If summer flow regimes do indeed trend towards overall decrease in water then salmonids are in deep trouble. I would not be surprised if we see a repeat of the incident that occured on the Klamath. With lower waters rivers will be warmer and the fish of all life stages will be competing for decreased available oxygen. Upstream migrations are likely to be impeded as channels dry up and riffles turn into trickles. If riparian areas are not kept intact, water temperatures can be expected to go higher. Flooding and sedimentation could increase as a result.
The matter of global warming and its effects on salmon are not completely difficult to predict assuming that there is a warming trend on a scale of decades and that this is not just a blip in the overall temperature. Receding glaciers are real evidence that our streams are being supplied with less water during warmer periods of the year. With less snowpack all around the world, the albedo will decrease as the glaciers continue to shrink. What this means is that less incoming solar radiation will be reflected back into the atmosphere. If the solar radiation that does reach earth becomes converted into infrared radiation, the likelyhood of an increase in global temperature is highly probable. However, if there is less water stored on mountains that brings up the question: where? There are two potential locations for that water to be stored, either in the ocean or in the atmosphere as water vapor or clouds. If the case is such that overall cloud cover in the Pacific Northwest goes up, then there exists the possibility that one, more solar radiation could be reflected back into space or two, whatever solar radiation that does get converted into infrared by the earth and reflected away will simply be reflected back at the earth by the clouds. The second situation could increase the temperature for the region overall, but may also keep it at some relative constant. Clouds could be considered the wild card in determining the outcome of the effects of global warming on salmon due to their highly ephemeral and variable nature.

Sky

Your right, the point I was attempting to make is how complex the issue is. Two common sense possible contributors to the ice melt could be the volcanic action called the ring of fire in the Pacific, and the fact that ice breakers have been clearing shipping channels for years. I know these seem simplistic, but they could be part of the larger picture. This is an issue that is driven more by agenda than science. Until the focus is on fixing the problem instead of the blame nothing will get done.

Ideally you need to know what's contributing to the problem before you can resolve it, right?

Granted, a shotgun approach, if economical, is sometimes the best way to start out. You might get lucky. In this case there's no economical shotgun.

Dave, in answer to your original question, I don't see how it can't effect the fish. You've already identified the factors (low flows, increased water temperatures, increased flooding, etc.) that we expect to have the most effect, but I'm curious about things like sea levels and the changes in the estuary system too. What is the rate of sea level increase? Is it noticeable over a period of years, decades, or centuries? Can the upriver spawning fish adapt by spawning lower in the rivers quickly enough to survive? Will the managers come to grips with the situation quickly enough and take the necessary steps to insure that we have enough fish (and genetic variety) left to make the transition?

"It's a demon haunted world"---Carl Sagan

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people accept advancements in science when they or a family member are dieing of cancer, aids, etc. etc., but when scientific method bring things to light that require leaps in critically thinking , the same people balk. The early scientist, Gallelao, proved the correct model of our gallexy 500 years ago, but he paid the ultimate because an overtly sceptical society was unable to belive it: 250 years ago colonists were burning people at the stake for things science could easily have explained if they were more open minded. Here we are today, the "enlighted" society, and there are still people who cling to scientific misaprehention.

I wonder if the guys that routinly scream "funding" and "agenda" driven results, where studies are concerned ever stop to think it may be that train of thought holding us back from quicker advancements in science.

I think we can all agree we are experiencing a period of global warming. If it keeps up our local fish populations are in serious trouble... and I agree completely with Salmo... we are seeing it now.

We can argue about how and why we are seeing global warming until we do our rendition of "Omega Man." But why wait? If there are things we can do NOW, why not do them? Even if you do not agree that man-made casues are to blame is it STILL not a good idea to conserve our energy consumption? Especially fossil fuels? Whats wrong with alternative energy research? Why can't we advocate for things we intuitively believe will be better for us, our kids and our grandkids? Our concern for the fish resource should extend to the environment as a whole, is my point.

Sol you apparently have seen information that proves to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that WE are the cause of global warming. You are one of few to make that claim here. I'd love to know for sure whether we are or we are not (I personally believe that we contribute, but that our contributions may or may not be significant in the big picture).

If you have some reference for me to look at I'd be thrilled to take a look at it.

Curious...did you take a look at the link I provided? If so, what did you think?

I took a 400 level Atmospheric Chemistry class at the UW as an elective to complete my BS in engineering. The curriculum for this course included studying the greenhouse gas effect (trapping of heat in our atmosphere) due to "human" related CH4 and CO2 (methane and carbon dioxide) emissions here on earth. The course was consistent with many programs on the topic like those frequently seen on the Discovery Channel or PBS.

I think most of the debate on the topic centers around the predicable "rate" of this process, not whether or not it is viable in theory.

Exactly. I wouldn't debate whether it's viable at all. It's just that we don't know how much it contributes to the overall increase in temperature, particularly when there is a known natural cycle (or natural anomaly that is non-cyclical, which is what some people think) that does the same thing.

FTR, I think treating the situation as if we know that we're the cause is the most prudent. The issue I have with claiming that we know for sure (when I don't believe we really have the proof we need) is that without undeniable proof, you can't get buy-in from certain parties that we need it from. It's construed as enviromental sensationalism (or at least lacking good science) and blown off. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Unfortunately I think with the current admin. the best you can hope for is that they'll do whatever is necessary as long as it's cost free.

i think they have core samples of ice that go back over 400000 years now and can show that the added load of global warming ingredients is due to man..primarily burning fossil fuels ..they were able to measure loads during previous cycles back 400k years and the current one..if you get a chance to watch the hearings that were on last week try to watch them if you have time..this question was asked by mccain last week and that's what they all told him
...hey...people still believe the earth is flat or 5 sided and that the moon landings were a hoax....i can understand healthy skepticism but not denial....there are already several pacific island communities that have been evacuated
because the sea level has risen over their islands....warming is here now...and we are driving it ....literally....

Check this out. Notice the industrial revolution (the beginning of real fossil fuel consumption). Also it is the time scale that changes, not the CO2 scale. Pretty conclusive in my book.

As bleak as the above graph is, carbon dioxide is the smaller chemical contibutor to greenhouse effect. Methane is 20 times worse.

While it is true that methane is a 20 times worse greenhouse gas, look at the scale, parts per billion vs parts per million a difference of 1000 fold. CO2 is definitely the most damning of the greenhouse gasses, simply because of the scale. But the methane scenario is bleak as well ....

mkorb, where are those graphs from? Do you have a link I can look at?

Thanks for the clairification, mkorb, it's been awhile.

Thanks for the text book graphs, too. I think it is exactly what this thread needed. My text books went for beer money the day after my finals.

Assuming those are from reputable and unbiased sources (I'm not saying they aren't, I'm just naturally cautious), they should be overlain on a chart of polar temperatures over the same time period and put into our kids' jr. high and middle school textbooks.

Those charts are all over the place, you can find ones that are exactly what Skywalker is talking about, I just did a quick google and stole the first ones I found. I have seen different versions of the same information in classes a bunch of times, so it is out there. Here are the links to specifically where they came from.

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/greenhouse/climate_change.asp

Have a good one,
Matt

Excellent, thank you!