March 3, 2007
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE HONEY, THEN THEY CAME FOR THE SYRUP . . .
Stifling heat waves that kill city residents by the scores; fierce hurricanes that wipe cities off the map; melting ice pack that will ironically usher in a new ice age. All of these things I had no real significant problem with. Worrying about global warming was for Chicken Little Losers who drove hybrid cars and loved Ralph Nader before they hated him. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.
Hot on the heels of news that honey bees are disappearing from the southern United States comes news that sugary goodness may be vanishing from the north as well. According to today's New York Times, global warming may be interfering with the production of sticky, sweet, delicious maple syrup:
“You might be tempted to say, well that’s a bunch of baloney — global warming,” said Mr. Morse, drilling his first tap holes this season in mid-February, as snow hugged the maples and Vermont braced for a record snowfall. “But the way I feel, we get too much warm. How many winters are we going to go with Decembers turning into short-sleeve weather, before the maple trees say, ‘I don’t like it here any more?’ ”
There is no way to know for certain, but scientists are increasingly persuaded that human-caused global warming is changing climate conditions that affect sugaring.
While some farmers and other Vermonters suggest the recent warm years could be just a cyclical hiccup of nature or the result of El Niño, many maple researchers now say it seems more like a long-term trend. Since 1971, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, winter temperatures in the Northeast have increased by 2.8 degrees.
If a flinty Vermont maple sugar farmer is convinced, then I'm on board too. Save our breakfasts Al Gore! You're our only hope!
NB: One has to love the Times for including a description of a farmer contemplating global warming "as snow hugged the maples and Vermont braced for a record snowfall."
NB II: I rarely expect hard science from the Times, especially in a discussion of global warming, but I think this sentence beautifully characterizes the scientific tenor of the conversation regarding climate change:
There is no way to know for certain, but scientists are increasingly persuaded that human-caused global warming is changing climate conditions that affect sugaring.
After admitting that there is no way to know for certain (i.e. "we have no actual proof of this"), scientists are "increasingly persuaded"? Really? Could one design a more vague phrase? Not "scientists have found" or "it's been proven that". It's been a while since I learned the four steps of the scientific method, but apparently they've shortened them recently. The above sentence holds about as much weight with me as "Some guy at the hardware store said . . ." And notice how it's no longer referred to as "global warming", but as "human-caused global warming." Not just a distinction anymore, but a scientific and rhetorical fait accompli apparently.
Tagged:Posted by Lexiphane at March 3, 2007 8:58 AM
| Science & TechnologyTrackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lexiphane.com/mt/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1100