another disturbing impact

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

  1. Wildlander

    Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    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.
     
  2. Wildlander

    Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ellensburg, WA
    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
     
  3. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    231
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    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.
     
  4. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    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!
     
  5. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    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."
     
  6. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    s-u-r-e, phil and the earth is flat and the moon is made out'a cheese. you are free to believe whatever makes you happy just don't try and pass your 'beliefs' off as FACT, 'cause you are not even in the ball park on this issue.
     
  7. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Edited
     
  8. gt

    gt Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    2,618
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    sequim, WA
    what a debator you must be there phil. presented with fact, after fact, after fact, all you can do is fall back on some inane, obscure rationale, to argue that climate change is all just a 'cycle.'

    sorry buddy, you are totally out of your league on this issue and your continued posts, along with your supporters, make it pretty clear you don't know jack, much less how scientific endevours are conducted.

    now i will signoff from this thread and stop feeding the monkeys.
     
  9. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Fact? You obviously know little about how science is conducted. You may present examples of the results of the earth warming, but in no way is that mean that the idea that warming is anthropogenic is fact. Facts are hard to come by in science, especially in an idea as complex as this. At best AGW is a hypothesis with little supporting evidence. It is not a theory, but a hypothesis.
    Scientists believing that the warming is anthropogenic in no way makes it a fact. That is called pseudoscience. Providing circumstantial evidence will never make it fact.

    Edited

    I'm done.
     
  10. Mike Wilson

    Mike Wilson Yakbowbw

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    I will bite and join in for several points.

    1. I was fishing one afternoon and noticed it was the time of day that the Caddis flies swarm in from the forest to lay their eggs on the surface of the water. I wondered how long the insect had been living above ground. One day, two, or maybe a week but I didn't think so. It made me feel very superior to the insect as a life form. The bug’s life cycle does not allow it to see any real change to the world it lives in. No changing seasons, this insect does not even get to meet its offspring. It was great until I looked at the trees and realized they have been living here longer than my entire family. It was then that I began to look at life and climate from a whole different perspective, as an historian.

    2. If I were to treat the earth as a living organism and place its life on a time line how many years is that? Let us just for argument say that it is 3-6 billion years old. If I made a line that is 3 feet long that represents the earth's life line and then tried to place my life line on the same line I would need a microscope. My point being that I am just like the Caddis fly when looking at the scope of the earth's life changes. I have not seen, nor will I see any real changes to the earth in my life time. They say that 90% of the life that has existed on earth is now extinct.

    3. We have been collecting data about the earth and the climates here for maybe 2000-3000 years in some places, and only 200 years in others. Given the scope of change, and the patterns of climate cycles we do not have enough data to be sure about any trend. Changes to the climate may be evolving normally. I can say this because I do know there was over a mile of ice covering my house some 12,000 years ago. I do know that micro continents have docked with North America, and brought Washington State from the ocean floor to the land we now occupy today. I know this will change too, but I will not see the natural evolution of our landscapes.

    4. I know that man is having an impact on the environment. We need to clean up our living practices, because we need to live here too. Our practices have created environments unsuitable for life to occur. I am not sure that the weather is changing because of this, or if it is just going through a normal cycle. What will happen when the next super volcano erupts? Mother Nature’s impact on our living conditions will be drastic, catastrophic! I hope we can survive.

    5. Until something like this happens I plan on living, loving, using the environment, cleaning up after myself, and above all casting a fly. Boys, the earth will get warmer, and it will get colder. I do not think there is a whole bunch we can do about it.... or is there? That is where science comes in. The exploration of life's changes is the key to being prepared for our future. I do not want to jump to any conclusions about this thing called global warming as of yet. Let's collect data for another millennium before we get our panties in a bunch.
     
  11. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    231
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    WPEB,

    I feel I must quote you on this, "Providing circumstancial evidence will never make it a fact." because it is right on.

    gt,

    I find your name calling and disparaging comments directed at people who disagree with you while providing you with evidence as to why they disagree very curious indeed. Doing so is not debating an issue, it is simply an attempt to get the other side angry or intimidated in order to have them be quiet.
     
  12. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    346
    Location:
    .
    Just heard about the plight of the Hudson Bay Polar Bears on NPR. The talking head said that no matter what change we make now, the current "mess" will be in place for 30 to 50 years in terms of warming temps. At that point the benefits of the changes we make now will begin to show.

    Great news! I await the benefits of the strides we've made in the U.S. starting in the 70s!!! They should be kickin' in riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight abbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbout... NOW! Oooooh... I did feel a little chilly right then:p
     
  13. Jon Borcherding

    Jon Borcherding New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    534
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    ................Meanwhile, in the studios of NPR, changes that were made in the brain chemistry of many young individuals during the sixties are just now beginning to affect the atmosphere of public broadcasting.......

    :rofl:

    JonB
     
  14. Smooth

    Smooth Guest

    This is quite a thread.
    One thing is obvious:
    Apparently, there are educated idiots in every field.
    Let us assume some of them are right for a moment:

    My questions to them:

    WHAT has anyone got against reducing pollution and caring for the Earth?
    WHAT is wrong with treating this Earth, a closed system, with more respect and less arrogance?
    WHOSE stock do they own that they are trying to keep from losing value?

    What is wrong with them?

    p.s. These are rhetorical questions and require no response.
     
  15. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    231
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    Smooth,

    Eventhough you posted rhetorical questions and don't expect a response I must point out that I have no problem with reducing polution and in fact, think that is a very wise thing to do. However, I do have a problem with the naysayers insistence that CO2 from fossil fuel usage is the big culprit and that it is a polutant. Unfortunately the CO2 released by burning of gas, oil, and coal each year comprises about 1% of the amount released into the atmoshpere each year.

    What? That can't be. Where does all the rest of the CO2 come from? Simple, living animals, insects, and fish who release CO2 with each respiration. And bacterial and decaying plants also release CO2.

    Methane is released in huge quantities by mamals who fart (yes, even us humans) to a far greater degree than that released by use of fossile fuels.

    And because I have not seen quantitative evidence and have only seen assumptive "evidence" (i.e. I/we done think this is what is happening, but without any true quantitative evidence) linking the use of fossil fuel to warming, I am very skeptical of pronouncements that man's activity is the cause.

    Heck, just yesterday I see on the weather report that although there is a La Nina in operation in the Pacific Ocean, the jet stream for the last 2 weeks has been following an El Nino flow pattern. Why? The meteorologists don't know. They are calling in an anomalie because it isn't following the expected flow pattern across the North Amercian continent. Oh that's right, we have caused this to happen because we have used fossil fuels.