I have seen numerous artilcles recently that seem to confirm we are in a warming trend. I wonder if this will effect salmon in steelhead in the near term - say the next 25 years.

What are your thoughts?


Melting Glaciers Threaten World Water Supply

Wed Nov 17,11:20 PM ET Science - Reuters


By Ed Cropley

BANGKOK (Reuters) - Mountain glaciers, which act as the world's water towers, are shrinking at ever faster rates, threatening the livelihoods of millions of people and the future of countless species, a scientist said



Around 75 percent of the world's fresh water is stored in glacial ice, much of it in mountain areas, allowing for heavy winter rain and snow-falls to be released gradually into river networks throughout summer or dry months.


"For some species and some people there are going to be big problems because mountain areas feed not just rural people but big cities, especially in Latin America," said Martin Price of the UK-based Center for Mountain Studies.


In dry countries, mountain glaciers can account for as much as 95 percent of water in river networks, while even in lowland areas of temperate countries such as Germany, around 40 percent of water comes from mountain ice-fields, Price said.


"It's a huge issue in the long run because once the glaciers go, you're down to whatever happens to fall out of the sky and come downstream," Price told Reuters on the sidelines of the IUCN World Conservation Congress in the Thai capital.


Due to factors such as global warming and air pollution, glaciers, like the polar ice caps, are getting smaller.


Studies show that Africa's highest peak, Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania, may lose its ice-cap by 2020, while the Glacier National Park in the northern United States could well be looking for a new name by 2030.


As well as threatening consistent, year-round water flows, climate change in mountains is threatening the vast variety of species.


Animals and plants in mountain areas, which officially cover 25 percent of the earth's surface, are under threat from the gradually changing climate, as well as loss of habitat on lower reaches which is pushing species to ever higher altitudes.


Eventually, they will run out of places to go.


"What can you do about it? You just have to try and adapt as things go along. You have to be as flexible as possible, but a lot of species are going to go extinct. In mountain areas many already have," Price said.

Damit Jim.....I'm a curb & gutter engineer---not a geophysicist.

We complain about the environment here in the US but looking around the world we are saints by comparison. Clear cutting all over the rain forest, rampant industrialization with no rules or safeguards to protect the environment is the rule all over the place. As the 14th century cultures explode in population and start polluting more I don't doubt the worldwide environment will suffer. Not to mention the general water shortages coming to the civilized world near youl. Too many people and too many ignorant people.

Temperature fluctuations historically are normal. I remember when I was a kid in the 70’s the big scare was the coming Ice Age. Unfortunately this seems to be a topic that is driven by politics instead of science. A perfect example is Darwin’s theory of Evolution; any mention of the FACT that it is a THEORY stirs the scientific community into a frenzy. The scientific community is comparable to the fishing community. We continually debate the best technique or equipment to use in a given situation and they argue global warming.

Elbow:

The can be little doubt that we are in a warming period. Folks can argue about why we are warming, i.e. is this part of a natural trend or man caused, but the facts are clear that we are in a warming trend. (I believe most who try to ignore the facts simply do not want to take any action to resolve the problem. President Bush has acknowledged that global warming is real.)

Global temperatures clearly have risen, glaciers have retreated, and the ocean level has risen. Sea ice is thinner, and average date of ice off in lakes and rivers has moved up. Those are simply facts.

This appears to be the warmest century in the last 1000 years. This decade is clearly the warmest in the past 100 years and 1998 appears to be the warmest year in the past 1000. (The above information was taken from studies conducted by the U.S. NOAA) This is not a subject that serious scientists debate any more than the do the flat earth theory or evolution.

The issue, as far as it relates to salmon, would be that of warming rivers and smaller snow packs.

I am just beginning to research this for a possible article, but wanted to know is, do Northwest anglers see this as a problem?


It seems to me that continued warming, could change river levels and temperatures ranges enough to effect salmon, especially in the salmon's southern ranges.

Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases and ozone depletion. This is the scary part: There is a twenty-year lag in the time a given amount of greenhouse gas is produced and the ozone it eventually reacts with is distroyed. This means we are just today, feeling the atmopheric effect of gases produced in the mid-eighties.

GrandPa:

Clear cutting???? Should we even talk about other countries??? Still we try to "cut it all" right here in the Pacific Northwest........the rivers run with mud, with just a small amount of rain.

"Clear cutting all over the rain forest, rampant industrialization with no rules or safeguards to protect the environment is the rule all over the place. As the 14th century cultures explode in population and start polluting more I don't doubt the worldwide environment will suffer. "

The 14th century cultures are just following the example set by the USA......not really any need to think about it.......we are and have been 1 of the worse countries in the world.

Now 4 more years of "cut, rape the enviroment".........ugh!!!! Jobs should be very plentyful for your grand kids........but they won't be in this country...........unless attitudes and govemental policies change, quickly..........

"Worse day sport fishing, still better than the best day working"

I think there is still too much debate in scientific circles to know for sure what's causing the current upward trend in temps. We know that it's cyclical, and we know that this region has seen significanly warmer temps in the past. How much warmer, and how far back I can't say, but I've seen the fossils that suggest it.

I found a really informative site, if you have the time and inclination to read up on the topic. It seems to be purely scientific in nature, although I didn't read anything but the article I'm linking to and the main page to make sure it wasn't an environmental wacko site.

The bottom line is it's too complex a system to know for sure what's causing it, but there IS data that supports the claim that levels of greenhouse gases (CO^2, in this case) in Antarctica are higher now than at any time in the last 400k years. In fact, they are considerably higher now than the upper limits observed during all but the most recent up/down cycle during that time. It's still rising, too.

They go on to suggest that it's possible (based on current data) that we could not only increase the speed of global warming artificially, but we might actually cancel a period of cooling and subsequent glacial advance (which is where we should be right now, historically speaking) and create a completely new climate regime. Pretty sobering thought.


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

Whether global warming is part of a natural cycle, man-made or fueled by man, it seems to be happening. How long the warming trend will last is a guess-- if it's natural.

As for effects on the PNW and its fishes, I think the real biggie will be snowpack and summer in-stream flows. Without adequate summer water, we'll see problems with chinook, steelhead, coho and cutthroat populations. On the salmon side, likely only the chum and pink will be unaffected or relatively so since they spawn low in the system and scoot once they're out of the gravel.

My $.02,

Keith

KJ,

I think we can reasonably expect all species to be affected by the changes. The best explanations I've heard is that the PNW will experience warmer and wetter winters and dryer and warmer summers. The low summer flows will reduce carrying capacity and probably productivity for the stream rearing obligate species like cutthroat, steelhead, native char, coho, and stream type chinook. However, the warm wet winters will cause greater flow instability in the form of flooding, and that will reduce egg to fry and smolt survival for ocean type chinook, pink, and chum salmon. I think this translates into less production and certainly fewer harvestable fish.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Dave
I did not intend to imply that global warming did not exist, it obviously does. I should have made myself clearer. The point I was trying to make is that science can be agenda driven and can be used to fix blame instead of the problem. The answer to the global warming problem is clear, reduce carbon monoxide emissions, and stop cutting down forests. The answer to the Salmon and Steelhead problem is also simple; don’t do any thing that negatively impacts them including fishing. Now to the real question, how far are you willing to go in modifying your lifestyle to achieve these goals?

Worrying about how global warming is going to effect salmon & steelhead populations is a little like worrying about dieing from cancer while plunging to the earth in a powerless jet airplane: It's futal.

Salmon & steelhead have obviously evolved through ice ages and the warming trends in between in the past. Given the other threats they face (i.e. over harvest, habitat destruction, etc. etc.), do you really think rising sea levels caused by global warming is going to do them in? :rolleyes:

In the big picture, over time, species come and go naturally without our intervention, but we've proven we're capable of accelerating the process.

It would be nice to see an effort to minimize our contributions. Yeah, I'm an idealist.

Well I watched "day after tomorrow" the other day and now I know for sure that Al Gore was right - we are DOOMED!!!

I think I'll eat as many salmon I can catch now since there probably won't be many left when I retire

:p

Salmo-- I've read some of the predictions on what global warming will mean for the NW, and that's the reason for my posts about salmonids that rear instream for any length of time being more at risk than chum and pinks. I've heard it suggested somewhere that since those two species sometimes spawn very close to tidewater that they might be evolving toward having the ability to spawn in the saltwater or brackish tidewater without running up a river. We certainly know that the genus is adaptable to specific environmental factors, so I suppose it could happen.

If global warming is reality and not just an environmental twitch, then it seems that increasing or restoring off-channel habitat is important if not crucial for those species we hold dear. I also see the NW developing a better understanding of "flood plain".

My $.02,

Keith

One thing to keep in mind before worrying too much about the predictions for how global warming will affect fish is that there is a LOT of uncertainty in models they use to predict the future changes to climate and precipitation.

I've done modeling of aquatic systems when I was in school and know first hand how much our models require human judgement to predict interrelationships as a model input. In reality, we cannot know all the feedbacks and interrelationships. I do not give a lot of credence to these predictions that sound so certain.

It is likely that there will be some major changes that we can't even predict or imagine. It's crazy to say that anyone knows we (the Pacific Northwest) will be warmer and wetter, warmer and drier, etc.

That said, we know that we've lost snowpack in the Olympics by some 40% in the last 40 years. That's a dramatic change and I would suggest that we should plan for another 40% reduction in snowpack. If it doesn't happen, then we have plenty of water. If it happens and we don't plan for it, then we are up a creek... a dry creek, without need for a paddle.

I find it amazing how a team of 300 PHD's can do a 3-5 year study like the one I have posted below and without question show huge climatic changes and some still won't believe it. These same folks will take their truck into "Joe's garage" and have a mechanic with his stained t-shirt and rolled up sleeves tell them they need a new clutch and they believe every word he says!

How much data will be enough? How many biologists have to tell us that we are making huge changes on this planet for people to believe? Virtually everyday a new study comes out showing artic changes, species blinking out, ocean temperatures rising, it goes on and on. And even if you don't believe the studies one only has to take a drive through LA to see what kind of massive changes we are making to our planet.

The US is the largest consumer of oil and natural gas and the most progressive country in the world. We should be taking the lead on environmental protection and restoration issues. The fact that other countries such as China and India are huge polluters doesn't make it "ok" for us to do the same.......lead by example. It is our duty to take care of this planet the best we can and leave it like you would a hunting camp.....in better condition than which you found it.

If guys on this site of all people cannot support the need for clean air, clean water, and the protection of habitats necessary for the survival of species depending upon them then we certainly are "doomed".

"Only when the last plant has died, the last river poisoned, and the last fish caught will we realize we cannot eat money" (19th Century Cree Saying).

RM


REYKJAVIK, Iceland (11/15/04) -- A four-year study of the Arctic region, conducted by an international team of 300 scientists, concludes the region is warming at nearly twice the rate as the rest of the globe, and increasing greenhouse gases from human activities are projected to make it warmer still.

At least half the summer sea ice in the Arctic is projected to melt by the end of this century, along with a significant portion of the Greenland Ice Sheet, as the region is projected to warm an additional 4-7( C (7 to 13( F) by 2100. These changes will have major global impacts, such as contributing to global sea-level rise and intensifying global warming, according to the final report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).

"The impacts of global warming are affecting people now in the Arctic," says Robert Corell, chair of the ACIA. "The Arctic is experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth. The impacts of climate change on the region and the globe are projected to increase substantially in the years to come."

Sol: In a word – Yes.

I have not completed my interviews with climatlogists and fisheries biologists, but I have enough information to be genuinely concerned.

While no one can accurately model future weather, it is clear that we are warming and doing so very rapidly – in geological terms. If the trend continues will have problems related to low flows at spawning times, lethal water temperatures and other issues that could dramatically effect out salmon. Not in thousands of years but in dozens of years.

One of my concerns is that, in many instances, we are managing endangered runs to just barely maintain their numbers. Add in variables like extraordinary fall floods, high summer temperatures and low water during spawning periods and many of those endangered stock will be in real trouble. We can do a number of things including managing endangered stock to provide recrutiment levels that will have a bit more of a buffer to help when adverse conditions come.

While salmon have apparently managed to withstand major long-term weather fluctuations what we are seeing now is much more rapid change. And, I suspect that during past climate shifts the range of salmon may have dramatically contracted

There is much we do not know about all this, but we do know for certain that we are in a period of rapid warming. Only time will tell what the effects will be.

Climate change claims flawed, says study

Tim Radford, science editor
Tuesday November 9, 2004
The Guardian

A team of scientists has condemned claims of climate catastrophe as "fatally flawed" in a report released today.
The study appears on the same day that 300 climate scientists warn that winter temperatures in Alaska, western Canada and eastern Russia have risen by up to 4 C in the past 50 years - and could warm by up to 7 C.

Martin Agerup, president of the Danish Academy for Future Studies and colleagues from Stockholm, Canada, Iceland and Britain say in their report that predictions of "extreme impacts" based on greenhouse emissions employed "faulty science, faulty logic and faulty economics".

Predictions of changes in sea level of a metre in the next century were overestimates: sea-level rises were likely to be only 10cm to 20cm in the next 100 years. Claims that climate change would lead to a rise in malaria were not warranted.

Extreme weather was not on the increase but more likely to be part of a natural cycle, not yet understood by climate scientists. The report says a warmer world would benefit fish stocks in the north Atlantic and reduce the incidence of temperature-related deaths in vulnerable humans.

But the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, to be presented in Reykjavik today, tells a different story.

The Arctic scientists predict that north polar summer ice may decline by at least 50% by the end of this century. Some computer models predict almost the complete disappearance of ice.

This would have a devastating impact on indigenous populations, who use the ice for hunting and fishing. Warming could also lead to a "substantial" melting of the Greenland ice sheet. If this were to disappear sea levels would rise by about seven metres.
OTE]

Climatologists Blast McCain's Hearings on 'Global Warming'
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Friday, Nov. 19, 2004

WASHINGTON – Recent U.S. Senate hearings into alleged global warming, chaired by Arizona Republican John McCain, were among the "most biased" that a noted climatologist has ever seen - "much less balanced than anything I saw in the Clinton administration," he said.

Patrick J. Michaels is the author of a new book, "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media." He is a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia who believes that claims of human-caused "global warming" are scientifically unfounded.

Michaels spoke with CNSNews.com Thursday after a panel discussion sponsored by the libertarian Cato Institute, where he serves as a senior fellow in environmental studies.
"John McCain, a Republican, has probably held the most biased hearing of all," Michaels said. McCain is a big proponent of limiting emissions of greenhouse gases, which he believes are causing "global warming."


Ploy for the White House


The senator "is trying to define himself as an environmental Republican, which he is going to use to differentiate himself from his rivals for the [presidential] nomination in 2008," according to Michaels.

Earlier this week, McCain, the outgoing chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said the Bush administration's views about human-caused climate change were "terribly disappointing."

McCain also held a Senate hearing on Tuesday to enlist testimony on the recently released report from an international commission, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, which warned about rising temperatures in the North Pole.

Citing a visit he had to the Arctic with several U.S. senators last summer, McCain made it clear that he believed human-caused "global warming" was a certainty.

"It was remarkable going up on a small ship next to this glacier and seeing where it had been just 10 short years ago and how quickly it's receded," McCain told the New York Times on Monday.

McCain also warned about what he saw as the rapid pace of Arctic warming, evidenced by the arrival of wildlife that had never previously been seen in the region. "The Inuit language for 10,000 years never had a word for robin and now there are robins all over their villages," he told the Times.

Michaels refuted McCain's assertions about the North Pole, noting that the Arctic has been warmer in the past than it is now.

"It was warmer 4 to 7,000 years ago. Every climatologist knows that. I saw no mention of that in the Arctic report that was paraded in front of McCain," Michaels said.

He added that the past warming of the Arctic couldn't possibly be blamed on emissions of greenhouse gases because it occurred long before the industrial era.

'Temperatures Have Always Changed'

Other participants in Thursday's panel discussion also disputed McCain's statements. Harvard astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas agreed that using the polar ice caps to promote "global warming" did not make sense.

"Antarctica has been cooling for the last 50 years. Most of the Arctic has not warmed over long time scales," Baliunas told CNSNews.com. She also serves as the enviro-science editor for Tech Central Station.

"Temperatures [have] always changed in the past and always will. It can either go up or it goes down. We don't have enough understanding of natural variability, and we don't see enormous amounts of temperature change to be alarmed about," Baliunas explained.

She blasted the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases which the U.S. does not support. "The Kyoto does not work, no matter what you think of it, because Kyoto won't do anything meaningful."

McCain's claims about an explosion of the robin population in the Arctic were refuted as well.

Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at Competitive Enterprise Institute, said: "Even if it's true that robins are making their first appearance in Arctic areas, what it means it that the robin's habitat is expanding.

"I always thought environmentalists liked birds. To me this is good news."

'Playing the Media'

Michaels lamented that the media were allowing certain government-funded scientists to manipulate science for funding advantages. "Scientists are playing the media because they know the media will publish a story that the world is about to end," he said.

"What has happened to the editing process? What has happened to fact checking?" he wondered.

Baliunas noted that the media liked to imply that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in dire scenarios about "global warming." In fact, she said, "The scientific literature is full of skepticism. The only problem is - one doesn't get the call from the newspapers, and those [skeptical] quotes don't get included."

Lewis of the CEI added, "The embrace of government and government funding corrupts whatever it touches, and that is certainly the case of the scientific process."