Oh! Those Climate Change Deniers!
The Oregonian frequently runs guest editorials from members of the community. On August 4, they ran one on global warming from Gordon Fulks, a physicist from Corvallis, who doubts human impacts on climate change. The piece was so rife with misinformation that a complete rebuttal would require far more space than I generally use in a blog. Most of Fulks’ points are easily debunked by a quick review of EPA’s climate change web site, or National Geographic’s “Global Warming Fast Facts” site. I will try to address his major points in brief. First, the term “global warming” itself is misleading and no longer in common usage among scientists. “Climate change” or even “climate disruption” is more accurate, as what we are really talking about are the global impacts of even a modest average increase in Earth temperatures. This is not about the planet suddenly getting much hotter – which is why there was very little serious “global warming” talk around last week’s heat wave. In fact, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) data show that the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005. This seems modest, but the impacts on Earth are real. Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. These are facts. Fortunately, climate change deniers like Fulks are growing extinct nearly as rapidly as climate change impacts are manifesting.
My Conservation Hero
This is a tough one. There are many to pick from, and solid arguments for the grand figures of conservation: Aldo Leopold, John Wesley Powell, Henry David Thoreau, Rachel Carson, Gifford Pinchot, Theodore Roosevelt or, more recently, David Suzuki or James Hansen. Just a few years ago, one of those would almost certainly have won out for me.
These days, however, my conservation hero is Al Gore. No one has done more to popularize the issue of climate change around the world, unquestionably the greatest conservation challenge of our age. His efforts have helped move “green” into the Zeitgeist of the 21st century. Some of this popularization results in questionable work. (Paper made from elephant poop? Really? We need that?) At other times even noble efforts get marginalized by marketing, with absurd results. (My son received a free, disposable watch at a screening of “Wall-E” – the Pixar film about consumerism destroying the planet. Isn’t that just PERFECT!)
Still, Al Gore deserves credit for moving climate change into the daily conversation of most Americans and people around the globe. Ultimately, this makes the jobs of conservationists far easier. The time required for someone to “get it” is far less than before. For many years, conservation as a movement was limited to a fairly narrow segment of the population. No more. Today, broader understanding makes significant political change possible. Over the next 10-20 years, I believe we will see acceptance of major, necessary changes in lifestyles and behavior that were unthinkable before Gore and his progeny took conservation into the mainstream. For now, at least, Gore wins for me.
Climate Change and Freshwater
Climate change (really, climate disruption) manifests most spectacularly in its impact on freshwater. Shrinking snow packs, erratic rainfall and increases in extreme weather events alter formerly predictable patterns and dramatically impact river function and flow.
Most Oregonians live in the wet and rainy northwestern quadrant of the state – basically, the Willamette Valley. Statewide, virtually all Oregonians enjoy a reliable supply of household freshwater (the tap works when you turn it on). These simple facts make the idea of a freshwater crisis intangible for many, but no less real. Over the next 30-40 years, climate disruption will amplify the stress on freshwater systems by orders of magnitude. In the Pacific Northwest:
- A reduction of more than half the snowpack by 2040, having broad impacts. Glacial runoff provides for not only aquatic habitat, but irrigation, drinking water and hydroelectric power.
- A decrease in streamflow of at least 50 percent during summer months in many rivers and streams by mid-century.
- A negative impact on salmon and other anadromous fish due to increased winter flooding, reduced summer and fall streamflows, and warmer stream and estuary temperatures.
- A decrease in water quality due to higher temperatures, increased salinity and pollutant concentration by mid-century.
- Sea level rise will increase saltwater intrusion into groundwater in some regions, affecting drinking water and agriculture in coastal zones.
- An increase in evaporation will reduce effectiveness of reservoirs.
- An increase in extreme weather events and more erratic rainfall means more water falls on hardened ground unable to absorb it, leading to flash floods instead of replenishment of soil moisture or groundwater levels.
What can we do about all of it? Amplify and accelerate efforts to restore weakened aquatic systems while preserving existing, high-functioning ones. Speed matters here. It’s not too late to act. There is a ton of work to do, much of it easy, with huge potential, positive impact. We just need to get it done.
(for sources on impacts of climate change on freshwater, email Alan Horton directly and he will be happy to forward source material to you)
