This is very distressing... the oceans should not be dying right off the coast of Oregon!

I think the question that a lot of people are going to ask is, "isn't there anything we can do about this?" Yes, we need to fix global warming -- but that's a very long-term project, with at least a 50-year lead time between us solving our behaviour, and the climate responding in kind and exhibiting a lessening of the greenhouse effect.

A lot of people, particularly fishermen and crabbers, might be wondering if there is anything more short-term that could be done, something that might have an effect within their lifetime...

Well a nice change to all the political mumbo-jumbo. India and China right now are the biggest culprits of global warming. Their economic growth over the last few decades (China) and the unprecedented growth in India in the last decade and for decades to come should be a warning of how rapidly global warming is going to become a problem. The combined population of just these two countries hold roughly 33% of the 6 billion globally. There is little awareness in these two nations of energy conservation, despite the fact that India still lacks adequate power and infrastructure but will be launching a $2000 car. Imagine if we spent the $100 Billion on solar and other renewable energy investment in India and China instead. Those markets will swallow anything that gives them adequate and cheap electricity and energy, especially India. Imagine if the $2000 car was built on fuel cell technology. Millions of Indians who ride two-wheelers, will convert to this car in the next few years. Imagine some of this $100B going to rebuilding their transportation infrastructure? But alas we are victims of our own superior "I want to save the world from terrorism and oppression" policies. Will Obama or Hillary get it? I think Hillary might...... Thanks Jeff for writing about this.

Come visit me... I have a really big opinion about this!!!

everyone knows that global warming is just a big scare tactic cooked up by them lib'ruls to help win elections...

When I saw the title, I thought you were referring to the Republicans in the Capitol.

This week the Republicans killed HB 3610, the only global warming legislation in this short session. HB 3610 is a simple bill to direct agencies to plan for global warming, and to clarify authority for DEQ to measure greenhouse gas emissions.

Clearly, the Republicans are stuck in the Dead Zone about global warming, while the ecosystems around us systematically collapse from the changes in climate.

Jeff, India is the owner of the world's largest carbon credits and if something drastic is not done in the nation, it is going to hell. Have you ever been to India? I visit at least twice a year. At least in this country with the exception of the LA basin you can atleast see the blue sky in most parts of North America. You fly over india airspace (and you can fly from north to south in literally 3 hours), all you see is smoke and smog. The oceans, rivers, the soil all heavily polluted. Most vehicles still run on leaded gas. Its a time bomb waiting to explode.

i have a really strong opinion about this!

Lots of data out there. Starting with: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=creditor_debtor

And of course there's this: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home $$ we could be using to address lots of issues.

I sure don't get why you are all so eager to believe this. It's almost like you want it to be true.

Same goes for human generated CO2 and global warming.

There's an abundance of science that seriously challenges the IPCC modelling and claims yet you seem to be absolutists on this issue. As if you have been gifted with special insight or knowledge.

On thid dead zone issue?

"That data suggests a link to the stronger, more persistent winds that are expected to accompany global warming, the researchers found."

Doesn't that beg question, If the persistent winds are "expected" [as is global warming], why would the dead zones already here be caused by human global warming and winds that haven't happened yet?

Where's the science that shows we already have a level of increased warming needed for this to happen?

Is the "debate over" on the dead zones?

"Warmer temperatures on land that would be expected with global warming would pull more air in from the cooler ocean, setting up the winds that create upwelling, and draw the dead zone closer to shore."

It's all about what is "expected" being responsible for what has already occured?

But then the journlist says: "Whether the trend is actually caused by global warming remains difficult to pinpoint."

Gee thanks.

But follows with a quote:

“We expect global warming to generally cause stronger and more persistent winds,” Barth said. “These winds contribute to the hypoxic events by increasing plankton production and holding low-oxygen water on the continental shelf for longer periods. “At this point, I’d be surprised if this trend towards hypoxic events didn’t continue.”

Isn't this more like convenient presumptions than it is science.

The warmers also expected more hurricanes.

The next year NO hurricanes made landfall.

If a theory cannot make predictions that come true is is invalid.

PS: Several prominate solar scientists are predicting a long cooling period, based on the theory that it is the sun, not CO2 driving climare.

The data is chilling--almost as frightening as the posts above.

Jim,

I don't think climate scientists necessarily think there will be more storms, just more intense storms.

Only one hurricane made landfall in the US mainland this year, Humberto, the fastest forming and intensifying one on record. It hit in east Texas but the winds were only 90 mph and it died as fast as it formed so the effect were relatively minor.

In the North Atlantic there were a total of 15 named storms (ave. 10.6), 6 hurricanes (ave. 5.9) and 2 major hurricanes (ave. 2). Both of the major storms were Category 5 and both made landfall (Dean in the Yucatan & Felix in Nicaragua), the first time that's ever been recorded. Also this is only the 4th time on record that 2 category 5 hurricanes formed in the same year (1960, 1961, 2006, 2007). Also Andrea formed on May 9th, well before the official start of the season (June 1-Nov. 30) and the last one, Olga, formed on December 11th.

So I would say 2007 was a bit above average except 2 Cat5 storms, both making landfall, is exceptional.

The sun has been monitored pretty intensively since the 1950's and there's been no noticeable trend in it's output that would explain climate change other than the normal cycles we already know about. It's easy to show the heat trapping effects of CO2 in the lab so why would you expect it to not have an effect in the atmosphere?

Dave

riverat, “I don't think climate scientists necessarily think there will be more storms, just more intense storms.”

So where is all of the devastation that they predicted?

“The sun has been monitored pretty intensively since the 1950's and there's been no noticeable trend in it's output that would explain climate change other than the normal cycles we already know about.”

How is that relevant to the theory that the sun is driving climate? There are other things beside “output” (which rally means direct radiation intensity. )

For instance, it has been known for over 200 years that there is a relationship between the price of wheat and sunspots. William Hershel reported that finding to the Royal Society in 1801. (Herschel, W., 1801, Philosophical Transactions, 91, 265.)

“It's easy to show the heat trapping effects of CO2 in the lab so why would you expect it to not have an effect in the atmosphere?”

Oh, it allegedly does, but it’s effect saturates at fairly low levels, so that we will hardly notice the effect of a future big increase. The major effect of major increases will be to increase food supply as plants just love CO2. Further, it does not explain the cycles of temperature while CO2 has been constant or steadily increasing. But those temperature cycles match the solar cyles pretty good. See: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate, Science, 254, 698-700, 1991). Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2006.1773 * Henrik Svensmark, Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges - A&G ● February 2007 ● Vol. 48

Jim,

"So where is all of the devastation that they predicted?"

I think the Yucatan and NE Nicaragua were pretty devastated. Dean caused $4.9 billion in damage in Jamaica, $270 million on Martinique and $800 million in Mexico. Felix has similar effects. The fact that they didn't hit the US or some large population center is not meaningful. The effects of climate change aren't like a light switch that instantly turns on. There are fits & starts and short term reversals but the overall trend is upward.

"How is that relevant to the theory that the sun is driving climate? There are other things beside “output” (which rally means direct radiation intensity. )"

What are these other things? The 11 year sunspot cycle is well known and it does have an effect on the total solar radiation but there's no discernible long term trend in the cycle. The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and precession in that orbit have an effect but those change slowly on the time scales were talking about. Tides in the earth from gravity probably produce some heat but that doesn't change much over time. So where is this extra energy coming from?

"Oh, it allegedly does, but it’s effect saturates at fairly low levels, so that we will hardly notice the effect of a future big increase."

The saturation of CO2 is a fallacious argument. The increased absorption is taking place high in the atmosphere where the CO2 is not saturated. The increased density in effect move the point where radiation escapes the Earth to a higher altitude where the atmosphere is thinner and colder so there is less radiation to escape.

Some plants like more CO2 some don't. The changes that are coming will certainly be disruptive to human activity by moving climate zones and affecting the ecosystem that all life on this planet including humans depend on.

Dave

http://www.oregonlive.com/editorials/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/editorial/1203126908255700.xml&coll=7

The O mentions the zones "last four months". Ok so they're not permanent.

Without any evidence the OSU report suggests that they are new and disturbing. "Marine ecologist Francis Chan surveyed all known records of oxygen levels on the Oregon continental shelf for the past 50 years, and found nothing remotely similar close to shore".

He surveyed all known records and found nothing?

Is that evidence?

The O then leaps with "It gets worse"

What get's worse? Their imagination?

"The team concluded that the phenomenon may be driven by intense winds, which in turn may be linked to global warming. No one knows for sure, but it doesn't appear likely that the dead zones are going to disappear."

Oh come on people. The zones only last four months, there's not adequate records, they aren't even sure the dead zones are driven by wind and they sure as heck don't know if Global warming is related. Let alone human caused global warming.

Yet the O editorial board concludes that it "doesn't appear likely that the dead zones are going to disappear"?

And, that it's frightening to contemplate.

They on one hand admit "the evidence isn't in" and " No one can say for certain that the dead zones are caused by global warming" , But then characterizes the report as "strong evidence"? And we can't wait until all the evidence is stacked up?

How about any evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

Chemical fertilizer is considered the prime cause of dead zones around the world. Other natural oceanographic phenomena can cause deoxygenation of parts of the water column. For example, enclosed bodies of water such as fjords or the Black Sea have shallow sills at their entrances causing water to be stagnant there for a long time. The eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and Northern Indian Ocean have lowered oxygen concentrations which are thought to be in regions where there is minimal circulation to replace the oxygen that is consumed.

Oregon Off the coast of Cape Perpetua, Oregon, there is also a dead zone with a 2006 reported size of 300 square miles.[2] This dead zone is unique in that it only exists during the summer, perhaps due to seasonal wind patterns. Gulf of Mexico Currently the most notorious dead zone is a 22,126 square kilometer (8,543 square mile) region in the Gulf of Mexico, where the Mississippi River dumps high-nutrient runoff from its vast drainage basin, which includes the heart of U.S. agribusiness, the Midwest, affecting important shrimp fishing grounds. This is equivalent to a dead zone the size of the State of New Jersey. A dead zone off the coast of Texas near Freeport was also discovered in July 2007.[3] Reversal of dead zones Dead zones are not irreversible The Black Sea dead zone, previously the largest dead zone in the world, largely disappeared between 1991 and 2001 after fertilizers became too costly to use following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of centrally planned economies in Eastern and Central Europe. Fishing has again become a major economic activity in the region.[4] While the Black Sea "cleanup" was largely unintentional and involved a drop in hard-to-control fertilizer usage, the U.N. has advocated other cleanups by reducing large industrial emissions.[4] From 1985-2000, the North Sea dead zone had nitrogen reduced by 37% when policy efforts by countries on the Rhine River reduced sewage and industrial emissions of nitrogen into the water. The chemical Aluminium sulfate can be used to reduce phosphates in water.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004182252_webdeadzone15m.html

Off the coast of Washington, the old numbers tell a different story, said University of Washington oceanographer Barbara Hickey. Zones of low-oxygen water have long been common in the summers. "Definitely in the '60s and '70s we saw numerous examples of extremely low oxygen," she said. For the past three years, Hickey and her colleagues have been collecting more detailed data from a research buoy off Kalaloch, on Washington's coast. But it's too early to say whether the dead zones are intensifying or spreading, Hickey said. Hickey also cautioned against drawing conclusions about the role of global warming in Oregon's dead zones. "It's dangerous to project out too soon." Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or [email protected]