another example why not to trust scientist

[Seahawks]

On global warming. Just seems politically motivated to me.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003618979_warming15m.html

 

 

How one number touched off big climate-change fight at UW

By Warren Cornwall

 

The number is eye-popping, and it was repeated so often it became gospel.

 

The snowpack in the Cascades, it was said, shrank by 50 percent in the last half-century. It's been presented as glaring evidence of the cost exacted by global warming — the drying up of a vital water source.

 

That statistic has been repeated in a government report, on environmental-advocacy Web sites and in media coverage. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently mentioned it in a guest column in The Seattle Times.

 

Here's the problem: The number is dead wrong.

 

The debunking of this statistic, and the question of just how much the state's snowpack shrank, is stirring up a heated debate among the region's climate scientists.

 

On Monday, it escalated further when University of Washington researcher and State Climatologist Philip Mote stripped a colleague of his title as associate state climatologist, triggering concerns that scientific dissent is being quashed. Losing the title doesn't affect the man's employment at the UW.

 

The affair might be dismissed as a tempest in an ivory-tower teapot. But it comes at a time when the science of climate change is getting more attention from policy-makers and the public.

 

Heated debate over global warming

 

 

 

University of Washington scientists are in a tense dispute over what has happened to snowpack in the Cascade Mountains, considered a critical potential effect of global warming.

 

The arguments and who's behind them:

 

50 percent decrease since 1950: Widely used as recently as this year, now dismissed by scientists on all sides as a major overstatement.

 

35 percent decrease since the mid-1940s: Offered by Washington State Climatologist and UW climate scientist Philip Mote.

 

30 percent decrease since 1945: Professor Dennis Hartmann, chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department, after a meeting with the different sides and consultations with other scientists.

 

10 to 15 percent decrease since the mid-1940s: Professor Cliff Mass, in association with meteorologist Mark Albright

It illustrates the challenge of teasing apart how global climate change affects a small region like the Northwest. It shows how a single statistic can take on a life of its own in this politically charged debate, batted around from politicians' speeches to newspapers (including information from a Seattle official in a May 2006 story in The Seattle Times).

 

And it reflects the pressures and scrutiny surrounding politicians' use of science as global warming gains more attention. Recently, some scientists have been criticizing claims in the Oscar-winning climate-change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," which stars Al Gore.

 

Shrinking, sure, but ...

 

The debate in Seattle started with Mark Albright, a part-time UW meteorologist and, until this week, the associate state climatologist.

 

After reading Nickels' February essay in The Times, Albright sent an e-mail to colleagues saying he didn't see evidence that snowpack was steadily shrinking, much less by 50 percent.

 

A back-and-forth ensued, involving Albright, co-worker and meteorologist Cliff Mass, and several scientists with the UW's Climate Impacts Group, a federally funded team of researchers that plays a prominent role analyzing climate change in the Northwest.

 

All quickly agreed that the 50 percent number was wrong. It may have originally come from an editing error in a 2004 report issued by an Oregon panel of scientists.

 

"No one believes in this 50 percent number anymore," Mass said.

 

The mistake doesn't discredit projections that the state's snowpack will shrink in the future due to climate change, Mass and Mote agree. But Mass said it underscores the uncertainty around predicting what will happen. And it leaves people like Nickels vulnerable to attack from people questioning the importance of climate change.

 

"To allow him [Nickels] to be out there with numbers that are unsupportable, it's setting him up to walk the plank," Mass said.

 

Todd Myers, a critic of Nickels' global-warming strategy and director of the local free-market policy group the Center for Environmental Policy, said this shows the danger of science getting distorted for political goals.

 

"If you have people who are campaigners in one direction or the other, you're going to get data out there that's used incorrectly," Myers said.

 

Which is it?

 

So what is the right number?

 

That's where things have gotten testy.

 

On one side, Mass, who is working with Albright, said they see only a small downward trend in Cascade Mountain snowpacks, perhaps 10 to 15 percent since the 1940s. The measurement can be exaggerated by starting during a time of high snowfall, in 1950, and ending at a time of low snowfall in the mid-1990s, Mass said. But snowfall has increased again in recent years, and there is little overall change in snowpack in the past 30 years, Mass said.

 

Mass stressed that he is not one of the small number of scientists disputing that humans are causing the planet to heat up.

 

Albright, in an e-mail, said the evidence doesn't support claims of a dramatically shrinking snowpack. But he didn't answer questions on his disagreements with Mote.

 

Mote, meanwhile, questioned the methods Albright and Mass are using to analyze data, mostly gathered from weather stations in the mountains that track snowfall. Mote, a member of the Climate Impacts Group who rose to prominence partly due to his work documenting shrinking snowpack around the West, said the decline is more like 35 percent.

 

In late February, professor Dennis Hartmann, chair of the UW Atmospheric Sciences Department, stepped in to referee. After a meeting with the researchers, Hartmann issued a statement saying that snowpack appears to have dropped 30 percent, and that warming in the future will likely affect snowpack, particularly at lower elevations.

 

"Gag-order approach"?

 

Since then, the debate has gotten more heated.

 

Mote, upset that Albright was broadly distributing e-mails about the issue, last week told Albright that he would have to let Mote preview any e-mails before sending them out, if he was tying his work to the state climatologist's office.

 

Mote's position as the state climatologist is a volunteer job that doesn't carry any official recognition or rules. Mote agreed to do the job several years ago, and his colleagues accepted it. The office collects and disseminates climate information and advises the state on climate-related issues.

 

When Albright refused Mote's ultimatum, Mote barred him from associating himself with the state climatologist's office.

 

Mote said Albright was sending out messages showing just his side of the story, and airing an analysis that hadn't gone through proper quality checks. As a representative of the climatologist's office, there needed to be standards, he said.

 

"I'm not trying to squelch debate by any means," Mote said.

 

But Mass said Albright was doing nothing wrong — simply airing his analysis and seeking feedback as he researched further.

 

"In all my years of doing science, I've never seen this sort of gag-order approach to doing science," he said.

 

Meanwhile, Nickels' office has switched to using the 30 percent figure announced by Hartmann, the department chair.

 

"Obviously we're going to use whatever number the scientists at UW say is accurate," Nickels spokesman Marty McOmber said

 

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

[Seahawks]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

 

Why not its from a liberal newspaper. Not to useless a thread if you like climbing on snow. Idiot.

[StevenSeagal]

another example why not to trust scientist...

 

...unless they parrot the Bush Administration. Then all of a sudden their titles and credentials have weight and their research is conclusive.

 

Shithawk, have you looked at pictures of Cascade glaciers in 1940 and compared them against present day pictures?

 

No?

 

Dumbass.

 

 

[chucK]

Did you even read the damn article?

 

It tells how scientists found a often-used inaccurate estimate and worked to correct it.

 

Seems to me it would imply you should trust scientists more, and perhaps be more careful about what you hear from politicians.

[Seahawks]

another example why not to trust scientist...

 

...unless they parrot the Bush Administration. Then all of a sudden their titles and credentials have weight and their research is conclusive.

 

Shithawk, have you looked at pictures of Cascade glaciers in 1940 and compared them against present day pictures?

 

No?

 

Dumbass.

 

 

All quickly agreed that the 50 percent number was wrong. It may have originally come from an editing error in a 2004 report issued by an Oregon panel of scientists.

 

"No one believes in this 50 percent number anymore," Mass said.

 

 

You must be from Oregon too dumbass, Think these people know little more than you.

[Stonehead]

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming?

 

I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier.

 

As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Stonehead

[kevbone]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

 

I have never agreed with you more!!!!

 

Hey seahawks…..do you climb?

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

All quickly agreed that the 50 percent number was wrong. It may have originally come from an editing error in a 2004 report issued by an Oregon panel of scientists.

 

"No one believes in this 50 percent number anymore," Mass said.

 

 

You must be from Oregon too dumbass, Think these people know little more than you.

 

Give us your infallible, expert analysis then. Or is this just another "somebody made a mistake...what a dumbshit!" posts. Wait...yup, that's it.

 

Dumbass.

 

 

 

 

[Seahawks]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

 

I have never agreed with you more!!!!

 

Hey seahawks…..do you climb?

 

Who cares what you think K-fed??? I climbed your mamma this morning

[counterfeitfake]

It's like a tardalanche in here.

[JayB]

I seem to recall climate data showing that global temperatures declined from roughly ~1940-1970, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the snowpack in the interval from ~1970 to the present was less substantial on average than that found in the 1950's. From what I recall, most glaciers in the Cascades retreated from the end of the Little Ice Age to roughly 1950, advanced from ~1950-1980, and began retreating again in the early 80's.

 

Scientists on Cascade Glaciers and Global Warming:

 

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/globalwarming.html

[Seahawks]

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming?

 

I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier.

 

As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

 

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion by the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to know for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Seahawks

[Seahawks]

I seem to recall climate data showing that global temperatures declined from roughly ~1940-1970, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the snowpack in the interval from ~1970 to the present was less substantial on average than that found in the 1950's. From what I recall, most glaciers in the Cascades retreated from the end of the Little Ice Age to roughly 1950, advanced from ~1950-1980, and began retreating again in the early 80's.

 

Scientists on Cascade Glaciers and Global Warming:

 

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/globalwarming.html

 

Nice link, something educational thanks,

[kevbone]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

 

I have never agreed with you more!!!!

 

Hey seahawks…..do you climb?

 

Who cares what you think K-fed??? I climbed your mamma this morning

 

My point exactly……once again….do you climb?

 

Another direct question: Do you think global warming is a myth?

 

A couple of simple questions. A person with your intelligence should be able to answer them with real answers. Not the stupid mama jokes you are used to.

 

Lets hear it!

 

[Seahawks]

Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read

 

I have never agreed with you more!!!!

 

Hey seahawks…..do you climb?

 

Who cares what you think K-fed??? I climbed your mamma this morning

 

My point exactly……once again….do you climb?

 

Another direct question: Do you think global warming is a myth?

 

A couple of simple questions. A person with your intelligence should be able to answer them with real answers. Not the stupid mama jokes you are used to.

 

Lets hear it!

 

as archy said read above dumb ass. I gave my opinion, not saying I'm right.

You telling me to be serious. Shit you are a dumb ass. This coming from the the person who cupping his farts at work and lighting them. lol shut up.

[Stonehead]

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming?

 

I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier.

 

As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

 

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion my the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to now for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid.

 

Fair enough. So what you're really saying is that you have no faith in the advancement of science? Would you rather rely on knowledge gained from other means?

 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2007 by Stonehead

[Seahawks]

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming?

 

I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier.

 

As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

 

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion my the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to now for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid.

 

Fair enough. So what you're really saying is that you have no faith in the advancement of science? Would you rather rely on knowledge gained from other means?

 

 

 

Reading more into than what I said. Only point I was trying to make was these scientist are not perfect. Alot of times we get there personal beleifs with there data. Science has its place, real science.

[Seahawks]

I seem to recall climate data showing that global temperatures declined from roughly ~1940-1970, so it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the snowpack in the interval from ~1970 to the present was less substantial on average than that found in the 1950's. From what I recall, most glaciers in the Cascades retreated from the end of the Little Ice Age to roughly 1950, advanced from ~1950-1980, and began retreating again in the early 80's.

 

Scientists on Cascade Glaciers and Global Warming:

 

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/globalwarming.html

 

I thought this was interesting in light of this too, just shows natural flucuations.

 

This trend is in contrast to the conclusions of Landsea et al.,2 relative to the 50-year period from 1944 to 1994 in which they detected a decline in the frequency of hurricanes. The difference in conclusions for this new analysis is probably due to the addition of another 10 years of data with a higher average number of hurricanes (about 14 per year) and an analysis over a much longer period. It is evident from the full sequence of data that there are short-term variations in the frequency of hurricanes which could lead to misinterpretations. For example, between 1880 and 1900 and between 1945 and 1960 there appear to be short periods of high frequency. On the other hand, between 1910 and 1930 the frequency seems unusually low. So, it would be premature to assume the period from 1995 to the present will continue. However, the long-term trend of an increase of 1 hurricane every 30 years is well supported statistically.

[archenemy]

It's like a tardalanche in here.

:lmao:

[kevbone]

I gave my opinion, not saying I'm right.

 

Really, will you quote in your own words please where you answered the question as to if you climb or not?

 

 

Thats what I thought.

[Seahawks]

I gave my opinion, not saying I'm right.

 

Really, will you quote in your own words please where you answered the question as to if you climb or not?

 

 

Thats what I thought.

 

yes. I probably don't get out as much as you but I don't live in a trailer like you but in a nice house on 3 acres. So I have to work.

Edited March 15, 2007 by Seahawks

[Stonehead]

So let me get this straight. Are you doubting global warming?

 

I suppose if you were astute enough, you could argue that warming might cause glaciers to surge. Or some such stuff concerning accumulation and ablation. But definitely, check out the retreat of the Nisqually Glacier on Rainier.

 

As far as politics and Mayor Greg Nichols, I heard some shight about concerns building a tunnel as a replacement for the viaduct if global warming is predicted to raise the sea level several meters or such. But I think I read that Nichols favors this alternative because he has some plan to reduce the numbers of cars having to come into the city.

 

Definatly CO2 is increasing that proven, I wonder how much is blown out of proportion my the libs. Are you telling me that you think the scientist have figured this earth out enough to now for sure what going on??? The earth has been hotter and colder in the past not a result of humans. Certainly we could be causing something but run around like chicken little is stupid.

 

Fair enough. So what you're really saying is that you have no faith in the advancement of science? Would you rather rely on knowledge gained from other means?

 

 

 

Reading more into than what I said. Only point I was trying to make was these scientist are not perfect. Alot of times we get there personal beleifs with there data. Science has its place, real science.

 

In retrospect, yeah, I gotta agree with some of what you're saying but the whole 'not trusting the scientist' thing is bogus. It's not necessarily the scientist or technician as much as it is the policymaker or politician.

 

I take a systems approach so you could, for instance, talk of the sun-moon-earth system and within the earth there are a number of interconnected systems such as atmospheric-oceanic or core-mantle-crust. So yeah as far as understanding the geophysical interactions, sure.

 

But, consider that a hell of lot is known. For example, NASA's EOS program used satellites to detect things such as simultaneous ocean rise and fall globally in real time. Other things such as changes in gravity anomolies within the mantle/core and meteorological changes. Variable changes superimposed over a secular trend in length of day or the Earth's spin rate. Stratification of the ocean temperature. Zonal winds. Etc.

 

This is real science, observing real patterns separated from the noise and deciphering the workings of the processes that lead to those patterns. That's human nature. To see patterns and to use those observations to gain some advantage over a capricious world.

[kevbone]

I gave my opinion, not saying I'm right.

 

Really, will you quote in your own words please where you answered the question as to if you climb or not?

 

 

Thats what I thought.

 

yes. I probably don't get out as much as you but I don't live in a trailer like you but in a nice house on 3 acres. So I have to work.

 

You are a good presumer.

[ken4ord]

 

Only point I was trying to make was these scientist are not perfect.

 

Well no shit......really?

 

 

 

Alot of times we get there personal beleifs with there data.

 

 

Science 101 (it is not really rocket science)

 

Normal scientific process is observation (damn it seem hotter out here), questioning (why is it hotter out here?), developing a theory (a belief, I believe changes in our atmosphere caused by humans is causing the increase of temperature) and test that theory (go out and take measurement CO2 gas levels, ozone, temps, human consumption, ect). I don't know how someones personal beliefs end up in the data. Data is pretty concrete usually those measurements that will explain and/or test your theory. Now in the summarizing the data then there is a little more freedom, maybe you didn't see what you expected, which usually leads to more questioning more therory more testing.

 

 

 

Science has its place, real science.

 

Science is never concrete and is always evolving, we are gaining new insight through trial and error all the time. From what I understand from you is, that since it is not concete we should disregard it until it is. That is fucking stupid. Currently there is a lot of evidence supporting global warming and yeah we might be in cycle or periodic warming trend and we might eventually figure that out, but isn't better to be safe than sorry. Anyways so far the things that have been suggested to improve the global warming situation are pretty good, I think, I wouldn't mind more forrest on this planet, less pollution out put from industry and individual, how can these things be bad? Finally, I would like to know what your interpetation of "real science" is?