Wake up and smell the permafrost

The distance between “should” and “will” is vivdly evident in the cavalier dismissal of Alaska’s climate change sub-cabinet by Governor Sean Parnell. The readiness of self-styled “conservatives” to do anything but conserve would be astonishing if it weren’t so predictable.

Under climbing Arctic temperatures, huge swaths of land will become unrecognizable; ecosystems which developed to fit Alaska’s unique conditions will struggle to adapt to an environment changing too fast for evolution to keep up. Climatologists’ predictions of the impact of an increasingly hotter world have, if anything, underestimated the speed, severity, and complexity of the damage; to willfully ignore science because its findings are inconvenient or uncomfortable is to live in a dream world.

Conservative climate-change deniers in American politics need to visit the real world — a place where superstorms, droughts, heat waves and drastic ecological transformations are already underway. Governor Parnell needs to wake up and smell the permafrost.

Warren Senders

Medford, Mass.

How about we do not sell China the coal?

Not only would that save many salmon streams, but also help not sending the toxic fumes back. Wonder why fish processors will not buy a 200 pound halibut? It is the mercury. Anyways, the point is that this state government either does not believe mainstream science or manufacturer its own to fit its needs like the cruise ship science panel report.

Is that true, Guy?

If I showed up at any Alaskan fish processing plant today with a 200 lbs halibut would they refuse to accept it because of the fear of mercury? Can you back that statement up? First I've heard of it.

As far as the cruise ship science, I keep asking for someone to show me proof that the amount of copper emitted by the cruise ships in their effluent is causing substantive harm to salmon - that any effects aren't totally drowned out by the copper emitted from the antifouling paint off of the hulls of the salmon trollers they cruise past - and I have yet to see it.

You've seen enough of my comments here to know that I'm no shill for corporate interests, but it appears that there's plenty of made-up science on both sides to go around.

@lat

Google Dr. Carol Ann Woody salmon and copper and ask t,he canneries yourself or go to http://www.epi.alaska.gov/eh/fish/FishConsumptionCalc.pd to see the limits for consuming large halibut.

Lat the mention of "good or bad" science shows how little you do not understand the most basic science. If you need a value judgement,
try faith. There is only science and nonsense.

OK Guy

I went to the calculator. It said the following:

"Women who are or can become pregnant, nursing mothers and children 12 and under should follow these guidelines to limit their mercury intake. Everyone else can eat as much seafood as they like."

Did you read that last part? The calculator said nothing about 200 lbs halibut. It only said that women and children should limit their intake of halibut over 90 lbs to one meal per week.

Um, let's see, I don't think canneries are canning halibut at current prices, so I can't ask a cannery. I'm not making the claim that fish processors won't accept a big halibut, so I'm not the one that needs to back the claim up. Doesn't work that way.

Regarding Carol Woody, I did google her - looks like she's done some research on copper affects on salmon in their freshwater habitats, mostly around Bristol Bay. You understand that the cruise ships are operating in saltwater, right? At least until something goes terribly wrong for them, which could happen any day (again).

Just naming some scientist and calling that 'proof' doesn't cut it, Guy. Please provide proof that the copper being discharged by cruise ships (in salt water) is having a demonstrable negative affect on salmon. If Dr. Woody has research proving that, please provide it - I didn't see it.

Now what were you saying about "science and nonsense"?

personal communication

Copper can be highly toxic in the marine environment. It is not as toxic in salt as it is in freshwater (Eisler 2000) and its toxicity depends on its form and concentration. To illustrate its toxic effect, copper is used in "antifouling" paints on fishing boats and docks to prevent colonization by marine organisms - copper in the paint or treatment repels colonizing species such as barnacles etc. which makes marine boat & dock maintenance easier for humans.

This next sentence is a quote from the attached paper by Dr. Eisler, a well respected and published scientist for the USGS and an expert on metal toxicity.

"Copper is among the most toxic of the heavy metals in freshwater and marine biota (Schroeder et al. 1966; Betzer and Yevich 1975), and often accumulates and causes irreversible harm to some species at concentrations just above levels required for growth and reproduction (Hall et al. 1988)."

Sincerely,

Dr. Carol Ann Woody
www.pebblescience.org
www.fish4thefuture.com

And Lat, before you say it it does not follow that antifouling and natural sources excuse humans from adding to it when it becomes a choice between our planet and profit. Because your brothers hand was caught in the cookie jar does not excuse you.

Sigh...

And I repeat (yet again): Please provide proof that the copper being discharged by cruise ships (in salt water) is having a demonstrable negative affect on salmon.

Guy, we all know that copper is toxic to marine organism. No sh__ Sherlock. Lots of things are toxic in lots of settings at an adequate concentration. But are the concentrations of copper (and the form of copper - note what Eisler said) from cruise ships adequate to have a SUBSTANTIVE harmful effect on salmon in Southeast?

You have completely failed to answer that question, despite me asking it many times. Therefore I must conclude that you have no answer, and are making the issue up.

The proper response would be: "We don't know if there's a substantive effect, but we seek funding to have a qualified, independent party study the issue."

The improper response would be: "We don't have any solid proof of harm but we're going to push for regulations anyway without any justification."

You appear to be choosing the improper response. And since you're choosing the improper response in this case, it makes me question every one of your other positions as well, since I'm seeing the level of scientific rigor that's going into this one.

Lat

You sound like a cigarette lobbyist in the 1970's. You admit it is toxic, you admit that cruise ship add to the load, the mechanism for harm is defined, but because you do not see a plume of dead fish behind every cruise ship you use that as plausible deniability. Can you see a 20% reduction in egg to fry survive-ability? Can you see an increased rate of predication? Clue to you: we live in a probabilistic universe. Certainty does not exist but it is no excuse for not acting.

You are a very tiresome child.

one more time

first of all, I do not blame you for your lack of critical thinking skills. I realize that the science education programs in this country leave much to be desired.

Again, we live in a universe based on probabilities. There is no certainty beyond faith. Science cannot address your yes or no questions. Complex systems such as the climate and the environment are beyond any capacity to make predictions with any certainty. This is why we cannot predict the weather two days in advance beyond a probability, i.e "a 50% chance of rain."

What science does know with a high degree of certainty is that complex systems are very vulnerable to small changes in initial conditions. These small changes can result in huge changes to the eventual outcome. The so-called "butterfly effect." As much as I cannot state with any degree of certainty that cruise ship copper will have a direct impact on salmon, I can say the probability is not zero. Given that we do not understand how these complex systems work, do you really think it is wise to keep fiddling with the dials?

Your decaying leaf is not contributing to the overall rise in CO2, it is mearly releasing the CO2 it absorbed. It is the speed of release that is important. Burn the leaf, same amount of CO2 release, but much faster than the absorption rate, and you are contributing to a short term rise in the global CO2 level. Will it cause climate change? Science cannot say, it could be just the tipping point of no return. It is a non-zero probability.

All science can be defined as that which is falsifiable, unlike faith, So please instead of boring all with childish asks for certainty, ask yourself "where's the science that shows that it is doing no harm?" I believe my pile is larger than yours.