Re: right on time/ it was not us   1/19/05; 11:00:45 PM (reads: 42737, responses: 0) What was done?              In this article Lesley Hughes, from the Department of Biological Sciences at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Macquarie</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">University</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>, investigates the long and short term effects of global warming on species and communities of living organisms.  Hughes claims that global warming is occurring and that it is human-induced by the release of CO2 gas.  Throughout the article, his assumption is used as a critical part of his investigation.  Hughes discusses four major ways that global warming is effecting the living environment: the effects on physiology of organisms, the effects on the distributions of species, the effects on phenology, and the way species may adapt to the increase in temperature. Hughes data was taken for earlier experiments and observations. <o:p> </o:p> What was learned? Hughes sites many examples of how the living environment is changing.  Some include: that the migration patterns of insects and birds has been mostly away from the equator.  Hughes states that plant growth has been increasing during the growing season due to increased CO2.  He also claims that there is an increased abundance of artic and alpine plants which is due to increased number of days above 0 C.  His evidence showed that flowers have been budding earlier because plants use temperature as an indicator of when to bud.  This is a problem if males or other species needed for reproduction use day length as an indicator. What it means?             His evidence shows that global warming will affect organisms in the four areas he investigated.  His experiment suggests a correlation with the changes he found and global warming.  Although, other factors may have caused some of these changes, Hughes claims that global warming in the most logical cause.  Hughes made no evidence to support that human-impact is causing a global warming. <o:p> </o:p> How did/will this article change my thinking?             I do not believe that human impact is changing the climate in a significant way.  I do believe that global warming may be occurring.  However, I believe it is do to the cyclic nature of the earth and solar system.  I believe that his studies make sense and that the increase of temperature is affecting organisms in the way he is claiming.  However, not all of the changes he discussed seemed to have a negative influence on the environment.  The living environment has been able to adapt to large climate changes in the past.  I think that what he has found is a natural occurring reaction to the increased climate, which, humans have little to do with. Add your comments here! Jacob Schober - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/19/05; 11:45:07 PM (reads: 42783, responses: 0) What was done: This story is a research article that has to do with some of the lesser talked about issues that surround global warming such as effects on physiology, effects on phenogy, and adaptation.  It is a research article by Lesley Hughes, a researchest in Biological sciences at Macquarie University in Australia.  The research in this article was very broad and in some instances extended back to the beginning of the second millenia.  Comparisons were made in how plant growth, species distribution and abundance, and different adaptations among various species has changed over the years.  Correlations between some of these features and a rise in CO2 were also noted. -What was learned It was learned that the rise in CO2 over the past 200 years is not only responsible for the rise in global temperature,  and melting the polar ice caps, it is very responsible for a number of biological changes in species over the years as well.  And this change will only continue to get worse.  Because the distribution of temperature ranges has changed and will continue to change the biological patterns of wildlife.  Processes affected include photosynthesis, respiration, tissue composition, increased migration patterns and so on.  Since adaptation will and has changed, phenology of species will also change, and therefore the whole pattern of how life develops has been disrupted.  Logically, all of this also changes how the species interact with each other and will only will continue to do so in a much worse pattern as the years go on. -What it means (what did I get out of it.) This article means that some species will flourish while others will fail because of the rise in CO2, it also can be inferred that the human species will inevitably be effected in many of the same ways that were outlined for the animal world in this article.  The continuing migration of species into latitudes where they are not indigenous because of the changing temperature distribution across the earth, along with other changes in the global atmosphere brought on by the rise in CO2 will only further perpetuate this trend of changing life patterns outlined here.  -How did/will this article change my thinking This article gave me alot of new information into how exactly global warming changes the biological world.  Many time attention is only given to the main effects of global warming, but the corresponding specific changes in the life around us cannot be exactly pointed out.  The article provided a very look into the many ways that the worlds plant and animal life is already adapting to environment that humans have poisoned. Add your comments here! Bryan Glosik - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/20/05; 1:22:18 AM (reads: 42805, responses: 0) What was done? The article gave examples on how global climate change is affecting different species.  The article focuses specifically on how it is affecting life through physiology, effects on distribution, phenology and adaption.  The author analyzes various sets of longterm data that indicate the presence of significant change in the four aspects just given.  He also makes a claim that thee has been a rise in temperature since the industrial revolution and gives graphs to back it up.  What was learned? The main thing that should be learned and kept in mind after reading this article is that global climate change is occuring whether it is human induced or not. We know that it is changing by simply looking at past climates through such methods as studying tree rings. The change in climate is starting to take a toll on the environment and the life that lives in it. The author gives numerous reasons as to how exactly it is taking affect. It affects the migrations pattern of certain species by cuasing them to migrate further north due to rising temperatures. It was also found in some higher elevations or alpine regions vegetation is moving higher up the mountain side. What it means (what I got out of it) This article only reinenfroces my concern about global climate change. I fully understand though that the reason for global climate change, and that it is due to anthropogenic activity cannot be proven or disproven.  It could very well be a naturally occuring event in earth history. My point however is that there is way too much evidence such as the information given in this article to just simply ignore it and act as if it isn't our fault. The affects can be devastating and it is well worth the effort to try and prevent it. How did the article change my thinking? I'm not sure this article did change my way of thinking. As a second year environmental student I have already heard a great deal about global climate change and will continue to learn a great more as I go on. I totally agree with this article in that global climate change is occuring at some level and it is having an affect on life. Add your comments here! Adam Brule - Re: Reflection 1b: Biological Consequences Global Warming (2004)   1/20/05; 1:25:16 AM (reads: 42775, responses: 0) What was "Done" (methods. true source of data)?<o:p></o:p> Hughes presents us with an article that deeply analyzes data sets that includes research on distribution of species, advances in life cycles, effects on animal and plant physiology, and the effects on species interactions.  Lesley Hughes then goes on trying to correlate these events with global warming because of the possible adverse effects that they are having on the biota. What was learned?             These data sets provide usual and engaging information about strong correlations between climate change and changes in species interactions.  It was also interesting to see the species distribution change, such as species moving closer to the poles and in high altitudes than previously recorded because of mild, yet changed global temperature.  Marine organisms, terrestrial vertebrates, insects, birds, plants, and water temperatures are all being affected; even the most minute changes can have adverse effects on the flora and fauna relationship. What does this mean?             It means that human-induced occurrences are linked to climate change and changes in species interactions.  Although this study offers some valuable information and insight, most research has been conducted only recently and changes may more be linked to natural selection or other species interactions outside the realm of human interactions.<o:p></o:p> How did/will this article change my thinking?             This article just got me thinking on issues of argument on global warming and ice ages.  With so many people insisting and dismissing hypotheses, it is hard to actually believe a side.  I now believe in an oscillating model of the Earth, that regulates itself, like homeostasis, to ensure stability.  However, I do find these scientific contributions invaluable because they provide insight into this dynamic Earth and our effects on it.  <o:p></o:p> Add your comments here! Laura Jones - Re: This one is written by a scientist, but still questionab   1/20/05; 2:36:50 AM (reads: 42729, responses: 0) What was done: The author compiled data from various sources about the apparent changes in physiology, distribution, phenology, and adaptation for various species of plants and animals, fitting them into broad general catergories. In most cases, recent measurements were compared to measurements from years agoin order to determine change over time. What was learned: The author cites many very specific examples claiming huge changes in species populations, abundance, and range. the biggest trend which the author pulls out of the data is that plant and animals species tend to be moving to higher elevations or their ranges are moving toward the poles, and these changes are allowing for greater growth of weeds, and invasive species. Also noteworthy are data indicating significant loss of volume and area of Aline glaciers and both Anarctic and Artic ice. What it means: It's clear that the author believes that global warming as a result of human activity is directly affecting a huge amount of life on earth. If indeed all these changes are directly resulting from human activities, then its pretty clear that humans need to figure out the magnitude of the impact we have on Earth and how these changes will effect our lives. Whether or not these trends and changes can be directly linked to human activity and the greenhouse effect, they are still big changes, and despite the cause, need to be evaluated. Even if humans didn't cause them, we need to incorporate the effects of these trends into our lives and decisions. How did/will this article change my thinking: This article makes it clear that its important to know where data comes from. This author is clearly looking for data to back up his/her specific point, and while the data is presented in a way that makes it sound reliable, the reader doesn't actually know anything about how the data were collected, or the reliability of those sources. Also, this article is presented in a very "scientific" format, so it seems easier to trust its contents, but its still important to recognize that it could be just as influenced by an outside agenda as the Greening Earth article was. Add your comments here! Leo - Re: do we expect mass extinctions?   1/20/05; 3:02:58 AM (reads: 42776, responses: 0) What was done - Results from numerous studies, concerning changes to various species of plants and animals that have occured since the beginning of (presumably) human-induced global warming, were examined and considered as evidence of effects of global warming on the biosphere. The author did no data-gathering of her own, but rather performed secondary research, assembling and drawing conclusions from the masses of specific studies directly researched by others. What was learned - Despite the relatively very short time that the earth has been warming (and the relatively small amount that the global average temperature has risen), there are already many indications that sensitive species are being affected in distribution and phenology, and some are making  minor evolutionary adaptations to the climate change. There are similar indications that rising levels of carbon dioxide are affecting the physiology of many organisms, such as the productivity of many plants. All changes are fairly small - for example, the borders of a given species' distribution may only move poleward by a few kilometers or altitudinally upward by a few hundred meters - but given the tiny amount of time they have had to react thus far, even that is remarkable and shows that the slightest climate changes do affect ecological balances. Also, while no one study that the author draws upon can definitively show that global temperature rise is directly affecting organisms, the sheer quantity and variety of the evidence provided by such studies is too comprehensive to ignore. What it means - How much and how fast will the planet as a whole warm? How much and how fast will regional climates change, as weather patterns shift? Without these detailed predictions, as well as further study of species' reactions to climate changes, the extent of global climate change's effects on the biosphere is hard to predict. However, this article does make it quite clear that life on this planet is being effected, and likely will be more so as the climate changes further. If species cannot change their distributions or adapt themselves as quickly as their climate is altered, they die out. If all necessary species in a given ecosystem cannot move or adapt together, that ecosystem will be greatly altered or even collapse. In short, if climate change is not too severe, life as we know it will adjust and continue, but if the change is very severe, it could destroy whole ecosystems and cause mass extinctions. Fun thought. How it affects my thinking - I'm not very surprised at the effects to species discussed, though perhaps it is surprising how early we are detecting evidence of those effects. However, the implications of this subject do raise some interesting questions for me. I would like to see some comparisons between the rate at which our climate is changing now and the rate of other major climate changes throughout geologic history. Is today's warming comparable in speed to the onsets or retreats of ice ages? How extensive were extinctions and ecological changes during those periods, and how difficult was it for biodiversity to recover and ecosystems to stabilize? Could these things give us some insights into how drastically we might be changing the biosphere that we depend on? Add your comments here! willis okech - Global Warming: Signs of the Times.   1/20/05; 4:00:02 AM (reads: 42732, responses: 0) Global Warming: Signs of the Times<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>             Though a borne of contention might to distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic versus natural induced causes of global atmospheric temperature increases, at least a general consensus amongst scientists is that there is a noticeable increase in atmospheric temperatures. There is also an effort to try and forecast what the current trend might hold for the future. Leslie Hughes article "Biological consequences of global warming," critically analyzes the effects this trend might be having on species distribution, physiology, and phenology. Her article is based on several past, recent and current ongoing scientific research articles on changes of both climatic and atmospheric conditions and the effect this has had on select species cited.