# How will Global Warming Impact North Dakota?



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Global Warming,
Water
And
North Dakota

How will Global Warming Impact North Dakota?

A forum to explore answers:

March 2, 2006

7:00 - 9:00 pm

Doublewood Inn
Bismark, ND

Dr. Carter Johnson, SDSU
Vulnerability of Northern Prairie

Wetlands to Climate Change

Dr. Dennis Todey, SDSU
Climate Change Impacts to Agriculture

Including a video presentation "Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption in the West"

For more information about the forum, please contact Barb Price at the Dakota Resource Council at 701-224-8587or [email protected]

Land Tawney
National Wildlife Federation
Regional Representative (ID, MT, ND, SD)
240 N Higgins, Ste 2
Missoula, MT 59802
406-721-6705
406-370-3243 cell
406-721-6714 fax
[email protected]
www.nwf.org

"There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country!"
Theodore Roosevelt


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

I would love some today Dick :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

I'd like to make this meeting. LANDS just had a convention speaker that insisted gw is a farce. Of course he worked for a coal company. :beer:


----------



## Aythya (Oct 23, 2004)

I worked on a global climate modeling project aimed at evaluting impacts of 2X CO2 in the mid-90s and the results did not provide a very good picture for North Dakota. Dr. Carter Johnson had a grad student about that same time, Dr. Karen Poiani, who did some modeling on a large scale that examined the impact of global change on prairie wetlands. The evidence from that research also indicated significant negative changes to prairie wetlands.

Improvements in global circulation models and regional models since that time have greatly improved the ability to evaluate climate change. And while there are still some that discount global climate change the scientific evidence to date shows significant problems due to warming.

Should be a good forum but I will be out of town for work so will be forced to miss it. For those that do make it, ask Dr. Carter about the work on wetlands. Very interesting study.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

The global warning THEORY is a theory that makes sense. Unfortunately, in science, a lot of theories that make sense don't pan out when subjected to long term scientific scrutiny. It's tough to have accurate measurments of global temperature going back a meaningful period of time, and even the few relatively reliable ones we have are often contradictory and confusing. Global warming is for sure, at least some of it natural, maybe some human caused. The big questions are we humans contributing significantly to the natural global warming, having no affect on it, or causing the whole thing?? So I'm pretty open minded on it.

One thing for sure, I hope that we DON'T find out whether the theory is correct or not in my lifetime or even over the next 200 years, because anything "for sure" that we find out in that relatively short period of geological or biological time would be bad news and it might be too late to change! If we are still debating it in 200 years and we don't have the answer and it is still controversial, that will be good news!


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> It's tough to have accurate measurments of global temperature going back a meaningful period of time, and even the few relatively reliable ones we have are often contradictory and confusing.


Do you have any examples, because from what I have read and researched, this statement is untrue, based on carbon gas deposits in glaciers, rock strata and other environmental "record keepers" in our world.

I have read several scientific reviews, and studies, most notably a presentation at the National Wildlife Federation Convention this year that state this fact: "Over 900 studies since the 1990s have been conducted to study the history of Global Warming - *none* of them have ever pointed out anything contradictory to the discoveries reached in each of them - that the Earth is going through a warming climatic change spurred by human-based release of greenhouse gasses and destruction of natural ecosystems.

I would like to read more on what you stated, not looking for a debate, I guess, just to see where these purported contradictions are found. Thanks.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Oh sure - there's absolutely no question in anyones mind, even the naysayers, that the world is going through a definite warming trend. No one argues that. It's just the question 1)is the warming natural ? or 2)Is it a natural warming trend and are we humans simply adding to it ? 3) are human activities the cause of the whole thing and there's nothing natural about it? 
There has been heating and cooling cycles throughout the millenia. 
From all the reading and research I've done on it, I'm not totally convinced of the answer one way or another. I do firmly believe that there are thousands of good reasons to cut down on oil and coal and CO2 emissions, which is one of the many reasons I drive a compact truck, a Prius, and a bike! Global warming sure may be one of those reasons too, but I'm not 100% convinced yet. My own war cry is "massive global birth control!" Probably get more environmental and humanistic/sociological mileage out of that than anything else! 
But even trying to measure sea levels accurately is pretty tough, unless there are tremendous changes over a geological short period of time. For example I keep reading about that south Pacific Island (Vanutu) that is supposedly starting to flood, and have found from reading that this "flooding" is total nonsense, that keeps getting parrotted on and on in the press. No one has even been able to document ANY raising of sea levels there or anywhere else. Not yet, anyway. As far as the islanders getting prepared to move to Australia, like I recently read, that's a press story, too. 
I sometimes wonder if the people who for a lot of reasons don't want to have global warming accepted, aren't the ones behind manufacturing some of these tall tails of gloom and doom to make credible environmentalists look like a bunch of idiots when the truth eventually comes out. 
From spending my whole life in the scientific community I can attest that there are lots of fads and popular-at-the-time things that come up for a while, then quietly disappear when scientifically disproven. The initial theories make headlines, but are not newsworthy when they are disproven and fade. 
The press magnifies stuff way out of proportion - a classical example is the fen'fen heart damage thing - very very long story but now virtually all credible cardiologists (including the Mayo Clinic who originally "discovered" it) believe that it never happened at all, and if it did it was reversible by simply stopping the stuff. But how would you like to defend the fen fen company when everyone "knows" about the horrors it produced! Once something becomes common knowledge it often gets difficult or even impossible for the truth to emerge. 
I had read a few places where even simple "modern" weather data like temperature recording was even suspect, and my son who is a meteorologist confirms this. Methods of recording change, cities grow up around recording sites and warm them, but nobody agrees how much, unreliable guessed-at correction factors, etc. All kinds of other variables, too. When you are talking of changes of a fraction of a degree the argument can go either way. And its well known that while one area of the world heats, another may cool. Its been like that forever. Even something simple like temperature recording isn't an exact science and is surrounded by many variables. My son the meteorologist says GW is a scary theory and would be devastating if it pans out, but that it will take a lot of time and analysis to sort it all out. 
Right now it is popular for a lot of the scientific community to be aboard the global warming theory, but when a lot of equally extremely qualified scientists are on the other side with equally compelling arguments, the question is far from settled, even though it may be common knowlege with the press. 
I could spout off a bunch of references, for and against the theory of global warming. For a very readable and entertaining NOVEL, (read that fiction!) get a copy of Micheal Crichton' s "State of Fear" Be forewarned, though, that Micheal is 100% convinced that the GW theory is not only wrong, but a lot of environmental propoganda! I heard him on TV one night and my interest was piqued so got the book. For Crichton the plot is only "mediocre" and it gets a bit silly toward the end, but he does have a lot of facts and figures in it that do open the eyes of a guy like me that took the GW theory as fact beforehand. But ignore his obvious bias (ironically scientific and study bias he really bashes in his book!) and remember its a novel, but otherwise very enjoyable and enlightening, with lots of references (albeit probably biased references) attatched. I have a copy here you can have if you are ever in Bis. I was away and missed your presentation at the flytyers club. 
The theory of global warming scares the heck out of me, which is why I hope we don't find hard answers for a long long time because hard "yes" answers won't be what is best for the human race. I truly suspect that once we find out that it is gospel, it might be too late for humans to change. 
My favorite cartoon is a couple of aliens from outer space sitting in a garbage dump when one says to the other "Well, we sure know what happend to those stupid humans, but we still don't know what happened to the dinosoars!"


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

This is an interesting read.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks Longshot! A very interesting read, indeed. The more stuff I read on Global Warming, the pros and cons, the more confused I get! I'm not going to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and totally bunk the theory, nor am I going to accept it blindly, as I had been doing. Maybe if I get reincarnated about 20 times I'll know the correct answer! Till then I remain unconvinced one way or another. 
But I do know the PUBLISH OR PERISH MENTALITY that unfortunately goes on too often in the scientific community, despite peer review, etc. As I mentioned before, a lot of things in science tends to be faddish. When I see people of equal scientific qualifications with absolute opposing theories and explanations, all I can say is 'the jury is still out, one way or another!"
I still believe there's lots of reasons to reduce pollution and quit destroying the earth and reduce population growth! Global warming may or may not be one of them.


----------

