Science

Biospheres of the Rocky Mountains

/ bigdiff / Leave a comment

Biospheres are important ecological areas around the globe for protecting species diversity and for learning how to best sustain development ecologically, economically and socially. Science and solutions learned in each area are shared globally through the United Nations, and this is particularly important now that we face a global climate crisis. UNESCO currently recognizes three biospheres in the Rocky Mountain Region, and up to 2017, there were five more described below.

The Rocky Mountain Biosphere in Colorado roughly encompasses Rocky Mountain National Park and some of the Rocky Mountain Wilderness to the north. Some of the charismatic species in the biosphere are Bighorn Sheep, Elk, Mountain Lions, Pika and Snowshoe Hare. Scientists have studied species that have been wiped out of the area, like the Grizzly, Gray Wolf and Bison, as well as species that have moved in, like Moose. The exceptionally high altitudes define unique ecosystems of global importance.

The Crown of the Continent Biosphere in Montana includes Glacier National Park (see photo of author & son above). (Perhaps to de-emphasize the shrinking glacier problem, the Biosphere dropped the name “Glacier” in 2017). The biosphere is home to rare charismatic species like Grizzly Bears, Lynx and Wolverines. Over 100 years of scientific data on wildfires, snowpack, species populations, and more have been collected and shared from this park and its sister park Waterton Glacier in Canada. Like Rocky Mountain, the biospheres here cover the Continental Divide, which defines the direction of rivers across the US to the Atlantic & Pacific, but from here rivers also flow north to the Arctic, making these biospheres of particularly important for studying migrating species.

Yellowstone-Grand Teton Biosphere in Wyoming obviously includes Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. One of the most intact predator-prey-scavenger biospheres on earth, with large herds of Elk and Bison, Grizzly Bears, Cutthroat Trout and Bald Eagles, and unrestricted rivers, this is an exceptionally important global biosphere.

Unfortunately, in 2017 the Trump Administration canceled 5 other biospheres in the Rocky Mountain Region. Apparently, the Israelis were upset that Palestinians were allowed to participate in UNESCO and used the place name “Palestine” in the name of a joint heritage site, so the US ended over forty years of scientific cooperation and research sharing with the world and removed many US biospheres from the global program.

The programs canceled in 2017 included three in Colorado: Central Plains Biosphere in the northeast, Fraser Biosphere in central, and Niwot Ridge Biosphere in the north. The Central Plains was particularly valuable in the study of short grass prairie ecosystems. Fraser was important in studying the interaction of forests, rivers and climate. Niwot Ridge contributed important research into alpine tundra ecosystems, glaciers, high altitude plants and climate change.

In Montana, the Coram Biosphere, west of Glacier NP ended in 2017. Coram was important in the study of forest regeneration and forest management. And in Utah, the Desert Biosphere, near Great Basin also ended in 2017. Desert, begun by President Hoover, contributed to our understanding of scrublands and pasturelands in hot and dry areas.

I’ve traveled in, through or next to all five canceled Rocky Mountain biospheres in my electric car, and they’re also uniquely beautiful places. But biospheres aren’t primarily meant for tourists, they’re meant for nature and for scientists. While some research continues at many of these sites, the international scientific and policy management cooperation was cut off. Especially facing a global climate crisis, we need to be actively cooperating to find global solutions to our ecological threats. Also, it seems bizarre to remove our own natural scientific research areas from participation in international science, due to deep-rooted political feuds in the Mideast. I hope these irrational mistaken biosphere withdrawals can be reversed by the current or future administrations, so that the global learning can continue.

Biospheres of the Southwest

/ bigdiff / Leave a comment

This is a photo of a photo of a Texas Horned Lizard in the arid Chihuahuan Desert scrubland, from a roadside plaque near Las Cruces, New Mexico. The actual habitat is within the White Sands Missile Range and is off limits to the public. This UNESCO recognized special biosphere, Jornada—meaning day’s journey without water—, is open to scientific researchers from USDA, USFWS and NMSU, with limited school trips to the Chihuahuan Desert Nature Park in the southernmost corner. For many decades, the Department of Agriculture has been studying the climate here, gathering useful data about the fragile desert ecosystem. The Fish and Wildlife Service mostly focuses on the Bighorn Sheep and other species in the adjacent San Andres Mountains. New Mexico State University organizes research efforts and assists student scientists. 

While you can’t visit the Jornada biosphere or disturb the wildlife, these scientific research zones are extremely important for understanding global climate change and the ecosystems that support unique species. But the southwest region has two internationally recognized biospheres that you can visit: Big Bend and Big Thicket. Big Bend, like Jornada, is part of the Chihuahua Desert, and it also includes a biodiverse riverine ecosystem. Big Thicket is one of the most biodiverse places in the US, where the bayous, leafy forests, pine forests, plains and sand hills intersect and provide habitat for thousands of species. While these areas provide enjoyable excursions for Americans, they are also important beyond our borders. Scientists from all over the world actively support protecting and studying these areas to ensure the survival of species globally.

Biosphere 2

/ bigdiff / Leave a comment

From 1991 to 1993, eight people lived in this huge sealed greenhouse or giant terrarium in Arizona, growing their own food and attempting to live without outside intervention. Built at a cost of some $250 million, the complex includes the artificial ocean above, multiple tropical growing zones, industrial HVAC, and even a unique, massive ‘lung’ to equalize air pressure at different temperatures. Results were mixed, but there are important lessons to be learned.

Humans like to believe we can control our environment and that we have conquered nature. The truth is that we don’t completely understand nature, and when we try to control it, there are unintended consequences.

The most serious problem was a gradual reduction in oxygen, which threatened to kill the participants by around day 500 and required emergency intervention. Despite all the plants, overall, the system produced too much carbon dioxide. Also, the participants complained of constant hunger, unable to eat enough calories per day, which made it difficult to complete their extensive daily chores. Many plants and pollinators did not survive, but stowaways like cockroaches thrived. Still, they survived for two full years. Others later managed shorter stints, but bickering and mismanagement soon ended fully sealed living experiments.

From 1995 to 2003, Columbia University managed the site and completed groundbreaking research here scientifically proving up to 90% declines in oceanic coral due to artificially high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, the coral later died when the site went back on the market, although there are plans to try to reintroduce it. Today the site is run by Arizona State University, which offers both a general self-guided tour and specialized guided tours, in addition to hosting students and researchers. When fully funded, the semi-tropical desert forests are very well controlled and measured, enabling many scientific experiments on micro ecosystems to be carried out under laboratory conditions. Tracers can be added to water and carbon dioxide, so researchers can figure out exactly what plants are doing in different conditions. Unfortunately, the whole complex is extremely energy intensive, and it is run on diesel and natural gas, which both contribute carbon pollution to exacerbate the climate crisis.

Some believe that technology will allow us to adapt to the worst effects of climate change. The truth is that we need to spend our time, energy and money trying to protect Biosphere 1 (Earth) from carbon pollution. This massive, extremely expensive, carefully engineered and scientifically researched project could barely take care of eight people for two years. That’s neither an efficient nor effective use of resources, but it quickly illustrates how difficult it is to scale environmental technologies to the point that they are practical. How big of a terrarium would we need to feed eight billion people? Far better to take care of the Earth, while we still have hope.

Kings Canyon National Park

/ bigdiff / 2 Comments

John Muir loved the view from Panoramic Point above, as did Stephen Mather, the first national parks director. I visited the park years ago with my family, and the scenery was stunning. But the view was less inspiring when I visited this summer. Smoke from a wildfire shrouds the view of Kings Canyon in the distance. You can hardly see the lake in the photo above. Behind me stand acres of dead trees burned in the huge wildfires of the past few years, and the main road into the heart of Kings Canyon wilderness was still closed this summer due to fire damage. If Muir & Mather visited now, they would be as heartbroken as I.

Experts employed at this California park have long argued influentially in favor of more fires, have implemented prescribed burns in forests across the west, and they chose to let the wildfire above burn itself out. Their dogma blamed past firefighters for causing today’s wildfires. Even though park rangers are not allowed to smoke, leave campfires unattended, burn out shelters in trees, or use fire to hunt, this park’s scientists used to argue that we needed those ‘Native American burn practices’ for forest health, even though these forests evolved without humans. Too many forest rangers and climate change deniers use this illogical nonsense to ignore and dismiss the danger of carbon. 

This year 46 million acres of wilderness forests burned in Canada in roadless wilderness areas consistently ignored by firefighters in the past. How could these wildfires have been caused by past ‘fire suppression’? The dogma is wrong. After the unprecedented recent wildfires, park scientists here have belatedly begun to recognize the predominant threat of climate change, far worse than any prior suppression errors. 

When Muir & Mather described the area, they did not remark on seeing any large areas of burned trees, made no note about any fires that regularly demolish many thousands or even a million acres every few years, and they did not write about the supposed benefits of Native Americans regularly setting fires while pelt hunting. Instead, they were inspired by the beauty of huge swaths of living forests and pledged to protect them forever. Scheduled fires, tree density limits, species removal, reseeding, and other human intervention are not what Stephen Mather had in mind when he called such places ‘untrammeled wilderness’. Muir would have harsh words against the ~$250 million annual timber sales in the forests he and Teddy Roosevelt protected. 

If Muir & Mather could return, they would notice that the whole forested range has changed dramatically, the air and ground are drier, the temperature is unseasonably hot, the rivers and creeks are dry, and that the snow is gone from the mountaintops. They would be dismayed by the decline of once abundant wildlife. Muir, who never rode in cars, preferring horses or hiking, would see the lines of buses, RVs and cars burning gasoline, and he would shout ‘STOP’!

In the future, doubtless people will be horrified to learn that in the face of climate change fueled wildfires, we chose to burn our remaining forests ourselves, releasing even more carbon into the air. It’s like using leeches to cure people, even though they make the patient weaker. Or like destroying the village to save it.

Forest science must face the future, not misrepresent the past. We need national policies to limit carbon pollution, not taxpayer-funded ‘prescribed burns’ that increase carbon pollution. If new conditions require fire breaks or dead trees need to be removed, then why can’t trees be cut down and buried with sand, instead of being burned? If certain types of trees will no longer survive in the future hotter climate, then we shouldn’t be paying people to plant seedlings for more of the same trees in the same places that burned down two years ago. We need to charge visitors in gas-burning vehicles a carbon surcharge to encourage people to switch to electric vehicles (and to mitigate some of the damage they do). 

We ended wilderness. Our carbon pollution is trammeling every species on earth. We have precious little time remaining to figure out how to save species before they go extinct forever.

“Without wilderness, we will eventually lose the capacity to understand America.
Our drive, our ruggedness, our unquenchable optimism and zeal and elan
go back to the challenges of the untrammeled wilderness.”

Harvey Broome, founder of the Wilderness Society

Monticello

/ bigdiff / 4 Comments

Jefferson’s entryway is like a science museum. The wind vane connects to a display on the ceiling outside, the clock connects to a series of weights that display the day of the week. The antlers on the wall show American megafauna, and the Native American artifacts represent various tribes. There’s a concave mirror which reflects your image upside down, and there are various maps, as one would expect from the sponsor of Lewis & Clark’s expedition. The rest of the house also includes various gadgets and experimental devices, so he apparently enjoyed being seen as a wizard.

To call the house symmetrical is an understatement. The other side also has columns, well, just look at the back of a nickel. There are long wing-like patios connecting outbuildings, a tunnel running the transverse length underneath, and a winding garden path. Monticello means ‘little hill’ in Italian, but the views are impressive. Jefferson used to peer down through his telescope at the University of Virginia, which he also designed and founded and which is also part of this World Heritage site.

Jefferson is unpopular today, due to his treatment of slaves, and today’s Monticello does an excellent job of describing the hard life of the hundreds of enslaved people who worked here. The house tour includes the slave tour, and the docents are knowledgeable and answer a whole range of difficult questions. DNA testing revealed many secrets of Jefferson’s relationship with Sally Hemings—a child when it began—, and much more research has been done to unearth fascinating and desperate stories of slavery and a few of liberation. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, and he had argued against it as a younger man. Some of his friends and colleagues freed their slaves and urged Jefferson to do the same, but with only a few exceptions, such as his own biracial children, he refused even in his will.

It is not wise to condemn the man entirely, however. If you believe that all men are created equal, that we all deserve freedom of religion without government interference, and many other American ideals, then you agree with Jefferson, who enshrined those ideals in our nation’s founding. We should hate the man for his racism and for perpetuating slavery instead of helping end it, but we should also admire his genius, as an architect, a revolutionary, and a renaissance man. Jefferson knew that the most memorable characters of the ancient classical ages all had tragic flaws that often destroyed them in the end, but that’s why we remember their stories—both good and evil—, to learn from them.

Minuteman Missile National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 2 Comments

There are three sites along the interstate: a visitor center, a missile silo and a launch control facility for multiple silos. Apparently the whole area was like a prairie dog town of silos. For decades, all the sites were manned and secured continuously, so that we could annihilate our enemies many times over, as they could to us. The cost of this ludicrous overkill capacity was staggering.

But what interests me most is the claim made in Life magazine above that only 3% would die. Actually, we’d be lucky if 3% survived. How could we have been so wrong? We listened to the wrong scientists. Physicists designed the nuclear bomb, so they had the full attention of the military. They analyzed the problem by describing payload, flash of light, shockwave and fallout. Only when someone asked whether nuclear war would blot out the sun for years did we realize that the physicists completely underestimated the risk to life on earth. Why? Because the study of life on earth isn’t physicists’ job. That’s the job of biologists. We were listening to the wrong scientists.

Our public understanding of the climate crisis is very similar. We’re still not listening to the right scientists. Whenever I ask a physics expert about global warming, I always get the same answer: ”the planet will be fine”. They mean that it will continue spinning. Geologists answer that temperatures vary naturally within large ranges over eons. Meteorologists say that it won’t tell you if you need to bring an umbrella today. Again we are listening to the wrong scientists.

Biologists study life on earth, so they will tell you that the climate crisis will extinguish most forms of life on earth, either directly, by changing their environment more quickly than they can adapt, or indirectly, by collapsing some critical part of the ecological networks they rely on for food, reproduction, or any other part of their existence. These are the scientists who study whether life on earth will survive, and they’re the ones who are telling us that the risks are too great to continue carbon pollution. As living, supposedly sentient beings on this planet, we naturally should be interested in the survival of life here. We need to listen to the right scientists who know and are telling us what we need to do to avert the coming catastrophe.

Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site

/ bigdiff / 4 Comments

[Update: after a few months of complaining to the National Park Service website, I now see that there are alerts explaining that the Carver museum is open by appointment and that the Oaks (above) is being rehabilitated. I’m leaving my rant, since that was my experience.].

Once was bad enough. Twice in a row is suspicious. Like the airmen site, the NPS app says the visitor center and Carver museum is open, but it’s not. Only by calling the contact number was I able to find out that it’s closed indefinitely due to Covid. No brochures, no map of the grounds or Carver’s nutrition tour, no sign of explanation, and no restrooms.

Other sites in Alabama are open. Horseshoe Bend nearby had several rangers in modern offices working on computers inside a huge well-landscaped and maintained park with a huge screen showing a 17 minute movie open seven days a week.

But Tuskegee gets nothing. The surrounding town desperately needs jobs, but nope, the park service apparently prioritizes its military sites over its educational and African American sites. That’s not how I expect my tax dollars to be used.

When Booker T. Washington hired people like George Washington Carver to teach and help improve the lives of African Americans, I’m sure he could not have imagined that his university would have been used by the US government to run a 40 year ”experiment” on black men, neither treating nor disclosing their diagnosis of syphilis. (See ”Miss Evers’ Boys” also set in Tuskegee & starring Laurence Fishburne). I’m sure he would have been shocked also to see the economic condition of the town outside the walls of his university. And I think he would have been upset to learn that his house (above), built with help from students and faculty, would be neglected while other similar facilities are fully funded.

Manhattan Project National Historical Park

/ bigdiff / 2 Comments

This is the third park unit right near Los Alamos, the others being the last two visits at Bandelier and Valles Caldera. There are Los Alamos National Labs units all around the area, and I was even stopped at a security checkpoint when Tesla’s navigation misdirected me (not the first time). I stayed in the neighboring town of Española, and there’s a Native American community right next door too. I got a bit of culture shock again seeing how different lives are between communities that are so close to each other physically.

Los Alamos is very strange. First, according to a local, most of the science workers are introverts and the other workers spend the weekends in Santa Fe nearby. So the town has all these big shopping plazas with a variety of (often Asian) restaurants, but they’re all virtually empty on weekends. The place is beautifully landscaped with flowering trees, manicured lawns, pristine sidewalks and a lovely park next to the visitor centers. If it weren’t so American, I would suspect it of being a Potemkin village. There are actually two small visitor centers practically right next door to each other, one for the park service and one for the town, so I visited both. They both recommended the exact same attractions in the same helpful and enthusiastic, smiling way with almost identical maps.

Also strangely, although it was atomic scientists who invented the atomic clock as a way to standardize time across all different clocks, the Bradbury Science Museum mobile website ironically doesn’t display its hours of operation (they said they would fix that). They have an incredible amount of information, but they won’t tell visitors when they’re open. Now that my trip is over, I can see the hours on my desktop computer: Tues-Sat 10am to 5pm and Sun 1 to 5pm. And while the museum had an exhibit on wildfires and an exhibit on climate change, they almost seemed to be avoiding making a connection between the two. The climate exhibit was all about Arctic research, implying that climate change was going on there, but the wildfire exhibit was about fire safety, implying that fires were simply natural and avoidable events. As I write this, the Cerro Pelado fire is six miles from the Lab and is over 20,000 acres, so they might want to reprioritize how they assess the threat of climate change.

And finally, I’m going to break my own rule and add a second picture. Dr Oppenheimer and several of the other top scientists lived in converted scouts’ cabins after the government confiscated an elite boys camp to build nuclear weapons. In his neighbor’s cabin, next to the kitchen, is a realistic display of a miniature version created in the 1980’s: the scariest thing I’ve seen besides the climate crisis, a nuclear bomb designed to be carried in a backpack.