Seattle Times: "The truth about global warming"

The brilliant thing about science is that there is a built-in mechanism for theories to change based on new and different observations. At this point, literally millions of data points collected by scientists, satellites, weather stations, and historical samples (ice, trees, sediments) all point to one single conclusion- humans are causing the most rapid climate change this planet has *ever* seen. <br> Clearly, the earth's climate has changed many times in the last 5 billion years. It is the rate of this change that is the problem. That change has a single, discrete cause- us.

It's not about the spotted owl. Save the humans. <br><br>Say a massive deadly disease, carried by and infecting only humans--hit us and wiped out our entire species in the next few years--bye bye humans. Left behind for all the other species are our cars, homes, skyscrapers, streets, dams, power plants, clear cuts, bombs, waste, all the evidence of our extinct species. Do the bugs, birds, coyotes & kitty cats get together, throw a barbeque to celebrate, or have a charity concert to raise funds for the endangered? No, they just go on. Many species might continue to go extinct due to the left-over waste of the humans, and the globe might continue to warm (if you believe in that) as oil-field fires burn for years uncontained, and our nuclear power plants leak into the environment. How much time will it take for the planet to become pristine again? Answer=0. The planet is "pristine" the second the last of us our gone, because we are the only ones who care. <br><br>I think the platform for "change" needs to be based on the individual advantages (convenience, economic, and of course those of vanity) not the perceived disadvantages and sacrifice. This is where I believe the "extremisms" have missed their mark, on one side it's all about saving nature and the environment (thus the caricature of the tree hugging, hemp wearing sissy) and on the other side it?' all about the money (caricature of cigar smoking, run-you-over, lead foot, whisky drinking oil exec) when the average person probably does not identify with either of those roles and just goes on doing the "norm", which in my opinion is just advancing through life on a lukewarm level of consciousness. Until the different schools of thought can find common ground and campaign to the average citizen based on their specific individual advantages of "change", will there ever be quality forward movement toward responsible global citizenry? <br><br>PS. Chicken Enchiladas

Hyak.net makes a good point about recent snowfall records.  Even with global warming, I think we'll still have some good snow years.  (Several articles, including one in today's Seattle Times, have suggested that we'll see more extreme weather events in the future.  I don't know if that could apply to entire seasons.) Global warming is about averages.  One way to imagine possible consequences of warming is to think about things that depend on historical averages.<br><br>Glaciers are an obvious example.  The life of a glacier depends on balancing snow deposition and melt over many years.  I think the Palmer snowfield, and maybe even the Muir snowfield, is a goner in the long run.  Glaciers are important hydrologically, and backcountry skiers love them aesthetically, but lift skiers won't be directly affected by their loss.<br><br>Ski resort businesses depend on averages.  I think it's reasonable to expect the lower Cascade ski areas to have significantly shorter seasons in the future and thinner snowpacks, on average.  The Snoqualmie Pass ski areas could be really hurting in 50 years if the climate predictions come true.  They'll have some good winters, but on average, it may be hard to keep the business viable during the bad years that fall between the occasional good ones.<br><br>I wouldn't be surprised (assuming global warming doesn't damage the overall economy too much) to see proposals for developing higher elevation ski areas in the future.  We may see more proposals like the one on the SE side of Mt Adams that we talked about last year.  We may see pressure to remove Wilderness designation from higher elevation areas that are currently protected.  In 1984, Hogback Mountain was removed from the Goat Rocks Wilderness area to enable White Pass expansion.  That's an important precedent, which is either encouraging or disturbing, depending on your point of view. I can imagine proposals to develop the south side of Mt Baker, which was omitted from Wilderness in 1984 to allow snowmobile access. The long-simmering controversy over developing Cooper Spur on Mt Hood may become more heated.<br><br>Those are a few consequences of global warming for Northwest skiers that I can imagine off the top of my head.  I don't think global warming will kill skiing completely or eliminate all the good powder days.  But it will cause some changes and new concerns, and it's interesting to try to anticipate them.<br>

This thread has trended a bit toward questions of how our individual decisions impact the environment. That's right on the money, because those fat, cigar smoking business execs driving their Lincoln Continentals to a $10,000/plate fundraiser for dubya make their money by responding to consumer demand. They may overconsume more than we do, but there are a lot more of us. They don't force their products down our throats - we ask for them and they are more than happy to deliver. Per Pogo, "We have met the enemy...and he is us." But it may not be as tough as you think to reduce your own impact, and to share the fun with your neighbors.<br><br>With books with such titles as "Save Our Planet : 750 Everyday Ways You Can Help Clean Up the Earth," the notion can seem a bit overwhelming to the point of maintaining the status quo and hoping for the best. The somewhat less scarily titled best-selling book "50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth" told readers that "if every American family planted just one tree, over a billion pounds of 'greenhouse gases' would be removed from the atmosphere every year." They were also asked to snip six-pack rings, use fewer plastic bags, drive less, take the flea collars off their dogs, avoid releasing helium balloons, recycle aluminum cans, and take forty-two other actions, some of which had multiple components. Suggestion number 17, for example, to "find the hidden toxics" in the American home, directly targeted shampoos, oven cleaners, air fresheners, mothballs, pens, and permanent-press clothes, but it also suggested that readers purchase a book listing hundreds of items to eliminate from the home.<br><br>I'm in overload; are you?<br><br>It doesn't need to be that way. The Union of Concerned Scientists looked at the impact of consumer choices, and found that there is a nice short list of 5 main areas of impact, and that some things that get lots of discussion, such as recycling, are not as big in impact as we might think. They published a book entitled "The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices," and you can read the first chapter for free at www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ucs/CG-Chapter-1.pdf . Give it a whirl, and if it speaks to you, buy the book. If you work on even just a few of the BIG ONES listed in the book, you'll be improving your impact on the blue marble we all call home. And if human-caused global warming is for real, then you'll see the biggest steps you can personally take to help ensure your grandkids won't have to ask if we always skied indoors on motor-driven carpets.

Thanks for the link, Jim. You don't really need to buy the book, though I suspect it would be an interesting read - they outline the primary consumer options elsewhere on their website:<br><br> www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/...-global-warming.html

Though I don't think my offspring will receive any special dispensation at the ski areas of the future for having a great-grandfather who rode his bike to work and bought most of his clothes at Value Village, I do tend to believe generations to come may judge us harshly for a less-than-enthusiastic effort at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our lifetime . . . there's also some good info on the EPA's site . . .

yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html

That UCS link that Greg provides focuses just on actions around global warming, and so is a nice redirection back to the main topic of the thread as well as a very short and free read. Thanks for adding that, Greg. <br><br>The book I pointed to lists a few other actions you can take that are good for the environment but not related to greenhouse gases (e.g. try to choose organic foods when possible), but does mention the car/transportation, appliance, and home energy audit steps. I just figured I'd try to stump for a few other environmentally friendly consumer driven choices .