AMERICA'S HOTTEST IDEA

Climate Change ‘Greatest Threat’ to National Parks, Report Says

Drought. Floods. Death. It's already happening, the report says.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-10-09

If climate change is the "greatest threat" to National Parks then kiss the National Parks goodbye, because climate change will continue without regard to human wishes or actions as it has since the beginning of the earth. One small example, sea level has risen about 300 ft, an average of 20 inches every hundred years since the end of the last ice age about 18 thousand years ago.

Comment By former spud, 10-11-09

Oh, my Gawd, we're all gonna die, break out the Jack and let's have an end of the earth party.

Just like those who predicted over population should have done us in by now or the bird flu, AIDS, and today H1N1.

Ain't skerd, I'll go when its time.

Comment By Mike, 10-11-09

Why do anything about global warming when the end times are a comin' ? We all just gunna up and dye anyway, and the lord will take us no sinners, and leave the bad ones dun behind. Even if global change real, it won't matter. Lord save us all up here in Ideho.

Comment By Todd, 10-12-09

Timing is all important. Record cold temps 3 days in succession doesn't add to the credibility of this male bovine fertilizer.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-12-09

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center summer 2009 temps were far below normal, ranking 2009's summer as the 34th coolest on record since 1895. More than 300 low temp records (including highs and lows) were set across Midwest states in the last two days of August.

Comment By Monty, 10-13-09

Boy, the "flat earth folks" are out in force with some of the above remarks. These are the same folks who denied for years any relationship between smoking & lung cancer.

Wheather or not "humanity" will act in time to mitigate this ever increasing problem is questionable but I do know that the best and brightest of the world's leaders, scientists and CEO's accept the reality of human induced climated change.

Just the other day I read where the CEO of Duke Power Company--the largest user of coal in the US--stated that "human created climate change is a reality". Other "conservatives" that have recently come on board include: T. Boone Pickens-Texas oil billionaire, the CEO billionaire of Fox News (forget his name at the moment) and many other CEO's. Other than Putain of Russia (I do not know where he stands on this issue), all other world leaders of industrialized countries acknowledge this fact. And they are backing their belief's with billions of $'s.

It may be true that all of the taxi-cab drivers and barbers of the world are not, yet, on board but we will just have to move on without them.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-13-09

Climate change hysterics behave more like sheep than a higher primate who is occasionally capable of critical thinking. Lets go back through time 1 million years. Do you even know how many ice ages there's been during that time? Turns out that ice ages have appeared about like clockwork over that time span. Lasting about 100 thousand years, ice ages have been replaced by interglacial warming periods lasting about 20 thousand years. The Earth happens to currently be close to the end of the latest interglacial warming cycle that began about 18 thousand years ago. Using real data make the case that: 1. The Ice Age/ Interglacial warming cycles is caused by a regular fluctuation of atmospheric "green house" gasses. 2. Human production of CO2 will overheat the earth and prevent the next Ice Age from occurring. Hint: The geologic record shows that the earth has been both hotter and colder than presently many times before and atmospheric temps do not always correlate with CO2 levels.

Comment By Friday, 10-13-09

Don't read this:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/sci/climate-change/basics/

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-13-09

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Comment By Todd, 10-13-09

Monty, if you truly believe it is warm out, why don't you go camp in a tent with a blanket tonight.? I'm sure you will be snug as a bug in a rug.

Comment By bearbait, 10-14-09

Read between the lines. The Natural Resource Defense Fund has probably had their 401K become a 201K. We are in a piss poor economy, and there are way too many Enviro-Green tax forgiven organization tarts trolling for dollars in a shrinking sea of diminishing dollars. They have to cajole people into sending them money to continue their good works. You get donations by creating a crisis. So is there too much erosion or too little in the Grand Canyon? Is there too little or too much snow in Glacier? Dead whitebark pine? Were they supposed to be immortal?

In tomorrow's Oregonian newspaper, there is an article that says in the 12 salmon generations since the erection of dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers, it now appears that fall chinook salmon have, (Darwin, don't swoon), changed their behavior out of the egg and some, instead of rushing off to the sea on the spring freshet, are now hanging out in the cooler waters of the reservoirs and growing very large for a year, and then smolting off to sea too big to be easy prey for squawfish (oops! Northern Pike Minnow) and Caspian terns. They ADAPTED to their new environment, and those who stay around to get larger have now a 10 times higher statistical chance of showing up as an adult to spawn as a year older and larger fish than their classmates who rush off at their first chance to hit the ocean. Cod forbid!!! We have another environmental crisis!!!

Most of those grand vistas and fascinating sites in the Western National Parks have been formed by erosion, which is bad. Or at the least a bad good. And those who celebrate burning the Wilderness ought to pow wow with the NRDF about mature lodgepole being burned is just how it is supposed to work. Or at the least, get a good story that will work for those who decry the loss of mature lodgepole and those who celebrate the incineration of mature lodgepole. Then present your crisis plan.

Rahm Emanuel, the primary thinker for ObamaNation, says don't waste a good crisis. Evidently, he is running the NRDF as well as the White House. This whole deal is about exploiting a perceived crisis to gain power and treasure. Only they don't tell you the whole of the physical process of the earth is about plate tectonic action raising the earth's mantel to where it can be eroded, or molten rock from the bowels of the earth can be emitted to add to the erodible surface. It is all about change. Short term change, mid term change, and long term change. Change is the only certainty. Making change a crisis, to gain access to Grandma's purse, is the whole story. One would hope Grandma will mutter something about "...and the horse you rode in on, little buddy. Get lost!"

Comment By lfehl, 10-15-09

Wow, Monty, did you really expect any different comments that occur above? It is the same drivel that always comes out when discussing anything to 1) reduce air polution 2) reduce water polution 3) conserve our last great wild places.
My perspective is that you can't continue to mess in the pool you live in without consequences. So, if global warming is the issue that gets countries to clean up their act, so be it. Whatever creates the rally cry that leads to the desired result of a cleaner planet for all of us if fine by me. How the governments are going about it though is certainly up for debate, and so far pretty poorly managed.

Comment By dan, 10-16-09

no surprise that most of the above commenters don't really understand the effects or consequences of climate change. after all, they get their science from exxon-mobil and their unbiased news from fox and glenn beck.

if you just stick your head in the sand then maybe it won't be a problem.

Comment By Beargrass, 10-16-09

todd

record cold temps have a direct corelation to global climate change. I hate hearing you wing nuts sqweal with delight everytike a cold day comes around. Climate Cahnge not Global Warming


and bearbreath stop diverting away from the issue as usual

poor logging and fire management practices have created the dense, intense fire prone forests of the west and you as a former corporate logger greatly contributed to it so get off your soap box you are are not a person who is in a position to be giving advice about public lands issues. Thanks for wrecking the Tongass at tax payers expense as well :(

Comment By bearbait, 10-16-09

Bevis and Beargrass: you can't have it both ways. If it is a hot day, it is global warming. If it is a cold day, it is global warming. That does not work. Record cold temps for the day were set across three States. Many by ten degrees or more. You can call that anything you want, but don't call it warming.

Climate change is what drives the earth. The last million years or more has been the 100,000 year Ice Age, followed by the Interglacial warming period of 10-20,000 years. I seriously doubt if anthropomorphic influence is going to interrupt that cycle. Find some long johns, Dude, 'cause they are going to be needed.

The most evident change I can see is that with dams, the rivers don't freeze clear to the ocean anymore. That old deal about water getting close to 40f, the temp it is most dense, and then dropping to the bottom of the reservoirs, bringing the warmer or colder water to the surface to either cool or warm, keeps the rivers from freezing below them as the water never gets to freezing. Other than that, and the heat sinks that are concrete cities, radiating their heat or expelling it with air conditioning, has made cities warmer. But they only take up a minute amount of the earth. Statistically insignificant.

I think the predicted, intended, allowed burning of our public forests in the West will change the climate to cooler. All that surface without tree needle cover, without those trees holding snow to sublimate and never reach ground or become ground or surface water, will cool great areas. Also, snow as a reflective surface will reflect heat back to space. Forestland won't absorb as much heat and it will insulate snow below it for a later runoff. Burn all the watersheds and you will get more runoff. Perhaps by double. That is a good way to increase California water resources. Burn all the vegetation and build more dams and have more reservoirs. Capture the runoff. And, you will have more snow stay for longer in the spring. Constant fire kept the ground clear below the Sierra Redwoods and allowed snow to accumulate beneath them for summer watering. That is how they survived from warmer times in the past. Oh? It has been warmer than now? Concept!!!

This whole climate deal is about getting government to spend money with universities for research. Academics need money to exist. State or local government no longer has that money since we exported our earnings ability of the masses. There ain't no there, there, to tax to support the University. So now they want the Feds to borrow to support them. Climate scare has proven to be a good way. How about a tide crisis? Oh, I forgot. That will come with climate change. The world as Venice.

Maybe the end of indigenous burning of the landscape on an annual basis is the real climate change vehicle. But then we have to explain away the awful greenhouse gases produced in gigantic amounts.

The best way to regain control of our earth is to fund my retroactive vasectomy research. That is a non violent way to reduce population, and do it in a hurry. Introduce the agent into the potable water supply, drink some, and POW! everyone that you produced is instantly gone. The upside is that your grandson's pregnant girlfriend is no longer pregnant. And he isn't around to set another seed. The downside is that he won't be here, either. And your only real worry is that someone will get to Dad in the Loving Arms Rest Home. And POW!, you are gone. Damned dementia.

Comment By Todd, 10-16-09

Beargrass, you can call me old and set in my ways, but I am never going to believe that record cold temps are actually too warm! Now you can go sunbath in 20 degree temps if you want (except there was not sun either), but I still won't believe it is hot.
Unfortunately there is a consequence to this kind of temperature, the potato and sugar beet crops were heavily damaged by freezing in the ground. they are trying to savage as many of the sugar beets as they can before they spoil, I understand the spuds are done for and they are now evaluating the area as a disaster area. A FREEZING disaster....and you guys want the temps lower????????????

Comment By bearbait, 10-16-09

Todd: I am really of the mind that I will look at the weather forecasts, long and short term, and try to live my life around and with whatever the weather brings. I just came out of a blueberry field with wonderful ripe fruit on it. No freeze yet, but it has been too wet to pick it. Elliott variety. The last to ripen. The issue with this global warming year was a long, cold spring and not enough "degree days" of ripening, a super hot week and a half that accelerated the mid season ripening, but just fried our stuff that was ripe or near ripe, turning it to raisins. We had to wait for the green stuff to ripen, and by then the majority of blueberries had been harvested. So we had the only variety ripening, albeit late, and got good money for it. The downside is we have yet to get it all picked, and probably won't. That is all due to the cool and early fall, the sun falling off to the east and having less effect, and shorter days. It all works against late ripening. So here we are. Screwed by cold weather all the growing year, and really screwed by the 105 to 108 days we had that one week. Average it all out, the super hot days included, and we had a much cooler than normal year. Much cooler. And, for the second year in a row, the only two in the last two decades, meaningful snowfalls occurred the first weekend in October. Add to that the warmest year was 1998, and now we are seeing cooler average annual temps.

So why would I care or comment? Because I grow crops that need heat and sun, and a certain number of frost free days in a row. We are not getting them. So you can worry about climate change, and I will worry about the rest of this year and next. And, if I need to, we will employ some strategies to mitigate or change the effects of climate. One we have already done. We have installed orchard fans to move air in the spring to prevent freeze damage. About half the cost is subsidized, tax forgiven, because we are not employing smudge pots and fouling the airshed. Government cannot give you something they have not already taken from you or someone else. So thank you, tax payers. We just make a lot of early morning noise. The big block Chevy engines run on propane. About 12 gallons an hour each. Fighting this global warming costs money.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-16-09

CO2 helps your blueberries grow faster. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster trees grow, especially when they are young. Right now atmospheric CO2 levels are at historic lows at about 380ppm when compared to the last 400 million years of earths history. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Comment By bird, 10-18-09

Breaking news..... Scientists at the Natural Resources Defense Council recently determined that the rising of the sun is actually consistent with anthropogenic global warming, ah… er, climate change.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-18-09

They actually believe that a change in the amount of solar radiation falling on the earth has less of an impact on climate change than a small change in atmospheric CO2. Dummies!

Comment By bearbait, 10-19-09

Mickey: the plants are growing really well. It is getting the flowers pollinated and the fruit ripe that is the problem. Too cold early and impacting pollination, and not enough heat units through summer, and then an early arriving cold, wet fall. Add to that we now have a in fruit egg laying vinegar fruit fly from Asia, Dros. suzukii, the "two spot fruit fly" that lays its eggs in fruit, and the maggots hatch in a sea of bacterial and fungal disease introduced by the fruit fly wound. Lovely. A gift from Japan. Now all over the West Coast, in cherries, peaches, grapes, all cane berries, blueberries, and any other soft fruit. I will guess the control strategy is bombardment by kick ass pesticides. I have a great IPM program, use no insecticides, and won't. I will find another job or retirement before I will spray the crap that kills all the critters in the soil. I have spent a decade rebuilding soil from bomb making material fertilization and scorched earth pesticides. The frigging fruit flies can have the crop, for all I care. We found lots of maggots in the wild blackberries in the riparian zone, but only one in our fruit. Maybe the predator insects are killing fruit flies. Who knows? I am too old to have the inclination to blast the fields with ass kicker pesticides.

The thought that cold weather might hold them at bay is not a working proposition. They are abundant in Sapparo, Japan, where they held the Winter Olympics. Not an option. I am hoping for a bait and trap deal. Or them being sorted out in the soft fruit selector in processing. Homeland security can't keep nothing out of the US. Nor can APHIS. The US is dysfunctional, on a national government level. If we can't keep insect pests out, mostly from our addiction to Asian manufactured and food goods, (you know, where our jobs went), we are lost. A shame, really. But, when it comes to climate change and heating, what difference does it make if you get imported pests that take you out, anyway? Why should I care about ag and global climate change? I already have global insect exchange. Sort of like who can save sage hens from habitat destruction if they are all dead from West Nile mosquito bites?

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-19-09

So, what else is new? Insects and bacteria have always ruled the earth in terms of numbers and survivability. Occasionally, a few humans, like yourself pause to think about it. Actually, insects and bacteria are better mouse traps created for the long haul.

Comment By bearbait, 10-19-09

And the long haul is what builds the mountains and erodes the valleys, and the result becomes a national park. So what is the problem with climate change, anyway? Without it we would never had had the grand landscapes that we call National Parks. Just think of climate change as the path to new monuments of awe and wonderment.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-19-09

Exactly. The climate has been and still is changing since the formation of the earth, and humans never did and still don't have any effect on climate change which is driven by the amount of solar radiation falling on different parts of the earth, not by "greenhouse gasses" retaining heat. This applies to diurnal, seasonal, and long term glacial and inter-glacial climate change.

Comment By Jay, 10-20-09

It is all in the hands of God, eh?
Not to worry, boys. Humans have no effects. Just keep peeing in the soup.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-20-09

God has nothing to do with it. But you gotta be smart enough to know the difference between anthropogenic pollution and natural climate change.

Comment By Jay, 10-20-09

And you would have us think you are that smart?

Comment By bearbait, 10-20-09

And God ain't charging $600 a billable hour to litigate climate change for the NGOs, with Uncle Sam paying if there is any change in law or policy by the agency, EAJA kicks in and the "public interest" lawyers get paid like a slot machine by Uncle Eric Holder, et al. Ya gotta love God if only for that he isn't suing government all the time...

Anthropogenic climate change is intellectually quite similar to seining for farts...full of good intentions with no possibility of success, and no meaningful way to measure either success of failure. At least with good science, you should be able to measure either, and modeling is not measuring. Modeling to science is what derivatives are to finance: firing shots in the dark at moving targets using other peoples money to buy the bullets, all with an expectation of a good result, and betting on what the result will be. There is now no evident difference between Wall Street and the local Indian Casino. Except, maybe the casinos are better run, more honest, and will limit your losses to what you have...

In light of that, Wall Street NEEDS carbon cap and trade, because they don't make money on profits, but the trade itself. Always the trade. Vigorish is their trade and profit. So this possibly huge Ponzi, literally in the sky, without diamonds, global warming and climate change, is Wall Street's future. Even God want's his ten percent. And into the breech we charge. We will get global warming and climate change no matter what. Milo Minderbinder is running things, as he always has. And Yosarian will have to keep on flying, even in his tenth decade. doo dah... Camptown race track five miles long...

Comment By jedediah redman, 10-20-09

Als I kin say:
is--we're damned lucky to have a bunch of sh!thouse scientists around to keep us wondering about whether our civilization has been good for the earth or not!

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-20-09

Here's a list of about 31 thousand "shit house" scientists.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Comment By Jed, 10-20-09

I am not impressed.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-20-09

The definition of faith is a belief held regardless of the evidence.

Comment By jed, 10-21-09

Evidence delivered not by industry shills is more reliable in my estimation.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-21-09

Academic shills are no better. They tailor their research to attract grant money which is only given to those who believe in anthropogenic climate change at the present time.

Comment By jed, 10-21-09

A ghastly conspiracy, eh, mick?

Comment By bird, 10-21-09

Well put Mickey, there is currently an IMMENCE sum of research dollars available for carbon/climate related studies. Objectivity often takes a backseat when reputations, tenure, or next year’s funding is on the line.

Comment By horst, 10-21-09

And they're mostly pointy headed evidence that them as can does and them as can't teaches, eh, bird?

Comment By bird, 10-21-09

I did not compute that....at all

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-21-09

Conspiracy? More like a herd of sheep.

Comment By horst, 10-21-09

"I did not compute that....at all" Perhaps not; but you imputed it.

Comment By horst, 10-21-09

Quite unlike RWC wethers, eh, mick?

Comment By mitch, 10-23-09

Sorry, but I'll believe the experts any day over nonsense that appeared on this blog.
Besides, the question remains, even if you did not believe in global warming as most of us do, why do you want to foul your own nest. My concern is saving what is left for my grandchildren and their grandchildren.

Comment By Mickey Garcia, 10-23-09

Although it needs to be eliminated, man made air and water pollution is not causing climate change, and CO2 is not a pollutant. Keep trusting the "experts" in Science or Finance for that matter and you'll end up to your eyeballs in bullshit and nonsense.

Comment By horst, 10-23-09

More RightWingCraziness.

This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/climate_change_greatest_threat_to_national_parks_report_says/C41/L41/