PeopleSystems and Sustainability: This Week in the Global Environment
Into the Frying Pan—My Opinions on Same
Global warming. Merely uttering the phrase in polite technical company is likely to kick of a melee of opinions and arguments. Add enough good bourbon or rum and you can probably generate a wacky brawl in which skinny laboratory scientists thrash ineffectually at each other.
The first argument comes over whether or not warming is “real”, or just an artifact of the available data. There is little argument about carbon dioxide these days. Clearly the atmospheric content has risen in recent decades. Temperature is more problematic to document, with issues ranging from urban heat island impacts to asymmetries in the historical record. But I believe the biosphere is warming, and that the best evidence isn’t recorded temperatures but the responses of biota, of which a number of cases have been thoroughly documented.
Next argument at our hypothetical dinner party is whether climate change is a “man-made” phenomenon, or a “natural” astronomic outcome. My opinion here is that is really doesn’t matter. Without a technical and engineering deus ex machina, we can’t “fix” global warming. Resources of time, money and expertise are insufficient to devise ways to “re-cool” the earth. We’d best learn to live with a warmer earth.
Finally, the arguments come down to “goodness” or “badness” of warm-earth outcomes. I think it is clear that, from a human perspective, the sea level rise accompanying gobal warming will displace millions of people, and have far-reaching impacts on human biogeography. But beyond that, it is my personal and professional opinion that a warmer earth is a better earth.
How can I say such a thing? Well, for a number of years I compiled published information regarding ecosystem changes in response to temperature increases. It turns out that primary production in general will be much higher in a warmer world, although most of the increase is due to carbon dioxide and not temperature per se. Higher primary production means greater secondary production. Along with these bioenergetic dynamics, biodiversity is higher where and when it is warmer. This has been demonstrated conclusively for marine microfauna over time, and by inter-site comparison in real time.
Not that some species—and biomes—won’t suffer under warmer conditions. Arctic polar bears are already experiencing detrimental effects on their knife-edge survival balance between needing ice for feeding on seals and using open water and coastal strand habitats. And high-altitude species dependent on cold condition will clearly decline in both mass and diversity. But in general, warmer conditions allow/cause increased speciation. Warmth also allows the species-rich tropics and subtropics to expand, increasing biomass by definition over larger areas than present. We can see these effects even in the case of Arctic bear communities. In general, there are three species in the Arctic regions—black bears, brown bears, and polar bears. As polar bears have struggled, it seems a fourth species is in the process of developing. Several specimens taken by hunters and researchers suggest a genetic mash-up of polar and brown bears (despite being in separate genera). If true, this means that the bear diversity of the Arctic will, at worst, remain steady even if polar bears were to be reduced or even driven to extinction. My guess is that polar bears will prove adaptable and become less ice-dependent over time, which would mean warmth increasing the diversity of Arctic bears by one.
Finally, we should ask if gobal warming is an unmitigated evil as far as human beings are concerned. The Washington Post for 29 April, under the byline of Anthony Faiola, reports that wines grown in England are increasing in quality and quantity. Climate conditions in English wine regions are now close to those of mainland Europe. Admittedly they are closest to the Champagne region, which has long been the red line for quality wine produced west of the Rhine River. But quality in Champagne has risen with temperature, and English wines no longer have to bear being a joke in the brotherhood of vintners. In fact, the Post story reports that at least one French house has invested in English vineland with the intent to plant and take direct advantage of climate change. A phenomenon that increases the quality and quantity of wine in the world can’t be all bad. And I think, in general, global warming is not “bad”. From a holistic perspective, considering multiple parameters and variables, global warming is a net “good” thing.
I expect these opinions to be tested by the hard realities of the ecosystem over the coming decades. To those of you who might be skeptical (or worse) regarding my opinion, I can only say—we’ll have our answers soon enough. Assuming that deus ex machina we discussed above fails to appear.
Note that the opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect positions or thoughts of AEHS. For an excellent and prescient speculative fiction story on this topic, I highly recommend a short story called “The Keys to December” by Roger Zelazny. It is widely available now both on its own and in compilations. It can be found at several sites on the ‘net, or purchased via Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Don’t forget to check out DAC Crossley’s wild west weblog at http://daccrossley.typepad.com/ .
PeopleSystems and Sustainability: This Week in the Global Environment
Whether the Weather
The annual Russian Victory Day celebrating the end of World War Two was a rainy washout in 2012. It was widely reported that this year’s festival during the second week of May was protected from the weather by the military. Ria Novosti (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130507/181002604.html) reported that 10 aircraft would be loaded with rain-preventive “reagents”, and that $4 million (US) would provide for two rain-free holidays in the city. English language Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/30-08-2012/122032-clouds_above_moscow-0/) quoted $64 million rubles, or $20 million US. Pravda also specified the “reagents” of weather control: dry ice, liquid nitrogen, and a powdered “cement” product, “M-500”.
By all reports, the weather control operation succeeded. The city had a fine, cloudless day of celebration. The Washington Post for 10 May reported matter-of-factly that the Moscow government contracted to seed clouds and prevent rain. Conspiracy-theory site InfoWars.Com (http://www.infowars.com/russia-attacks-clouds-to-clear-sky-for-city-day-celebration/) hints at darker, more extensive, reasons for and methods of controlling the weather and “seeding” clouds.
Primary reason for military weather control seems to be the ability to control precipitation and cloud cover over battlespace during active armed conflict. From an environmental perspective, a few days of weather control—which mostly involves moving precipitation some kilometers away from the seeded area—would seem to be of trivial importance. From a military perspective, it seems unlikely to be particularly helpful. For example, in Italy from mid-October 1943 to December 1944 heavy rain fell for 50 out of 73 days, contributing to the almost farcically difficult battle for Monte Cassino [1]. In a zero-sum world, the expense of controlling weather for a five month battle would be more than prohibitive. Let’s hope we have better uses for our resources of time, money, expertise, and “reagents” in a world where a changing climate brings weather into sharp focus.
We’ve got a special bonus blogroll this week. DAC Crossley, Emeritus Professor at the University of Georgia and my mentor for my PhD years, keeps a fascinating weekly site at http://daccrossley.typepad.com/ . Eclectic and delightful!
[1] Adams, Peter-Caddick. 2013. Monte Cassinao: Ten Armies in Hell. Oxford University Press.
PeopleSystems and Sustainability: This Week in the Global Environment
Snakehead Terroir [sic Terroir, as in the French sense “taste of the land”]
Years ago, I visited rural eastern China in the autumn. The fish courses at many banquets were delicious aquacultured Tilapia and crab. When I was there next, in the spring, the seafood was invariably delicious preparations of snakeheads with mushrooms and ham. On inquiry, I learned that we ate snakeheads in the spring because that’s when they were fished out of the aquaculture ponds so the Tilapia would survive the summer!
Now, of course, in North America at least, the name “snakehead” horrifies environmentalists, and conjures visions of equivalent exotic invasives like rabbits in Australia, zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, brown tree snakes on Guam, and European starlings around the world.
I think the potential for non-native species to cause ecological havoc is vastly overrated. Consider that when European botanists followed the first colonists to the Americas, much of the flora was “invasive” from the Old World, and this was only decades after Europeans first reached the New World! By far the majority of these plants (and many animals) were generally benign in their new habitat.
Presently, we are looking hard scientifically to ascertain and quantify negative impacts of non-natives such as the common reed (so spectacular in the tidal meadows near New York City) and the Burmese python in South Florida. These species and others may certainly have some ecological effects, but the fact that it requires hard science for us to determine them implies that they are not the destructive nightmares we feared.
In the case of snakeheads, it is interesting to note that they have been favored aquarium species for decades. Gunther Sterba, in his monumental 1962 Freshwater Fishes of the World (The Pet Library, Ltd), describing domesticated aquarium species for hobbyists in the temperate world, included several species of snakehead among the popular fishes.
In addition, we’ve become more innovative in our management of and relationships with some exotic species. The Washington Post of 30 April included a feature story under the byline of Patterson Clark reporting on monitoring and study of snakeheads in the Potomac River system. Clark reports that snakeheads are not having the damaging impacts in the system that many had feared when they were first noticed decades ago. It also devolves that snakeheads are much more common and abundant than once thought. They grow big—to a meter long and 20 kilograms in weight—and have become a favored sport fish. The Potomac thus adds a species to its recreational popularity, along with the largemouth bass, which is also not native to these waters.
The lesson here is self-evident. With few exceptions, species of animals and plants, native or not, are not one-dimensional. They have many attributes, and it is best not to tag them as simplistic “good” or “bad” ecosystem components. They should be understood objectively and managed in ways that reflect their multifaceted status in the environment. For me, a platter of steamed snakehead with mushrooms and ham puts a real polish on a formerly reviled “invasive” species.
