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."

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.

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!