another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. Derek Day Rockyday

    Posts: 567
    Olympia
    Ratings: +146 / 0
    WPEB,

    I still don't think you understand what kind of peer review we are talking about. That last link was a self published report. First, they chose who reviewed it. Peer review is most often anonymous, and not solicited by the authors, but the publishers. We also don't know if those who reviewed the piece were relavant to the subject. Second, anyone can publish anything they want, given enough resources. The trick is getting it published by a reputable journal--not something anyone can do.
  2. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Merely? There was obviously an implication there. Hey, if Al Gore didn't fly around in his personal jet and live in a giant mansion I might actually think he cared about the environment... Leave what you think about vice presidents for a relevant debate.

    Obviously humans are hurting the environment, I never argued they weren't. I just don't think that the rise in temperature can be attributed to human CO2 production.
  3. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Thanks, but if you'll do a quick lookup of the reviewers you'll notice that they are highly relevant to the subject. Paleoclimatologists, climatologists, meteorologists, solar physicists, etc. People, experts in the discipline, who have far more insight into the goings on climate change than most. They are in the thick of things. Did you even read any of the assessment? How about the references? If you don't believe them, how about the 19,000 other scientists who have signed the global warming petition? All of them can't be corrupt can they?
    Here is a link to find out more about this petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

    You can also find a link to this from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Scroll to the bottom to find a peer reviewed research paper. Try to look at the information.

    BTW, the fraser institute assessment I posted had far more reviewers than a typical peer reviewed study, which is normally two or three actual reviewers.
  4. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,494
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +792 / 0
    There is nothing in the petition you cite that restricts signatories to scientists. I suspect that few of the 19,000 are.

    The 'review' of the 'assessment' of the Fraser Institute doesn't qualify as peer review in any sense by which the term is used in its role in scientific publication.

    D
  5. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Right here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf

    That is where it would have taken you had you clicked on the button "Click here to sign a mail-in copy of this petition. It cannot be signed by Internet." Not only are they all scientists, but you have to be approved before you are considered part of the petition.

    No, your right. But do you know how the peer review process works? Is it really anything more than a title? Of course the standards change from journal to journal, but when a journal receives applications roughly 60% are rejected outright, no review. This has little to do with content and more to do with with time constraints, and in this case the editors have the power. Next, a few reviewers are chosen to look over the paper. Usually the number is 2-3 reviewers, called referees. In some journals, an open review may occur with up to 20 participants, but the majority have never read the proposed material. In many of the more popular subjects, such as global warming, finding an available expert in the particular field is difficult. Often times, enthusiasm for these reviews is low, though the referee may be interested in the topic.

    Here is what a few articles on Nature.com, ironically a peer reviewed journal, has to say about the review process:

    "Whether there is any such thing as a paper so bad that it cannot be published in any peer reviewed journal is debatable. Nevertheless, scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth."

    "How long is the interval from submission to publication, and how much of this is attributable to peer review? (This is difficult to quantify for papers that are rejected from one journal and eventually published elsewhere.) Publication delays are of course frustrating to individual authors competing for recognition, but in the race for priority one author’s loss is another’s gain. More important is the aggregate delay in the dissemination of new knowledge, which represents a cost to the scientific community and general public. It might be interesting to estimate the monetary value of this delay: if new knowledge represents the return on public investment in research, what is the cost of delaying the realization of this return?"

    "How much time do referees expend on peer review? Although referees may derive benefits from reviewing, it still represents time taken away from other activities (research, teaching and so forth) that they would have otherwise prioritized. Referees are normally unpaid but presumably their time has some monetary value, as reflected in their salaries."

    I could go on, but I think you get the point. Several of these come from former editors of peer reviewed journals, so they know the process well. So are all peer reviewed journals created equal? No, they are not, but can you make the judgment call?
    Being published in a peer reviewed journal may sound prestigious, but it is far from making anything of the highest quality. Doesn't sound like its all its cracked up to be, does it?

    Which brings us back down to the actual science.
  6. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,494
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +792 / 0
    I read that. Here is what they say of their signatories: "This includes many of those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, and related disciplines." I stand by my former statement that there is nothing here that restricts this to scientists, in the sense that the word generally is adopted in the scientific community.


    As the former editor of a fairly prominent scientific journal and presently serving on the Editorial Board of a few more, I know how the peer review process works quite well, thank you.

    D
  7. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,138
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,228 / 0
    Don't bother trying to convince ~Phil with facts - plainly his mind is already made up.

    Fortunately, opinions don't matter as the question of human involvement in global warming isn't being put to a popular vote.

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

    K
  8. Kevin J. Burnham Active Member

    Posts: 2,148
    Auburn,Wa.
    Ratings: +141 / 0
    Bitchin !! Only 2 more days and this friggin post will be a week long !! Boys lets keep it going !!!
  9. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Was what I said out of line? Do peer reviewed journals assure a high standard of work? Was the brief process I explained wrong? I believe that peer reviewed journals can be very dangerous as more people are apt to blindly follow them.

    Not all scientists are as quick to jump on the bandwagon.

    DAILYTECH SURVEY:
    LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS
    ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY;
    COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED
    CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING
    VIEWPOINTS

    Michael Asher
    August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a
    survey of research papers on climate change.
    Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI
    Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she
    found a majority supported the "consensus view,"
    defined as humans were having at least
    some_effect_ on_global_climate_change.
    NOTE: "Climate change" but not "Global warming"

    Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as
    some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its
    conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte
    recently updated this research. Using the same
    database and search terms as Oreskes, he
    examined all papers published from 2004 to
    February 2007. The results have been submitted
    to the journal Energy and Environment, of which
    DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.
    The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%)
    gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If
    one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the
    consensus without explicit statement), the figure
    rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%)
    reject the consensus outright, the largest category
    (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept
    or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

    The figures are even more shocking when one
    remembers the watered-down definition of
    consensus here. Not only does it not require
    supporting that man is the "primary" cause of
    warming, but it doesn't require any belief or
    support for "catastrophic" global warming. In
    fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to
    February 2007), only a single one makes any
    reference to climate change leading to
    catastrophic results.

    These changing viewpoints represent the advances
    in climate science over the past decade. While
    today we are even more certain the earth
    is warming, we are less certain about the root
    causes. More importantly, research has shown us
    that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of
    warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for
    mankind or the planet itself.

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation
    IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which
    gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an
    impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC
    represent a consensus view of world scientists?
    Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists"
    involved in the report, the actual text is written by a
    much smaller number of "lead authors."

    The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" --
    the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is
    written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and
    approved, word-by-word, by political representatives
    from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual
    report chapters -- the only text actually written by
    scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with
    the summary, which is typically published months
    before the actual report itself.

    By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database
    covers 8,700 journals and publications, including
    every leading scientific journal in the world.

    I am fairly certain that this entire post you have made can better apply to the global warming side.
    Why are we so quick to jump to this conclusion? Where is the actual evidence beyond a slight correlation?

    The greenhouse effect has been denounced as a bad thing for so long now. The greenhouse effect has been occurring since this planet began, and without it, life as we know it would cease to exist.

    Renowned climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. has used IPCC’s estimates of climate forcing to calculate the contribution of CO2 to recent climate change. Pielke makes very conservative (worst-case) assumptions in considering the impacts of greenhouse gases, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and solar radiation. This analysis ignores land use changes, which have been demonstrated to affect climate in a significant way, and cosmic rays, which affect cloud cover and thus can lead to significant climate changes.
    Pielke’s estimate is that CO2 is responsible for 28% (at most) of the human-caused changes. If natural variations do occur (and it’s very hard to argue that they do not) then this value decreases. But even if one assumes that the entire 0.6 deg C increase since 1900 is due to human effects, Pielke’s estimate would suggest a CO2 contribution of only 0.17 deg C.

    I could tell you that ground temperature stations and weather balloons are very inefficient forms of measuring global temperatures, and that weather satellites in conjunction with other sources have only shown a rise in temperature of around 0.6 degrees celsius in the past 100 years, which is fairly normal during an interglacial period. You will pass it off as mumblings of a neocon.

    I could tell you that if greenhouse gas was the culprit of the rise in temperatures, then the temperature of the troposphere would be increasing at twice the rate of ground temperatures. It is not, in fact it is not increasing at all, but you don't care about that do you?

    I could tell you in 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.
    Or that President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.
    Yeah you can say CSE has had some funding from Exxon, but does really skew the results that much? If Exxon was really smart it would have jumped on the global warming bandwagon like other giant companies have, as there is a huge profit to be made in that. Instead, they can now be found "paying off" scientists. Now by no means do I think Exxon is a great company, but come on guys.

    I could say that CO2 is one of the least efficient greenhouse gas and only accounts for less than 1/20 of a percent of the makeup of our atmosphere, or 380ppm. And that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively. We witness this cloud phenomenon around here almost nightly.

    I could say that the Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. While the highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

    I don't know why I need to try to disprove something that is based in very little actual scientific evidence. A result of the earth warming is not evidence.
    A minor correlation is not evidence. The hockey stick effect can no longer be touted as evidence of anything, it was proved as false. "An Inconvenient Truth" may be scary, but it is so riddled with holes that it is little more than a docudrama. And yes, i have seen it.
    I am a skeptic.

    I am no environment hater. I do what I can and probably do more than many of you. (this is not an invitation to compare)
    I am not against reducing our dependence on fossil fuels or other new technology. Quite the contrary, I just think that this alarmist attitude is the wrong way to do it. Inducing fear is a fantastic way to gain fame and power. (this is not an invitation to discuss other issues if they do not pertain global warming)

    This is why other skeptics on this board tend to not respond to these types of posts.
  10. knothead Banned or Parked

    Posts: 118
    Redmond, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    WPEB, awesome reasoning. The other guys, unable to refute what you presented to them regarding the peer review process, attempt to shut down further discussion by flashing thier credentials, and admitting they participate in the process you desribe. Hilarious. You will have them reduced to name calling in no time.
    Sounds to me that peer review can be shopped until you get the desired result.
    Not sure, but is that a part of the scientific process.
  11. knothead Banned or Parked

    Posts: 118
    Redmond, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

    Sounds much like those who put tier stock in "peer review".
  12. QHays Premember

    Posts: 168
    Here and There
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Dr. Olmstead -- I encourage you once again not to take the bait. As those of us in the scientific world know you are a much respected phylogenist and molecular biologist. I have spent some time in the Wingfield lab so I am familiar with your work. Again, it's a sad reflection of the state of science in America when this sort of "debate" occurs on a flyfishing forum, a site where one would hope to find reasonably informed and enlightened people (although many who have chimed in certainly are). The obvious lack of scientific understanding and vehemence with which science is derided is disturbing to say the least. Believe what you will -- scientific study and discovery will continue, we will continue to prove hypotheses right and wrong, and none of us will lose any sleep over the musings of nonbelievers. Enjoy the largess of our work...
  13. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    For a scientist you really seem to hate debate. Maybe you got into the wrong profession?
    Even Dr. Olmstead seems to be open for debate.

    I will quote a chadk post because it once again seems relevant:

    "Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism” (Sagan 1995).

    You want to know what will really be a sad reflection of the state of science in America? When the debate stops. When the debating about something so life-altering, so important for all life on this planet, stops. Curiosity is in human nature. Without curiosity, without skepticism about the accepted norm, there would have never been any scientific advancements. As a scientist you should know that.

    And for kent here is a carl sagan quote as well:

    "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

    Charlatan? Al Gore?
  14. Philster New Member

    Posts: 2,477
    .
    Ratings: +3 / 0
    I have a question. The earth is a closed system right? Lets get back to the origin of this post. Any research about the areas the "nutrient rich" water came from... How is it changing? If the main flow of this water results in a deadspot, what about the periphery of the flow field? What about the final dissipation of the nutrients? It has to go somewhere. Are there other regions, perhaps much more vast that are currently benefitting from a massive influx of nutrient rich water? I don't know. You don't know. But most importantly nobody seems to be checking...

    What is the danger of establishing policy based on a myopic analysis by scientists who "own" an area of Ocean? Yes for the scientists who consider those two regions their backyard this appears catastrophic. However, once again the actual impact is a natural phenomenom, and it doesn't end in their backyard.

    The road the fertilizer truck drives over looks like hell. And after the harvest the field does too.
  15. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,245
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +103 / 0
    WPEB,

    Thanks for taking the time to post the summary of Dr. Schulte's finding of his review of the climate change papers. I was going to do it, but since you already have, it is not necessary to do so another time.

    I also find it interesting that water vapor, which the authors of the IPC report admit is a major factor in atmoshperic temperatures, is left out of the computer model "forcings" used to arrive at their predictions of increased global temperatures.

    For those of you who think that 30 years of temperature data are all that is needed to know what is happening with average temperatures of a given geographic spot and that what has been observed over that very short 30 year time span, there is the problem of the mini ice age that happened after the several hundred year long warming of the middle ages. In other words, if the warming observed during the middle ages would have been a good predictor of what was going to continue happening in the future, the mini ice age would never have occured. Unfortunately, the mini ice age did happen. Therefore, should we really be concluding or trusting predictions based upon 30 years of data that things are really going to heat up when such predictions based upon several hundred years of data would have been grossly wrong when the mini ice age hit?

    Folks (this is for those who may not know this),

    Just because someone is a professor emeritus, it doesn't mean he or she is not actively involved in research, it simply means the person is no longer a full-time faculty member at a university. And if he or she wasn't still doing some teaching or research with the university, the title of professor emeritus would not be granted. Also if a professor doesn't get things published and bring in some research dollars, the university will send him down the road before he earns tenure (this is known as publish or perish).

    Likewise, folks wishing to earn a Ph.D. don't get to just research anything they are interested in for their dissertation, they must get approval of their proposed research from their faculty advisor and dissertation committee. In other words, there are built-in biases and barriers (some subtle some not so subtle) to well-quailified scientists in a given field which prevent said scientists from going against the grain of what the current "consensus" is.
  16. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Just to keep the neocons and psyco-denial types here upset, here are the facts - AGAIN.

    The NOAA airport data in Ellensburg demonstrates winters (up until the 1970's) to 30 below zero one in 10 years with most winters falling 20 to 25 below zero. The records are maintained starting from the 1930's with significant warming starting in the 1980's. So there was a 50 year period of stable temps ON RECORD up until the 1980's.

    Over 90 percent of climatoligists - the REAL scientists - are telling us we have a real problem and need to act fast.

    And this just pisses some people off.

    Classical symptoms of denial.

    I would guess many of the deniers here are working in an industry, have investments in certain companies, etc and that take offense at those who speak the truth here regarding global warming. Most recently, there has been suggestion that litigation against oil industries and others may come as a result of global warming concensus. I can think of no other motivation for such companies to hire trolls to muddy the waters on forums like this one.

    Coach Duhh - I will pray for you. Same with PWeb (I assume P stands for pissed). Either trolls or a serious case of denail. I mean look at how many very aggressive posts you have put here. Clearly, a symptom of denial. You guys just will not let it go. You post 10 even 20 messages to the average user's 1 message.

    That is a clear indication there is a wire loose upstairs.

    Our minus 30 temps in Ellensburg are no more. People proclaim this year as a cold winter. Sure it was cold. We almost hit zero. But it does not hold a candle to 20 and 30 below zero as were MOST of our winters in NORMAL years. Ellensburg rarely falls to single digits anymore. Similarly, our summers were almost always below 100F. A 90 degree day was very hot in the past. Today, 105 is the norm for summer and a hot summer is pushing 110. Now the deniers will say that is natural glacial cycle of warming. What they will not admit that is that 10 and 20 degree changes in the past happened over tens of thosands of years... not 15 years as we have seen. AND recorded. ON the record. All of this is recorded in the NOAA data from the airport here in Ellensburg. Trends are similar at ALL Washington NOAA weather sites. If the heating continues (as it has over the last 15 years) we will be pushing 120 and even 130 as a possibility in the Yakima Canyon - within the next 15 years. If it does, there will be no trout fishery. Not here, not on the Wenatchee, not on the Methow, not on the Klickitat. Kiss our fisheries good bye - and if it continues, our asses are next.

    Now lets move on to our local news.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/232047_lakewash11.html

    And comments like this from our own Fish and Game.

    "This is going to alarm people," said Dave Seiler, a salmon scientist with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, "but I think the story ought to come out."

    As the graphs in this article, the water temps in Lake Washington directly match the airport data from NOAA at most of our weather sites. The warming started in the 1970's.

    While the deniers here will pick out any one statement to grasp to their false perceptions, they will completely ignore this statement from the article:

    "But most think global warming is likely the largest engine driving the change -- particularly in the temperature increase seen during the summer."

    Our how about our recent dead zones of the Washington Coast?

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-deadzone15feb15,0,3979313.story

    Yes, the oxygen deprevation that in the past has been destroying stocks of fish and wildlife off the coast of California and Oregon have now extended to washington waters.

    And then there is this fact. The Arbor Day Foundation produces maps on our seed packets in the stores. The maps from 16 years ago are compared to the most recent maps and demonstrate a two zone increase (20 degrees) in some places in Washington (as well as most of the rest of the country) with most areas increasing at least 10 degrees. We are 1 and 2 zones hotter than we were 16 years ago.

    http://www.fourthcornernurseries.com/Article13.asp

    And still the denier (or trolls) will condemn my the facts I have presented here.

    Now, I am going to keep posting here with more and more of the truth because the idiots are hoping they can overwhelm this forum with their lies. And just to piss them off I am going to post here every so often with other facts as well as recaps of what facts have already been covered (and they do not want you to hear). And I will keep posting so long as they exercise their 'rights' to lie and muddy the water. Again, quite frankly, I think some of them may be paid to inhabit forums like this to intentionally muddy the waters and modify public sentiment. The legal issues provide for such motivation but the large corporations to hire such folks. And so long as they continue, I will too.

    I can hear the gnashing of teeth.

    Denial is a real human failing... for those who are not trolls. And these folks in denial will respond here by completely ignoring these clearly overwhelming facts by agencies that cannot be refuted. Just watch. And there are some people here that just have a chip on their shoulder and refuse to admit the science. Like a drunk or druggie that will not admit they have a problem. They reach for one report (MT Saint Helens as was earlier given as an example) and refuse to accept the USGS statement in that SAME article that nearly all other glaciers (100's of them) in the US are receding.

    There is another word here besides denial. It is the term idiot.

    They take the one example and refuse to consider the other 100 that refute their single source. I mean, there is no other word but 'idiot' to explain this behavior. And the fact that they are not scientists... well, what can I say?

    And yes, I am a scientist. An ecologist.

    These people are your typical idiots - and the reason they are NOT scientists. And because they will not be heard in the scientific forums, all the more they spread their lies on general public forums like this one.

    What is really surprising is how many posts and how long they have been at it. Again, this is a sign of denial.... or trolling. I post a couple messages one day and come back a week later and find these people have been posting everyday - a few individuals - to the tune of 10 and 20 posts each.


    The sick passion of denial in action.

    They have taken it personally because the truth is they ARE in denial and they are pissed when those with scientific degrees point it out to them.

    And so they post all the more - demonstrating their complete lack of intellect.

    I will post again soon I am sure. Just keep it up guys, I will be happy to post ever more articles and the fact of global warming.
  17. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    There are those who claim there is no concensus on global warming, I challenge any such individual to find a professional organization of scientists that refutes global warming - and I will show you a biased organization created by the corporate-government neocon Bush Administration to save corporations from litigation. Clearly, there is none greater than those mentioned below. And all clearly state global warming is real and man caused. There is no greater sense of consensus possible.

    Only an idiot would deny these founding scientific organizations. I would encourage the readers to question some of the previous posts on this forum presented as current 'scientific sources'. For one, look up the date of the articles. Many are nefariously and intentionally presented from the past before the consensus we have arrived at over the last 5 years. Second, clearly they are out of line with these the most prominent scientific organizations and the MAJORITY of scientists both here in the US and the world.

    If you are confused as to whose opinion matters, just pay attention to the peer review science journals and the National Academy of Sciences.

    National Academie of Sciences
    http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

    "There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
    temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate."


    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf

    "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

    American Meteorological Society (AMS)

    "The American Meteorological Society endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" released by the national academies of science of 11 countries, including the U.S., on 7 June 2005.”1

    From the Magazine "Science"
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

    "The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]."

    What is the IPCC that gave testimony before congress? The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was specifically created to determine the consensus of scientist around the world! Let me say that again, it is the greatest effort known to science to come to a consensus on a scientific issue. Here are some scientific community concensus statements for those who did not bother to read it because it did not fit their ideology of neocon political correctness.


    "All models assessed here, for all the non-mitigation
    scenarios considered, project increases in global mean surface
    air temperature (SAT) continuing over the 21st century,
    driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
    concentrations, with the warming proportional to the associated
    radiative forcing."

    "There is unanimous agreement among the coupled climatecarbon
    cycle models driven by emission scenarios run so far
    that future climate change would reduce the efficiency of the
    Earth system (land and ocean) to absorb anthropogenic CO2."

    "It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more
    frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold
    episodes are projected to decrease significantly (note my previous post on our winters in Ellensburg warming considerably from 20-30 BELOW zero) in a future warmer climate. Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range. Decreases
    in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in growing season length."

    "There is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas during
    summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions." (aka, Ellensburg and the INLAND empire)."

    "As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent
    decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance
    of summer melting over winter precipitation increases."

    And there is much more here including over 200 megabytes of reports from the IPCC:

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm#IPCC
  18. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,245
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +103 / 0
    Wildlander,

    As you quoted from the IPC report, "All models assessed here, for the non-mitigation scenarios considered, project mean sruface air temperatures (SAT) continuing over the 21st century, driven mainly by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gass concentrations, with the warming proportional to the relative asociated forcing."

    You also quote this, "There is unanimous agreement among the climatecarbon cycle models driven by emission scenarios run so far that future climate change would reduce the efficiency of the Earth system (land and ocean) to absorb anthropogenenic CO2."

    In other words, the computer models are in agreement with each other for projected temperature when the researchers put the same amount of "greenhouse gas(es) into the model (known as forcing). And that the models (again not empirical evidence, but statistical assumptions) agree that the land and oceans would not be able to absorb as much CO2. Non of this is based upon empirical evidence, rather it is based upon assumptions that the gases and forcings (amount of the gas) put into the computer models are an accurate representation of what will happen. However, there is no known way to ascertain whether these assumptions about future gas emissions levels will in fact happen.

    Plus, the authors of the IPC report themselves reported leaving out important things such as water vapor, solar heating, cloud cover, volacanic activity, changes in ocean current, changes in El Nino/La Nina. etc. because they were too difficult to predict with any certainty.

    Then we are being asked to accept as fact these assumptions based upon the statistical models. And those of us who dare question the accuracy of the assumptions being made or point out that important factors aren't being included in the models (which the IPC report authors freely admitted had measurable effects on temperature) because they are too random and thus difficult to predict are told we have our heads in the sand. Hmmm.... very interesting indeed.
  19. gt Active Member

    Posts: 2,616
    sequim, WA
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    so, since you don't like the science that has been presented, explain what is going on....................

    p.s. a naturally occurring cycle is not an explaination!
  20. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Lets talk about the "science" that Wildlander has posted before we move on to the cause:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...akewash11.html

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3979313.story

    http://www.fourthcornernurseries.com/Article13.asp

    These are the first three links that Wildlander posted. The first two are two articles that present examples of the results of warming. Evidence of anthropogenic means? No. Look, I can post articles that show cooling in antarctica: http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm
    The last is a link to the arbor day website that explains the pictures you may find on seed packets. Weather data for the past 16 years is hardly enough information to come to any conclusion.

    Wildlander notes the weather changes in Ellensburg since the 70's. Most climatologists would tell you that through the 1940's-70's, the earth was experiencing a minor cooling trend, and that currently we are approaching the the century highs experienced in the 30's. Ever hear of the dust bowl? The cooling trend in that 30 year time period is where the temperature separates from the CO2 levels, as the CO2 levels have been increasing since the American industrial revolution.

    This entire post is riddled with name calling and aggressive behavior. Even to the extent of proclaiming the skeptics on this site as "industrial trolls."

    Wildlander's then goes on to describe various scientific organizations that made announcements that agree that global warming is anthropogenic. Did any of these groups come to this conclusion themselves? No, these announcements were in response to the IPCC's report. There was no polling and no specific scientific evidence produced by members that lead these organizations to this conclusion, it was simply in response to the most recent IPCC report. In fact, several of the links Wildlander posted made direct reference to the source of their conclusion, the IPCC.

    The next link posted was from a study by Naomi Oreskes posted on the science magazine website. If you will notice the article I posted above that references Oreskes' study, you will see that the data and therefore conclusion is outdated. The more recent study done by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte under the same terms as Oreskes' study shows that the word consensus can no longer be applied.

    And that finally brings us down to the IPCC report. The crowning jewel of the AGW crowd. Where thousands of scientists gathered and collectively came to the conclusion that man is the root cause of the recent warming. You can find stories of IPCC members leaving, the deliberate attempt to leave out important information, and questions of the IPCC'c objectivity many places, so I won't go into that. What I will say is that if the IPCC uses recent studies and reports as their sources, then apparently peer-reviewed studies were not their main source. If they were, obviously the IPCC would not have come to the AGW conclusion that they had, as proved by Dr. Shulte's study. In all reality, the thousands of scientists involved have very little influence on the actual report.

    Now on to what is really going on. I ask you gt, why is a natural cycle an inadequate response? All through the planets history, there have been glacial periods, and the times in between. Some paleoclimatologist say that another mini ice-age is on the horizon, and can point to various markers that would suggest this. I would need more evidence, but the 500 year cycle would indicate that this should be the case. You can find various literature on this cycle.
    Solar output variation: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

    This is an article explaining the recent increase in the suns activity. You can find much information on solar output variation, which is highly volatile, and several studies to back up the assertion presented.

    So, what is left? You can believe that a normal change in solar output and natural cycles are the cause for recent climate changes, or that man's recent, recent as in the overall timeline of planet earth, CO2 production is the cause. Or you can believe it is a little bit of both.
    I am reminded of Occams razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."