The general concensus is clear in the scientific world that the earth is indeed warming at an alarming rate. Those disagreeing with these findings generally have a reason to do so...the oil industry being one of them.

AP: Nov 4, 2004

Kyoto Protocol

However, there were many political factors involved during the Kyoto conference and many industries such as oil and coal had a huge campaign to discredit the conference.

Some of the well-respected scientists claiming that Global Warming is a myth have been sponsored in some way by various commercial interests as well.

Leading up to the conference, during it, and since, big corporations with financial interests at stake have had a lot of influence in the outcome and on the media. A lot of primarily industry arguments against the Kyoto conference and Global Warming in general, claim that it will hurt the global (or USA's) economy and affect people's jobs.

Yet as the Kyoto Climate Change Conference ended in what Greenpeace has termed "a tragedy and a farce", the planet's temperature continues to rise.

More than 120 nations have signed off on the Kyoto agreement in an attempt to show good faith in reducing harmful greenhouse gases. Our president and "oilman" chose to walk away from the table because it's not good for the economy...as if he has a "clue" as to what is good for the economy.


RM

[QUOTEThose disagreeing with these findings generally have a reason to do so...] [/QUOTE]


Both sides of this debate have an agenda. That's why it is not so cut and dried. Once you trot out the "Bush's fault" diatribe you show your agenda and bias. We seem to have dueling scientists which makes finding the facts even more difficult. Hopefully Dave can explore both sides.

I guess with this comment you make it clear that your bias is for the Bush Tribe.

The fact that someone looks at the information provided by a literally hundreds of studies and agrees with them while our president does not doesn't necessarily make a person "bias".

And, the fact that there are people that still think the earth is flat doesn't make it true.
Yes there are "dueling scientific" reports but as I wrote above most of the conflicting studies come from those who stand to gain from them. The gains that the oil and industry have to make from undermining global warming studies are very clear. Independant scientists and climatologists on the other hand have very little if anything to gain by reporting warming trends.

RM

Most non-biased data shows there is global warming but it doesn't prove (or disprove) that we're the cause. It's a pretty complex picture.

You are *SO* wrong, it's not even worth debating the issue with you, Sky. It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are the cause.

GP:

My interest at this time is to determine possible scenarios facing salmon as a result of global warming. I am convinced that global warming is a fact. There is enough disagreement as to the causes to leave me a bit uncertain, but I would be highly skeptical of the possible agenda of any who try to disprove solid scientific proof reported on by literally hundreds of the world’s top climate experts, Global warming is a fact! President Bush says so. The earth is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth.

Remember that for years we had scientist telling us cigarettes were good for us. Well after the majority said they were killing us. I see this as much the same.

Now I want to learn what it may do to our salmon. I have put together a list of absolutely top-notch experts on the subject and will begin interviews soon.

global warming......... It's a scientific fact that bovine (cow) flatis (farts) cause global warming. The only and best answer to the problem is there fore to eat more fish and lay off the beef. now I go fishing!

"It's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that we are the cause."

Says who? There is evidence that supports the idea, but it's not proof. I'm a supporter of the theory myself but I'm not so closed minded as to accept the biased rantings of agenda driven environuts as fact. I also don't feel it's worth insulting people on the internet about.

If you feel I'm not worthy of your time, fine, go argue with someone else.

Riverman-- your quote "Independant scientists and climatologists on the other hand have very little if anything to gain by reporting warming trends " ignores one thing-- unless these scientists are truly independent-- that is, they receive no funding from anyone and work for no one but themselves-- then they truly have an agenda, "something to gain" in your words.

Scientists and scholars, the Ph.D's folks quote so often, have two burning needs: funding and the need for publication, and that's their agenda, or at least one of them. Without these, they don't have a job, they don't get tenure, they don't get professional recognition.

The best way for them to obtain funding and get published is to propose a theory that is radical, a predictor of doom, and needs more research. Unfortunately, people will pick up on these theories and report them as facts.

That's why any report needs to be viewed critically-- and certain basic questions need to be answered about the research as well as the person(s) doing it. That's not to say that the research is fraudulent or intentionally biased, but the potential is always there, and one must be aware of it.

Keith

KJ: Your points are well taken. I have worked with, and around, university scientists for many years in my "real" job.

That said, there is a huge preponderance of scientific opinion that global warming is a fact. This comes from so many counties and such a huge majority of researchers around the world that I do not think we can ignore them. I would be much more skeptical of the few who are out of step, especially if as some assert they are funded by oil companies.

The vast majority of U.S. climate scientists are funded by various federal grant programs, which does not assure a complete lack of bias, but would seem to make them less biased than those funded by an industry group.

Add to the broad scientific consensus the things we can see for ourselves like the rapidly receding glaciers and the melting of polar ice, and I can only conclude that we are in a rapid warming phase.

I believe that for now I need not try to answer the why question which is hugely divisive but should focus on the what ifs that may come to our salmon if the trend continues.

Dave-- I agree with you wholeheartedly on the potential for bias from an industry-sponsored group.

Nor do I doubt for a moment that we're seeing a warming trend. As for its cause-- I doubt that the real reasons for the global warming is known, and I suspect it's probably a host of things, part of which may well be man-caused; for that matter, it all could be. It could also be a natural phenomenon. We just don't know at this point.

I suppose that it's possible it's linked to the reversal of the Earth's polarity that is currently taking place-- how's that for an off-the-wall theory?

My point to Riverman is that all scientists are biased unless they are truly independent, and few are or can be. Just because a scientist doesn't work for an industry doesn't make them "independent."

As for covering this issue in one article-- wow. It will be an interesting read.

Keith

Dave,

I make my living as a fisheries biologist in Oregon and have had this title for about 15 years. Not that this gives me any "special" qualifications as we all know "everyone" is a biologist.

It will be interesting to read what your team of experts mention as concerns for salmon and steelhead. Anadromous fishes are complicated by the fact that their survival is dependant upon habitat conditions from emergence in freshwater to adults in the ocean. Unlike a resident fish that lives his entire life in a relative small piece of water these fish require literally thousands of miles of habitat. Any weak link along this line and survival will be reduced at some level.

Water availability, water quality, predation, dam operations, harvest, ocean conditions, etc., have nothing to do with global warming but nonetheless impact salmonid fish in a big way. Seperating these issues from those resulting from "global warming" will be a challenge. For example, most all of our streams and rivers have a hydrograph that looks much different than it would have 150 years ago. Many of our streams are far more "flashy" than they once were as a result of roads, logging, irrigation, headwater storage, municipal consumption, etc. These types of interferences of course change water chemistry and in themselves "mimic" the effects global warming. Less water generally means higher water temperatures.

Assuming our world is warming we would also expect that our mountainous regions will receive less snow. This in itself I would expect will be a bad thing for a salmonid species requiring cool water. Snow is vital because unlike rain it tends to leave the mountain slowly giving salmonid fishes downstream a constant influx of cold water as the day time air temperatures rise. This is only a problem during the summer months and in the end may over time shrink the available summer habitat. Bigger than that will be the impacts we see in the oceans. Ocean conditions more than anything else control the annual adult return variations we currently see. The huge chinook returns we have seen in recent years are a good example. We might like to think the increases are a result of habitat improvements we have made in the headwater and migratory sections but in reality they are primarily ocean driven.

So....will global warming change the migrational route of ocean prey species? Will the compliment of prey species change? Will the abundance of prey change? Will the abundance of competitor species change? Will ocean timing (time when juveniles arrive and adults leave) change? Will adults migrate further north than they do now thereby changing their susceptibility to new fisheries? So many questions with so few answers.

Although I hate to admit it I think the future of salmonid fishes is not good. There is only so much water and so much space for us folks to live in and sadly fish and wildlife species are standing in the "middle of the road" to progress. All of us have seen wetlands disappear, forests turn into homes and favorite fishing holes become more crowded.

On the more positive side of things, however, we are continually learning and people are beginning to accept the fact that we must conserve water, protect wild places, and live more as conservationists instead of consumers. We may find in the future ways to manipulate water temperatures in all of our tributaries...wouldn't that be great? This alone would open hundreds of miles of habitat. We may also find it necessary to manipulate the genetics of these fishes. For example we could develop a salmon that had a fecundity (number of eggs) that was 10 times what our salmon currently have. We might develop a salmon that broadcast spawns like a shad rather than building a "redd" in clean gravel. Perhaps a salmon that could tolerate temperatures like a carp. While we are at it we could also create a chinook that routinely hits 50 lbs or more!
Time will tell.

RM

Riverman: I suspect that I will end up with far more questions then answers, but here is an interesting document that was forwarded to me by Dr. Nate Mantua, of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington, Seattle. Nate is an excellent fisherman and scientist and is doing his best to sort the facts from the spin so we can understand what is likely to happen, and what is happening already. Nate says the atached appendixes contain a ton of useful information. I have not had time to digest it yet.


http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/press_111804.shtml

Lesson # 1: beware anyone who begins their discussion of an issue with an ad hominem dismissal of those she or he disagrees with.

http://www.junkscience.com/aug99/baliunas.htm
Just food for thought in the what causes what debate.
Global warming and dams affect salmon. Why did we have the huge return to the Columbia river a few years ago?

Elbow: One thing I know for sure is that this is a complex subject. Why did we have great returns a few years ago in the Columbia system? Hell I don't know, but I know that in some cases, at least in the short term, global warming can be beneficial to salmon. For example, if we have systems that suffer from low flows, and the warming trend cause more rain in those basins flows improve. At the same time warming in other basins can cause flooding and harmful water temps. It may be that the good returns were not related to global warming at all.

One thing I am sure of is we can't look at only a year or two to access long-term trends.

As for dams hurting salmon, I don’t believe that discussion is part of this one and will leave that for another thread. You may want to post that as an independent topic.

Well Dave you just wrote your entire article. Global warming may help Salmon in some instances and may hurt in others. Then on the other hand it may have no effect.

The one thing that I am sure of is that if global warming continues it absolutly will have a major effect on salmon. Salmonids are harmed by water temperatures in excess of roughly 17 C. and cannot survive in rivers that exceed roughly 19 C. (This varies with the timing of the temperature peaks and the life phase of the fish.) Some rivers occassionally come close to those temperatures now. If we add a few degrees to those rivers the runs will decline or perish.

As I wrote in my post above, "favorable ocean conditions".

RM

Elbow, your article's argument appears to be addressing only the average global temperatures. Some of the data I've read is concerned specifically with the temperatures at the poles, which according to those articles have been increasing at a greater rate than the rest of the planet.

That coincidentally is where most of the ice is.