The Beacon
The Greenhouse effect
The last months of 2004 were hectic regarding beliefs on Global Warming, the Greenhouse Effect and other controversial subjects. Do you remember?
On November 8th a report was released by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme on the Arctic Climate Change. It revealed that the average temperature was rising two times faster in the arctic than in the rest of the world. (see Thu Nov 11th: Four years of studies in 140 pages)
Then, on Sunday November 28, 2004, The Observer published: Greenhouse effect 'may benefit man' Claims by pro-Bush think-tank outrage eco-groups. This article was about a report that The International Policy Network (a charity based in the UK, and a non-profit (501c3) organization in the US). This report, according to The Observer, was published just to feed a controversy about global warming. This report was denying the legitimacy of scientific studies or discussions on the issue and attempting to prove that global warming was nothing but a song for the birds.
Here is, for example, a sentence from the introduction of the report that you can find here (pdf file)
Contributors to this report have become increasingly concerned that the public is being fed a series of exaggerated claims regarding likely future climate change, based on inaccurate models.
And a part of the conclusion of the first section of the report: The scenarios underlying climate change `predictions'
The short answer is that we simply do not know how much warmer climate will be in 2100. In fact, the degree of (compound) uncertainty is so large that merely by providing temperature intervals, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is extremely misleading.
The Observer also stated that the melted Arctic will be beneficial for mankind by increasing fish stocks.
Well, reading Daniel Howden's and Ben Holst's article in The Independent published on the 5th of January, competition over the Arctic has already begun: it is a new international `cold war'.
The Arctic finds itself on the front line of the race to claim the North Pole, a modern scramble for the Arctic that has pitted tiny Denmark against its NATO ally Canada, with Russia and the United States lurking in the wings.
But this open competition is not only about fish stocks...
What is for some an environmental catastrophe might be a great commercial opportunity. Diamond finds in Canada's Nunavut have already fired a mining rush and propelled the country into the ranks of a top-three producer. Ottawa is counting on tapping what the government suspects are major natural gas reserves in the Beaufort Sea, the Frigid Zone bordering the Yukon and Alaska, where diplomatic swords were crossed with the US when it tried unsuccessfully to auction off the area to oil companies last year.
But what really made me sick is this sentence:
The centuries old bane of Arctic explorers could become a reality thanks to global warming, cutting thousands of miles off the shipping routes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and delivering a windfall to any country able to tax its users.
There always seem to be people who are trying to deny the existence of a theory or of a scientific study, or at least confuse the issue, while others are trying to get rich from future impacts. Wouldn't it be great if we were spending as much time and money trying to stop or mitigate the problem?
Related post on the blog:
Fri Dec 10th: RealClimate.org
Oil on Ice
Yesterday evening, the Avalon in Washington DC was hosting the Sierra Club and the Alaska Wilderness League for the screening of the award winning documentary "Oil on Ice" which presents the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil Drilling controversy.
One of the filmmakers was present and Native Alaskans talked to the audience about their life, how they would be affected if the U.S. decides to drill and how they can feel the first effects of global warming.
Unless like Sen. Frank Murkowski (now governor of Alaska) said in March 2002, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge doesn't look at all like a big white board with nothing in it. He said holding the immaculate board: "This is what the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge looks like 9 months out of 12, don't be misinformed" in his attempt to convince Congress to open the federal government to open the protected area to oil drilling.
The documentary shows how this portion of land in the Arctic became a refuge in 1960 thanks to conservationists' efforts and the Eisenhower administration. In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) enlarged the area with the purpose of:
- conserving fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the Porcupine caribou herd, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and Arctic char and grayling;
- fulfilling the international fish and wildlife treaty obligations of the United States;
- providing the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents; and
- ensuring water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.
But Section 1002 of ANILCA required that studies were undertaken, including a comprehensive inventory and assessment of fish and wildlife resources, an analysis of potential impacts of oil and gas exploration and development on those resources, and a delineation of the extent and amount of potential petroleum resources. This is the area they want now to open to oil drilling.
The problem is that this particular section of land is where the porcupine caribou herds gather, calve, and migrate as they did in the Pleistocene. And the Gwich'in people depend directly on these herds for their survival as well as many forms of wildlife like wolves, grizzlies etc.
This is about the battle of big oil corporations over one of America's last, great wild places. And this battle is occurring NOW!. Each of us can do something against it. Take action! Log on to the Sierra Club website and go on their activism section on this issue. Help the Gwich'in people to protect their culture, and their pristine environment.
Moby Dick's cousins
I have a question for you:
If our cousin is the chimpanzee, do you know the cousin of the whales?
No idea? Well, I will help you:
- The animal lives on land
- It is big (No, it is not the elephant, but it is also a pachyderm though)
- Its scientific name means something like: the river horse that leads a double life (Isn't that poetic?)
Well, NOW it's easy!
No? Come on!
What kind of animal is at home both on land and in water!
OK! OK! Here is the answer...
When the Marine Mammal Protection Act works
Seals have been protected since 1972 by the Marine Mammal Protection Act, when they almost went extinct, hunted by fishermen who thought they were competing with them for fish. As Laura Walsh (Associated Press) says in her article, only 5,800 harbor seals were counted in Maine in 1973.
Today, New Englanders call Maritime Aquarium officials to report that they have a seal in their backyard. It is believed that as many as 100,000 harbor seals can be found in New England waters. Some of them are even electing this area their new permanent home due to the increase of the seal population in Maine and Massachusetts waters. Traditionally, seals migrate south to New England waters from colder ones during the wintertime.
As a result of this growing number, a study is going to be conducted to see if these harbor seals have some genetic links with the ones found in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. It will help to know a little more about these mammals as well, as so much still remains unknown. The commercial fishermen of Connecticut also think that this new knowledge is critical for them because they have seen the flounder population drop.
"If the research comes to show that we're never going to get a strong winter flounder stock because seals are knocking the population down to very low levels, then that would be nice to know. I wouldn't like the idea of it, but at least I would have something to say to these fishermen," said Eric Smith, director of the state's Department of Environmental Protection's Marine Fisheries Division.
Smith doesn't think that seals are in danger of being hunted again. Let's just hope he is right and that people will welcome the seals. As Smith added "The short take home message to people is that seals are a big part of our sea life now."
Deepest U.S. reef ever
To continue with good news to begin this New Year, the U.S. Geological Survey announced, on Dec. 23, that marine researchers have made a significant discovery that may be unique: the deepest photosynthetic coral reef. It lies 250 feet deep on a submerged barrier-island named Pulley Ridge off the coast of southwest Florida and is allegedly the deepest ever found in the U.S. waters.
"We were all blown away by this bizarre, flat, living sea floor covered with blue and brown corals and lettuce-like green algae," researcher Bret Jarrett said of seeing live video from an unmanned submersible.
Do you want to see pictures? Just click on the Pulley Ridge link to reveal them and... be blown away too!
And now that the word is out, well, officials are concerned and want to protect and preserve the reef. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will decide soon whether to restrict fishing or trawling in the area based on the scientists' research.
"Pulley Ridge is an area of particular environmental concern due to its unusual benthic community and fragile nature--living corals are easily disturbed. Activity such as removal of live-bottom materials for fish tanks would be particularly harmful," said Albert Hine, Professor and Associate Dean of Research in the College of Marine Science at USF.
Sea Birds on the Hook
You may know a lot about long lining, bycatch and sea turtles. You also followed Charlotte on her Mediterranean Sea adventure as a fisher-woman.
But do you know about bycatch of sea birds?
A recent study based on satellite tracking, released on Wednesday Nov. 10, shows "hot spots" where longline fishing trawlers and albatrosses cross paths. And the news is not good for the birds -- they are lured by the baited hooks and then drown.
How do you solve such a problem? As it happens, there may be a fairly low-tech solution:
Conservationists say that fairly simple measures can be used by longliners to reduce seabird mortality.
[Richard Thomas from Birdlife] said Brazilian fishermen use a colorful but effective technique that involves dyeing their bait two shades of blue.
Birds tend not to see blue but fish do. The first dye keeps the birds away but is water soluble and bleaches after the bait sinks. This leaves the fat-soluble blue dye which makes the bait more attractive to the fish, so both fishermen and birds win.
If you want to read the full article you can find it here.
Other links:
Four years of studies in 140 pages
It has been announced everywhere and here it is: the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, the new report on climate change. And what a report! I am actually reading it. I highly recommend it; and please send a copy to those who do not believe...
The Arctic Council called for this assessment, and it is the work of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, along with the International Arctic Science Committee. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment is divided into ten "key findings", and is easy to read as well as understand. These keys make for a good summary:
- Arctic climate is now warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected.
- Arctic warming and its consequences have worldwide implications.
- Arctic vegetation zones are very likely to shift, causing wide-ranging impacts.
- Animal species' diversity, ranges, and distribution will change.
- Many coastal communities and facilities face increasing exposure to storms.
- Reduced sea ice is very likely to increase marine transport and access to resources.
- Thawing ground will disrupt transportation, buildings, and other infrastructure.
- Indigenous communities are facing major economic and cultural impacts.
- Elevated ultraviolet radiation levels will affect people, plants, and animals.
- Multiple influences interact to cause impacts to people and ecosystems.
If you want to know more about the marine environment, you want to read carefully key finding #4.
The marine environment, the marine fisheries and the aquaculture in the region are dissected.
I will end with the beginning of their conclusion:
As the scientific results presented in this assessment clearly illustrate, climate change presents a major and growing challenge to the Arctic and the world as a whole. While the concerns this generates are important now, their implications are of even greater importance for the future generations that will inherit the legacy of the current actions or inaction. Strong near-term action to reduce emissions is required in order to alter the future path of human-induced warming. Action is also needed to begin to adapt to the warming that is already occurring and will continue. The findings of this first Arctic Climate Impact Assessment provide a scientific basis upon which decision makers can consider, craft and implement appropriate actions to respond to this important and far-reaching challenge.
