Global Warming Article- Kind of Scary!!

[Rost]

GF&P boss says global warming poses a problem

By Kevin Woster, Journal Staff Writer

As the water line on Lake Oahe falls toward a possible record low sometime late this summer, state Game, Fish & Parks Secretary John Cooper worries that there might be even drier times ahead — for fish, fowl and people who love the outdoors.

And he fears that global warming could be to blame.

“I’m scared to death on some of these climate-change issues,” Cooper said Thursday. “I know some people question it. But I’ve tried to talk to the scientists, the people knowledgeable in this area. And I’m personally convinced that we have a climate-change issue that we’re going to have to deal with. And it could be very difficult.”

Cooper said those difficulties are already showing up in reduced inflows to the Missouri River, changes in Canada goose migration patterns through central South Dakota and reduced duck production in parts of the prairie pothole region, including South Dakota.

The shrinking shoreline on Lake Oahe — one of the three main water-storage reservoirs on the Missouri River system — is one of the more prominent signs of a dry spell that began five or six years ago, Cooper said. And it’s likely to get worse.

Despite a more optimistic outlook for Oahe earlier this year, the revised forecast has the mammoth reservoir — which currently sits at 58 percent of full — falling by almost 3 feet in the next 30 days and another 3 feet in August.

“By the end of August or early September, that would put us at a new all-time low,” Cooper said. “When you start getting to those levels, you start to impact fisheries and, to a great degree, the economy. We’ll just have to keep working hard to keep people in the water.”

About half of the 31 boat ramps on Lake Oahe are out of the water, but GF&P officials are extending and improving most remaining ramps to keep them in operation. Fishing on the lake, for walleyes and salmon alike, has been good for much of the spring.

Oahe fell to a record low in 2004 and recovered only slightly last year. If the lake drops below that 2004 mark later this year, it might not be the end of the decline, Cooper said.

“I don’t see anything in the long-rage climate forecast that we’ll have anything different from the kind of winters we’ve been having — little snow, reduced runoff,” Cooper said. “I wish I felt better about this drought breaking. But I don’t feel good about it. I’m afraid we’re in for some tough years.”

Cooper said some of that could be from predictable drought cycles, but he also believes global warming is having an impact that is likely to increase.

The National Academy of Science says that the Earth’s temperature has risen by 1 degree in the past 100 years, with the greatest warming in the past two decades. Most scientists attribute the rising temperature to a buildup of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases, which occur naturally in the atmosphere but have increased because of vehicle exhaust, power-plant emissions and home and business heating.

A report by the National Environmental Trust released last year showed that the snowpack in the Missouri River since 1990 was below normal in 14 of 16 years.

“A survey of average temperatures in the Missouri River Basin over the last 15 years exhibits a telltale signature of global warming — that warming is greatest in January, February and March,” Nathan Peterson, a spokesman for the trust in Sioux Falls, said. “Unfortunately, this is also when warming has the greatest effects on the size of snow pack and the timing of snowmelt.”

Peterson said the loss of snow pack and changes in runoff will continue to hurt river and lake levels. It also will lead to more wildfires, limit groundwater recharge and diminish wetlands crucial to waterfowl and other wildlife, he said.

Cooper said warmer, milder conditions in fall and early winter between 1995 and 2005 kept migrating Canada geese in Canada longer than in previous years, which hurt hunting success on the Missouri River in central South Dakota.

But an even more profound effect could come in wetlands across central and eastern South Dakota and North Dakota — part of the best duck-production land in North America, Cooper said.

“In my mind, man has influenced the atmosphere to the point where we have warmer-climate issues,” Cooper said. “Its effect on water on the prairie pothole region and its duck production is a real worry.”

Carter Johnson, an ecology professor at South Dakota State University in Brookings, was co-author on a study based on past climate and hydrologic data and predictions about the future weather patterns by climatologists worldwide. The researchers mixed that data with models of wetland dynamics to produce possible future scenarios in the prairie pothole region.

They concluded that duck production could drop by 50 percent during the next 50 years as continued warming dries up more wetlands. The effect will be most pronounced in the region west of Mitchell in South Dakota and near Jamestown in North Dakota, Johnson said.

“Under the current climate, that area is marginal for waterfowl,” Johnson said. “And in the future, if the climate does warm up, we’ll lose that western portion. The production will continue farther east, where water conditions will sustain it.”

Contact Kevin Woster at 394-8413 or [email protected]

[percherman]

My two cents. Its just a bunch of leftist mumbo jumbo.

The world has been going through these changes since its beginning, with or without us. We are mere ants on this planet and are not affecting the climate. We can't go running Helter Skelter every time there is a drought.

We are either whining, "to much water or another ice age is coming." When mother nature seems fit she will fill that river till she's overflowing again. And then, B..ch,B...h,

Bi..h.I think we do need to control pollution, but I am not going to buy into every extreme leftist professor trying to persuade people to buy into the whole Global Warming hog-wash all for the sake of their parties agenda.

Its getting close to that time again.

Vote Your Sport!!!!

[rock2me]

Everyone can have their opinion but looking at the data, tells me it is much ado about nothing. Look at the temperature models and please define where we are out of whack.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

When I went to school, in the 70's, we were warned of the next ice age. Now it's the opposite. I'll pay attention once we get a few hundred years of data to work with.

[Mike Walerak]

The long term trends are only one thing to consider. Looking at the short term trends. Since the introduction of fossil fuels the average temp has been on the rise. I am going to e-mail one of my old SDSU professors for some data, and I will post the data once I come up with it.

mw

[Eyez]

Quote:

---

My two cents. Its just a bunch of leftist mumbo jumbo.

The world has been going through these changes since its beginning, with or without us. We are mere ants on this planet and are not affecting the climate. We can't go running Helter Skelter every time there is a drought.

We are either whining, "to much water or another ice age is coming." When mother nature seems fit she will fill that river till she's overflowing again. And then, B..ch,B...h,

Bi..h.I think we do need to control pollution, but I am not going to buy into every extreme leftist professor trying to persuade people to buy into the whole Global Warming hog-wash all for the sake of their parties agenda.

Its getting close to that time again.

Vote Your Sport!!!!

---

Pardon me if this post comes off as confrontational. However, voting your sport does not mean ignoring science and voting one party or another simply because they support gun ownership.

In my opinion, voting my sport means voting for those who are concerned about the long term sustainability of the resources that we use for sport. There is obviously a change happening, and simply ignoring it is not going to protect the future of our sport. You may or may not agree with the politics behind this issue, but if you educate yourself about the science behind this issue, you'll see an undeniable trend that we're just now beginning to see the direct impact of. Direct scientific observations are not "propaganda" or "mumbo-jumbo". You may or may not like the truth of the matter, but the science is real and tangible. Disagree about the interpretation of those observations all you want, but please don't make the claim that it's all fabricated garbage designed simply to further a political agenda. Far too many honest, nonpartisan scientists have put far too much work into finding the truth to have it dismissed as "mumbo-jumbo".

Dusty

[rock2me]

I agree that we should be concerned about the long-term sustainability of the resources. I also agree, that in the last decade (extremely short-term) it seems to be warmer with milder winters. I don't think anyone really argues that.

However, the science behind the "why" is it warmer and the "how" humans impact it our mother, is definitely questionable. No resonable person can honestly say that based upon 100 years of "reasonable" data, that we can predict long trends on the future climate. There are just too many variables in the formula.

Politics is the only thing driving this, "global warming" witch hunt. The term "global warming" does not mean that the earth is warming. The term is now synonymous with humans creating a warmer planet. It does not get any more political than that. Look at the data from core samples, etc., it shows cyclical warming and cooling trends that match what is happening right now. Also, the Sun and the moon have probably the greatest impact on our climate. Any model that does not take them into account, is flawed. The Sun has never put out the same amount of energy from day to day, year to year. Too many variables...

That said, I always try to leave campsite/lake/woods cleaner then when I arrived. I always pick up my own waste and others trash. I try to be prudent with gas, oil, chemicals, food, water, etc. Nobody/thing gains by being wasteful.

[percherman]

---

Pardon me if this post comes off as confrontational. However, voting your sport does not mean ignoring science and voting one party or another simply because they support gun ownership.

In my opinion, voting my sport means voting for those who are concerned about the long term sustainability of the resources that we use for sport. There is obviously a change happening, and simply ignoring it is not going to protect the future of our sport. You may or may not agree with the politics behind this issue, but if you educate yourself about the science behind this issue, you'll see an undeniable trend that we're just now beginning to see the direct impact of.

Dusty

---

I can see you watch entirely to much TV. Maybe CNN or MSN.

It's time you really wake up and focus on who is running your brain. These people are filling our minds and especially our children's minds with such nonsense. They have everyone running around in a panic every chance they can get. And if you think that this global warming scare is not a tactic by the left wing? I have some real cheep ocean front property right here in Ne for sale. The right does the same thing only they only control one TV new coverage and that is FOX.

The reason behind my Vote your sport statement is we have some very important voting decisions to make soon.

The Farm Bill, We could stand to lose millions of acres of CRP and other farm subsidies if changes are made.

Wildlife habitat from purchases of your hunting and fishing licenses, guns, and ammo. Fishing rods&reels and accessories.

Hunter safety programs.

And the UN backed by Secetary general Kofi Annan is trying to align himself with a strong US ally to rid the west of guns, YOUR GUNS!!!

The right to keep and bear arms in defense of self, family and country is self-evident. We are at risk of loosing our heritage. I can't even imagine my boys being raised without that spiritual bond of hunting with grandpa&dad.

I have said my speech.

Now for the people who were wondering if I had proof if it was MUMBO JUMBO!!!!

http://www.iceagenow.com/

http://www.iceagenow.com/

Yep, you read correctly. The Ice Age Cometh!!!!

It was written by NASA , Really

I hope you guys can take a little ribbing.

Everyone has there own beliefs and opinions and I guess, well, the cats out of the bag.

[Eyez]

Well, there are a lot of things that we don't know. However, there are 2 things that we do.

1. Global temperatures have risen markedly since the industrial revolution and even more dramatically so in the past 50-75 years as populations have increased and hydrocarbon consumption has skyrocketed.

2. At no other point in history as observed through core samples, etc, has there been as dramatic a change in global temperature outside of cataclysmic events such as meteor impacts and major volcanic eruptions.

Regardless of your political standing, those two things cannot be argued against.

Now, you may choose to disregard those facts. Personally, I don't have anywhere else to live other than Earth, so I take such things fairly seriously.

[Eyez]

Well, if that's how you want it to be...

Prove to me that well documented, scientific observations made using time tested and well proven methods and equipment are nonsense, and then, maybe then, your post will be anything but argumentative dump, brainwashed talking points expoused by someone who has a belief that they must justify through whatever means are necessary.

You tell my how you know more than the vast majority of people who've devoted their entire lives to the study of science. Do you honestly think that ALL of them are in it simply for the politics? What do you envision them gaining? Are you one of those who thinks that all scientists, teachers, media, lawyers, doctors, and otherwise well educated people are communists out to destroy America? Is it possible, just possible, that maybe they actually CARE about the future of the freakin' planet that they live on? Is your world really so dreary that you can't envision someone being honest and truthful?

Time and time again, it never fails to amaze me, the level of ignorance that sportsmen and women can cling to, despite having hard facts staring them right in the face. How I would love to see a day when so many self-proclaimed conservationists would actually side with conservation instead of consumption.

Nothing I say will change your mind, since your mind was made up prior to ever seeing any evidence to support your view either way, but since you started us down this path, answer me this:

We are just ants on this planet, but do we not leave a trail when we travel a path? Everything we do leaves a mark, maybe a barely noticable one, but do those trails not wear deeper and deeper over time?

Of course, everyone has their own beliefs and opinions. Some choose to base them on reality, and some don't. I only hope that by the time that those of you who still deny reality come to understand, that it's not too late.

[Mike Walerak]

TO all: lets keep it civil. We all have our own opinions and we are entitled to them. Debates are fine, arguments are not.

Quote:

---

It was written by NASA , Really

---

Is it possible any wordsmithing was used?

We really need to watch internet sources for credible information. I could do a seach and find an article that my dog is trying to kill me.

I am still waiting for a reply from SDSU for some data.

When and if I get it, I will post it.

mw

[cold one sd]

I believe that one of the biggest problems that exists in the Missouri River System is that it is controlled by The US Army Corps of Engineers. I doesn't matter if it is another ice age or a drought due to global warming, the Corps will figure out a way to screw it up. It's their job and they are very good at it. Just my opinion and I'm stickin to it!

[Try Too Fish]

Any one wanting more info on Global Warming should watch the Discovery channel show Titled "Global Warming! What you need to know" hosted by Tom Brokaw. It was aired 4 or 5 times in the last week. The next airing wont be until August 21 if I remember correctly.

It has many Very convincing facts and knowledgeable people explaining there position.

I have always been a skeptic of this theory but after watching , It makes you wonder!

I Know I sure wish I was Ice Fishing Right Now!!

[rock2me]

I did get a chance to see this show, last weekend. It is a compelling "story". The basis of the theory goes that warm periods in history coincided with high levels of "greenhouse" gases (CO2 being a main player). Therefore, they make an assumption based upon the CO2/Warm period correllation. To back up their corrallary they go back and measure CO2 levels from ice core samples. A major flaw in the evidence: If there were a period of time, long ago, that caused the same melting they are describing today, there would be no evidence in the core samples - it would have melted away.

It was interesting to see that they briefly mentioned the elliptical orbit that the earth makes around the sun and it's effect. They also mentioned that the Sun's energy output is not a constant and may be a factor. However, they went back to the "what if" guys. Given a set of data that may be flawed, draw some conclusions.

A fun dicotomy of their "story" did mention that in the past, NYC has been under ice sheets of 30FT and at other times under as much as 20ft of water. That leads me to conclude that it has been warmer and cooler in the past.

They also talked about this island in the Pacific that is being flooded, due to all the ice breaking off and floating all around. In due time, as the ice in the ocean melts, the level will go down. Water has a unique property of taking up more space when frozen, than in liquid form.

The end of my story is you will believe what you want to believe. I am sure that we will not have the "answer" to this in my lifetime. Here's a nice reference piece that addresses some of the questions mentioned.

The CATO institute may be a right-ring bastion but an interesting article by someone in the know:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[3pronghook]

15,000 years ago there was a rather thick lobe of glacial ice here. thank goodness for climate change er(global warming to the junk scientists), or we wouldnt be able to fish the lakes we have, hunt the land or much less even be here. Too much instant interpretation of compact data and knee jerk reactions to single events. Climates change. Adaptation is the key to survival.

[cold one sd]

This will get you to a lot of scientific information that says global warming is just so much talk. You can read it and form your own opinion. www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm

[Mike Walerak]

I am finally getting around to posting the information I recieved from Dr. Jihong Cole-Dai from SDSU.

With this graph these arguments can be made:

Temperatures have been rising very fast in the last 100 years.

Through various indirect measurements (such as core samples) we do have a very good understanding of temperatures in the last 1000 years. You can see very cleary that the global temperatures have not been as high as they have in the last 100 years.

mw