global warming is real (the Minnesota edition)
What scientists have to say on the matter is deeply complex. Many people have no patience or interest in hearing the details. So here's the shorter, "Farmer John" version of the narrative.
Arbor Day Foundation: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in getting trees to grow? The Arbor Day Foundation shows this U.S. map with different graphics depicting the plant hardiness zones in 1990 and 2006. This graphic on the right shows how the zone borders have changed during those 16 years.
These zones are meant to indicate winter temperatures which affect plant survival. Notice how all of the zones have expanded northwards, increasing the zone number for about half of the U.S. territory. A few pockets have increased by two zone numbers, while a few southwest areas actually decreased their zone number. (I wonder if it has anything to do with these desert areas losing their rivers and lakes as California siphons the remaining drinkable water from these regions?)
Animal Shelters: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in the welfare of domesticated pets in our cities? Animal shelters across the nation have seen a rise in animal counts in recent years, especially cats. One theory is that global warming has extended the animal breeding season, resulting in this growth spurt as cats breed 3 times per year instead of only 2 times. One long time Minnesota shelter employee has noted that "cat season" (when the most cats and kittens are surrendered to shelters) used to peak in June or July but now lasts into October.
Saint Paul Winter Carnival: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in hosting a fun winter carnival for more than a century? I've said before that every winter that I've been in Minnesota has been milder than the one before. A few years ago, I heard on the radio that planners had to move the annual winter carnival to late-January because there was no longer enough cold weather to keep the ice safe in early February. (It has been held as late as March, many decades ago. See the buttons for 1886 and 1946 for a date comparison.) When is ice not "safe"? When it's used to build ice castles. Public safety is definitely an issue when your big tourist attraction is melting above your customers' heads.
This season, it has actually rained (liquid water, truly) in both December and January! I don't remember that happening previously in the 12 winters that I've been here. This winter is again milder than the ones that came before.
Polar Explorer: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe a Minnesotan who has spent his life exploring the arctic? Sure, the guy has become a vocal global warming proponent, but he has interesting anecdotes to share. Like the story of Inuit ice fishers falling into ice cracks in areas that had been safe for decades. Like the story of hungry polar bears coming into villages looking for food. These incidents happened a lot farther north than Minnesota, but they are still useful accounts that detail how life is changing because of planetary warming.
Department Of Natural Resources: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe Minnesotans who are responsible for keeping our public lands economically valuable and personally enjoyable? One of their essays says that Lake Superior has been changing since the 1970s. It has seen declining ice cover and increasing summer surface temperature. Researchers say that the loss of ice cover extends the summer seasons, resulting in ever greater temperature increases. They're now studying the long term effects of these changes. One effect (text with auto-play audio) is the inability of the warmer water to contain as much dissolved oxygen. As temperature and oxygen changes, the species of fish that can live in that water will also change.
University of Minnesota (Morris) and University of Wisconsin (Madison): If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in watching trees grow to add data to their spreadsheets? Professors from these universities measured growth rates of nearly a thousand trees (from age 5 to age 76) in the area. Comparing tree growth with air chemistry, they were able to see as much as 50% increased growth rate of aspens (but not oak or pine) resulting from increased carbon dioxide in the air. That's air chemistry, not air temperature, but it's another sign that our environment is actively responding to greenhouse gas. The composition of our forests will change.
In conclusion: Science is open-minded, but it is not democratic. We don't vote on raw data. Theories must be continuously examined as new data arrives. Falsification of data is a high crime, and human error is still quite common. No flawed study will change the observation (observation, remember, not theory) that glaciers worldwide are melting, oceans worldwide are rising, and greenhouse gas levels are rising. All three of these realities are bad for our global civilization. Here are nice photos of two icebergs that broke off of Antarctica and are now floating past Australia. The square one is said to be bigger than Hong Kong. Observations don't need to be attributed to causes; observations merely are. One does not have to understand the science behind the theory to appreciate the urgency suggested by the observations.
Separate from observation, however, is our human response. Our response is a result of our forecasting (science), choice (ethics), and enforcement (politics). These three fields of endeavor can be flawed, opinionated, and manipulated. I think it better, considering the irrefutable observations noted above, to err on the side of caution. There's a lot at stake.
Arbor Day Foundation: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in getting trees to grow? The Arbor Day Foundation shows this U.S. map with different graphics depicting the plant hardiness zones in 1990 and 2006. This graphic on the right shows how the zone borders have changed during those 16 years.
These zones are meant to indicate winter temperatures which affect plant survival. Notice how all of the zones have expanded northwards, increasing the zone number for about half of the U.S. territory. A few pockets have increased by two zone numbers, while a few southwest areas actually decreased their zone number. (I wonder if it has anything to do with these desert areas losing their rivers and lakes as California siphons the remaining drinkable water from these regions?)
Animal Shelters: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in the welfare of domesticated pets in our cities? Animal shelters across the nation have seen a rise in animal counts in recent years, especially cats. One theory is that global warming has extended the animal breeding season, resulting in this growth spurt as cats breed 3 times per year instead of only 2 times. One long time Minnesota shelter employee has noted that "cat season" (when the most cats and kittens are surrendered to shelters) used to peak in June or July but now lasts into October.
Saint Paul Winter Carnival: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in hosting a fun winter carnival for more than a century? I've said before that every winter that I've been in Minnesota has been milder than the one before. A few years ago, I heard on the radio that planners had to move the annual winter carnival to late-January because there was no longer enough cold weather to keep the ice safe in early February. (It has been held as late as March, many decades ago. See the buttons for 1886 and 1946 for a date comparison.) When is ice not "safe"? When it's used to build ice castles. Public safety is definitely an issue when your big tourist attraction is melting above your customers' heads.
This season, it has actually rained (liquid water, truly) in both December and January! I don't remember that happening previously in the 12 winters that I've been here. This winter is again milder than the ones that came before.
Polar Explorer: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe a Minnesotan who has spent his life exploring the arctic? Sure, the guy has become a vocal global warming proponent, but he has interesting anecdotes to share. Like the story of Inuit ice fishers falling into ice cracks in areas that had been safe for decades. Like the story of hungry polar bears coming into villages looking for food. These incidents happened a lot farther north than Minnesota, but they are still useful accounts that detail how life is changing because of planetary warming.
Department Of Natural Resources: If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe Minnesotans who are responsible for keeping our public lands economically valuable and personally enjoyable? One of their essays says that Lake Superior has been changing since the 1970s. It has seen declining ice cover and increasing summer surface temperature. Researchers say that the loss of ice cover extends the summer seasons, resulting in ever greater temperature increases. They're now studying the long term effects of these changes. One effect (text with auto-play audio) is the inability of the warmer water to contain as much dissolved oxygen. As temperature and oxygen changes, the species of fish that can live in that water will also change.
University of Minnesota (Morris) and University of Wisconsin (Madison): If you won't believe global scientists, then will you believe the people whose only interest is in watching trees grow to add data to their spreadsheets? Professors from these universities measured growth rates of nearly a thousand trees (from age 5 to age 76) in the area. Comparing tree growth with air chemistry, they were able to see as much as 50% increased growth rate of aspens (but not oak or pine) resulting from increased carbon dioxide in the air. That's air chemistry, not air temperature, but it's another sign that our environment is actively responding to greenhouse gas. The composition of our forests will change.
In conclusion: Science is open-minded, but it is not democratic. We don't vote on raw data. Theories must be continuously examined as new data arrives. Falsification of data is a high crime, and human error is still quite common. No flawed study will change the observation (observation, remember, not theory) that glaciers worldwide are melting, oceans worldwide are rising, and greenhouse gas levels are rising. All three of these realities are bad for our global civilization. Here are nice photos of two icebergs that broke off of Antarctica and are now floating past Australia. The square one is said to be bigger than Hong Kong. Observations don't need to be attributed to causes; observations merely are. One does not have to understand the science behind the theory to appreciate the urgency suggested by the observations.
Separate from observation, however, is our human response. Our response is a result of our forecasting (science), choice (ethics), and enforcement (politics). These three fields of endeavor can be flawed, opinionated, and manipulated. I think it better, considering the irrefutable observations noted above, to err on the side of caution. There's a lot at stake.