The title of this post sounds far more definitive than what the linked content says.<p>> A mass die-off of seabirds in the Bering Sea may be partially attributable to climate change,<p>...<p>> A reduction in food resources before entering molt may have prevented many birds from surviving, the authors suggest.<p>...<p>> The authors suggest that climate-driven shifts in prey abundance and/or distribution, combined with the onset of molt, may have caused this puffin die-off, and note that further climate variability in this region is probable.<p>If we go look at the article on which this post is based, we have, in the abstract:<p>> Mass mortality events are increasing in frequency and magnitude, potentially linked with ongoing climate change ... Immediately prior to this event, shifts in zooplankton community composition and in forage fish distribution and energy density were documented in the eastern Bering Sea following a period of elevated sea surface temperatures, evidence cumulatively suggestive of a bottom-up shift in seabird prey availability. We posit that shifts in prey composition and/or distribution, combined with the onset of molt, resulted in this mortality event.<p>No one is doing anyone any favors by stretching statements like this. If you look at the time series[1], you notice regular seasonality and just how anomalous this particular event seems to be. Given that climate change did not begin yesterday, this may actually indicate some other cause. Then, you look at Panel B of that same graph, and notice that this particular data point is also associated with an anomaly in survey effort.<p>I wonder why they did not show N_found/Effort.<p>[1]: <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216532.g003" rel="nofollow">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/...</a>