Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Atmospheric science is not politically motivated science. People who refuse to recognize scientific consensus for _political_ reasons are pushing political motivation over science. Clearly the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong at times, so _scientific_ skepticism is often warranted. Pretty much always the people that fix a theory are scientists trying to produce a better theory, rather than politically motivated naysayers. The techniques for naysaying scientific consensus on CFC and ozone are well laid out here: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp Patrick Foley bees, fleas, flowers, disease patfo...@csus.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] on behalf of Robert Hamilton [roberthamil...@alc.edu] Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:18 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong). I suppose I am a denier because I reject politically motivated science, and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm McCallum Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum society has never been trusting of scientists. However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms. So what. This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions. ITs about the facts that exist. Period. As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries were by academics. Very few were made by others. Do your homework. Malcolm On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote:
[ECOLOG-L] Research Fellowships; Univ. Edinburgh
Two full-time Research Fellowships are available in the Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution at the University of Edinburgh, UK. The Wellcome Trust-funded Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution (CIIE; http://ciie.bio.ed.ac.uk/) has become a major centre for interdisciplinary research into infectious disease since its inception in 2008. This thriving Centre is now looking to attract dynamic and enthusiastic researchers, eager to operate at the interface between disciplines (e.g. infection biology, immunology, evolutionary biology, ecology, epidemiology and mathematical modelling) to create new research paradigms to tackle infectious diseases. CIIE is hosted within the Institute for Immunology and Infection Research (http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/biology/immunology-infection) and Institute for Evolutionary Biology (http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/biology/evolutionary-biology), these being part of the 'Edinburgh Infectious Disease' research community, one of the largest groups of infection biologists world-wide. As part of our development, and with funding support from the Wellcome Trust, we have launched a Fellowship Programme. The 2-year Fellowships will fulfil a unique role in pursuing research projects designed between two complementary laboratories aimed at providing innovation and new insight into major questions in infection, immunity ecology and evolution. An example set of proposed projects is available from the Centre (http://ciie.bio.ed.ac.uk/), although applicants are encouraged to contact members of the Centre with their own ideas or suggestions for a new project. The projects are designed to provide proof-of-principle to underpin new project grant applications or, ideally, fellowship applications for follow-on funding beyond the Centre's 2-year provision. The Fellows will work between two or more Principal Investigators one of whom will be primarily responsible for providing mentorship as well as research space and facilities required for the Fellow's project, while consumables and other running costs for the project (up to £10,000 per annum) will be met by the Centre itself. Successful candidates will hold, or expect to hold, a PhD qualification, will have a good publication record and the ability to design and lead an interdisciplinary research programme in collaboration with others. Please see the list of CIIE members (http://ciie.bio.ed.ac.uk/people) to find possible mentors and projects. General questions about the Centre and the fellowships can be addressed to the Centre Director, Professor Keith Matthews (keith.matth...@ed.ac.uk); but we encourage candidates to contact the specific CIIE members that they would be interested in working with to further develop their applications/projects. The salary range is £30,122 to £35,938; dependent on experience. Applications will be accepted until July 25, 2012. For the Research Fellowship (Ref. #: 3015298) application and specific job description, please go to: http://www.jobs.ed.ac.uk/vacancies/index.cfm?fuseaction=vacancies.detailvacancy_ref=3015901 Amy B. Pedersen, Advanced Fellow Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution Institutes of Evolutionary Biology, Immunology Infection Research School of Biological Sciences University of Edinburgh Kings Buildings Ashworth Labs, West Mains Road Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK amy.peder...@ed.ac.uk +44(0) 131 650 8674 Ashworth 2 - 4.07 http://www.biology.ed.ac.uk/research/groups/apedersen/
[ECOLOG-L] * Course: Multivariate analysis of ecological data
Dear colleagues, first my apologies for eventual cross-posting... I would like to announce the next round of our course Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco. It will be held from 22 January to 2 February 2013. This is the standard (non-advanced) version of the course, suitable both for beginners and those with an intermediate level of skills with multivariate statistical methods. Discounted pricing is available for students. All course details can be found at its web page: http://regent.jcu.cz and I will happy to provide any additional information you might need through e-mail communication. With my best regards Petr Smilauer Ceske Budejovice, CZ --- International course Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data (Jan 2013): http://regent.jcu.cz Book by course lecturers: Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO at http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item5708891/ CanoDraw for Windows 4.0 http://www.canodraw.com is part of Canoco for Windows 4.5 http://www.canoco.com Canoco 5 beta at http://www.canoco5.com
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Hamilton, you got a couple of things right: Water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. Climate models predict warming based on carbon dioxide increases, but no one has done an actual controlled experiment with a population of planets to test those models in the classical manner. But you don't know what you are talking about. Overall, we are not causing a change in atmospheric water vapor, therefore any greenhouse effect due to water vapor is a wash, and the models properly include water vapor in their extrapolations. The models are robust, and we only have one planet. No experiment is possible, but none is needed. The forcing is there. Ecologists have long known how to analyze natural experiments. I think the climatologists know what they are doing. Another thing you got right is that politics has sure messed up the public response to science, to the detriment of the public, scientists and science, and politicians. But what is new about that? David McNeely Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong). I suppose I am a denier because I reject politically motivated science, and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm McCallum Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum society has never been trusting of scientists. However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms. So what. This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions. ITs about the facts that exist. Period. As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries were by
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some decider has simply decided it has to to CO2, and to look at anything else makes one a heretic. Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, a large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water to produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, and far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water when you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the fracking gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force people to eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more expensive allow the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. Note that there is no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is emitted! We even have a political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is amazing to me. This is not a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both Bush II and Obama have pursued this. I also really don't care much if we use coal or fracking gas to boil water, just the quality of the science. Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs are the only cause. Again, some decider decided is had to be caused only by CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have a problem with the poor quality of the science. As we all know, any consensus in science is derived from the empirical support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less the voice of various political trends of the day. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:jane@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly compensate for the increase in CO2. On a related note, I recommend that everyone read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a great review of how we know what we know. Jane Shevtsov On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some decider has simply decided it has to to CO2, and to look at anything else makes one a heretic. Why is it political? Consider fracking gas as one example (I use that name just so you know what gas I am talking about). Big oil discovers this gas, a large energy reserve. One thing we use such energy for is boiling water to produce electricity. However we have coal, which is cheap and plentiful, and far cheaper than fracking gas even when all you emit is CO2 and water when you burn the coal. So what to do? Make coal more expensive so the fracking gas is more competitive. So you push the CO2 argument to force people to eliminate the CO2 when they burn coal so as to make coal more expensive allow the fracking gas to be more competitive, and we do that. Note that there is no mandate to burn fracking gas such that no CO2 is emitted! We even have a political edict that CO2 is a pollutant, which is amazing to me. This is not a democrat or republican thing, FWIW, as both Bush II and Obama have pursued this. I also really don't care much if we use coal or fracking gas to boil water, just the quality of the science. Since the ozone hole problem is still ongoing, I have to wonder if CFCs are the only cause. Again, some decider decided is had to be caused only by CFCs, even though that theory has not gone through the rigors of normal science. I have no problem with banning CFCs; good riddance IMHO. I do have a problem with the poor quality of the science. As we all know, any consensus in science is derived from the empirical support for a theory, not arm-twisting and other political hackery. Any political consensus is invalid scientifically. This isn't the Environmental Science Society of America, it's the Ecological Society of America, and we should do better, IMHO. IMHO we should be more the voice of reason and less the voice of various political trends of the day. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Jane Shevtsov [mailto:jane@gmail.com] Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 2:57 AM To: Robert Hamilton Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, using only the fact that CO2 blocks
[ECOLOG-L] Urban Session at Fall 2012 AGU Meeting
Hi all, We are convening a session on urban systems at the fall AGU meeting and encourage all who are interested in presenting findings at urban/water interfaces to submit to the session. We hope to bring together a wide variety of perspectives and findings. For information on submitting an abstract, please visit the AGU meeting website: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/ Important Dates: Abstract submission deadline: August 8, 2012 Meeting Dates: December 3-7, 2012 (San Francisco, CA) Session Info (http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/session-search/single/water-quality-and-quantity-in-urban-systems/): H088: Water Quality and Quantity in Urban Systems: The migration of the world’s population into cities has profound implications for urban waters. Public health challenges and infrastructure crises have increased scrutiny of urban hydrology and identified new research areas. Drainage systems for urbanized areas modify the hydrograph and alter the geomorphology, yet may bypass important hotspots that might ameliorate contamination. Compounding these effects, the political power of cities often diverts water resources from adjacent less populated basins, resulting in further hydrologic changes. This session welcomes research on all aspects of urban water. Studies that report new monitoring efforts, compare modeled and measured results, or propose new theoretical approaches are encouraged. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact my co-conveners (Claire Welty wel...@umbc.edu, Brad Eck bradleyj...@gmail.com, William Hunt bill_h...@ncsu.edu ) or me. Best and hope to see you in December, Dan -- Daniel J. Bain Assistant Professor University of Pittsburgh, Department of Geology and Planetary Science Mail: 200 SRCC 4107 O'Hara St. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: 412 624-8766 Fax: 412 624-3914 email: db...@pitt.edu
[ECOLOG-L] Yorkshire formation plant fossils
Dr. Conrad Labandeira and I have completed the examination of over 4500 plant fossils from the Yorkshire Formation and their herbivore-caused damage. Our main sources for plant identification have been: Harris (5 volumes, spanning from 1961 to 1974), Watson and Sincock (1992), Givulescu (1998), and Cittert Morgan (1999). We wonder if you may know of: 1. An up-to-date list of the currently accepted names for the botanical taxa in the Yorkshire Formation and 2. A full bibliography of the pertinent works for the Yorkshire Formation. 3. Any ecological studies on the Yorkshire biota that may involve insect herbivory or pollination. Please, feel free to reply directly to my email. Thanks for any assistance. Sincerely, Jorge Santiago-Blay bl...@si.edu bl...@si.edu
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, Philip Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere there likely wouldn't be a greenhouse effect. A small change in water vapour concentration, say +- 0.1%, is a change several fold greater than the total effect of CO2, and such changes in water vapour concentrations occur continuously. And then there are winds I personally don't care one way or another about the CO2 argument though, it's the bad science that I don't like. If we were looking at human driven climate change properly, we would investigate all possible drivers, generate some basic statements (that are either true or false), do some experiments and see which explanations most accurately predict reality by rejecting those that don't. Statements left standing following experimentation will have that empirical base. With CO2 some
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
What are these positions available to advocate human causes to climate warming that are worth so much money?? I am curious to know. I am aware of the industry built around use of fossil fuels and associated carbon emission - given the claim that so much money is involved in advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change, I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'. Second question - are we still separating ecology from human behavior at this late date in human history and knowledge development? Beth Sent from my iTouch On Jul 5, 2012, at 2:27 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, Philip Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas is a meme that has been around for at least 15 years (I first heard it from people in the automotive industry), although I thought it had run its course by now. There are plenty of websites that offer factual responses (one example is http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-change-Water-vapor-makes-for-a-wet-argument.html), but they often take the form of a counter-argument and thus are perceived as political. And too often they're a slog for non-scientists. As a science journalist, I'd love to hear some fresh ideas about how to show scientific concepts like positive feedback loop to the general public. (Journalism is all about showing, rather than telling.) Here are a few things to keep in mind: - Images and graphs are seen as less political than words. - Stories are more memorable than numbers. - Analogies and metaphors can be powerful. - Examples from everyday life can help make science relevant. - Humans tend to be interested in other humans. - Cultural affiliation affects how people perceive certain types of information and sources. - Humor is usually appreciated. - Journalists have a different role than educators and researchers. I enjoyed reading about the creative, respectful ways that some of you respond to individuals you meet. How can those approaches be applied to larger audiences? And which scientists out there are doing the best job of communicating with the general public about climate change? Dawn Stover Independent Writer Editor 1208 Snowden Road White Salmon, WA 98672 tel: 509 493 3652 email: dsto...@hughes.net web: www.dawnstover.com Contributing Editor, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Contributing Editor, Popular Science
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Seriously? In my undegrad physics class, we did a problem that involved calculating the effect of a doubling of CO2 concentration on temperature, using only the fact that CO2 blocks long-wavelength infrared radiation -- stuff that was known to Arrhenius a hundred years ago. Even though this was just a textbook problem, I remember being struck by how close our prediction was to that generated by complex models. Saying There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming is just denying basic physics -- or claiming that the climate system is so wonderfully balanced that some effect or other will exactly compensate for the increase in CO2. On a related note, I recommend that everyone read The Discovery of Global Warming by Spencer R. Weart. This is available both in book form and as a free online text. (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm) It's a great review of how we know what we know. Jane Shevtsov On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in general sees the weakness of the science. The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong). I suppose I am a denier because I reject politically motivated science, and that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the real crime here IMHO. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm McCallum Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum society has never been trusting of scientists. However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms. So what. This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions. ITs about the facts that exist. Period. As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries were by academics. Very few were made by others. Do your homework. Malcolm On Tue,
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
So, based on your statement quoted here, If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded, its being done right! Thanks for coming to our side and realizing that the current Climate Change science is being done right and therefore the findings are in need of adjustments in human activities to correct the problems. Thanks for your support! Malcolm On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, Philip Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking
[ECOLOG-L] Job: Instructor/Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences, 3/4-Time Temporary, Rowan University
Position Announcement Position: Instructor/Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences - 3/4-Time Temporary Department: Biological Sciences Description: The Department of Biological Sciences invites applications for a one-year, 3/4-time Instructor / Assistant Professor position available beginning Sept. 1, 2012. The successful candidate will teach a total of four courses and 18 instructor credits across the fall and spring semesters. Courses taught will include major-level introductory courses in 1) adaptation, diversity and evolution; 2) ecology; 3) as available, upper level courses within the candidate's areas of expertise. The successful candidate will contribute appropriate service to the department, and will have the opportunity to pursue research or participate in collaborative research programs within our department and the University. Qualifications: A Ph.D. or equivalent degree in some field of biology is required, but ABD will be considered. Applicants should have expertise in evolution, organismal diversity or ecology. A strong commitment to excellence in undergraduate education is expected, and previous success and experience in college teaching is strongly preferred. Starting Date: September 1, 2012 Salary: Competitive General Info: The department serves 650 biology majors with 12 full-time faculty members and 2 full-time laboratory technicians. We have 10 fully equipped, technology supported classrooms as well as research labs supporting the major fields of biology. Current objectives for the department include development of programs in bioinformatics and in environmental studies, contributing to the success of the School of Biomedical Sciences, and contributing to the success of the Cooper Medical School at Rowan University. For information on the Department of Biological Sciences, please refer to the department's website at http://www.rowan.edu/biology. Rowan University values diversity and is committed to equal opportunity in employment. All positions are contingent upon budget appropriations. Contact: Send cover letter, CV, a statement of teaching philosophy, a statement of research interests and unofficial undergraduate and graduate transcripts. Applicants should also arrange for delivery of at least two letters of reference. Two letters of reference must attest to the candidate's teaching abilities. Review of applications begins July 9th and will continue until the search is completed. Applicants should submit materials by e-mail to both obr...@rowan.edu and jos...@rowan.edu Postal mail (not preferred) may be sent to: Faculty Search Committee Dept. of Biological Sciences Rowan University 201 Mullica Hill Road Glassboro, NJ 08028 Inquiries may be addressed to Dr. Terry O'Brien (obr...@rowan.edu).
[ECOLOG-L] Explaining Positive Feedback Looks to the Public (was [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum)
Hi Dawn, You might take a look at Donella Meadows' excellent book _Thinking in Systems_. One of her examples of a positive feedback loop (vicious cycle) is how she and her brother used to fight when they were kids: he would push her, she pushed back harder, he pushed back harder yet, and soon an actual fight would break out. Jane Shevtsov On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Dawn Stover dsto...@hughes.net wrote: Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas is a meme that has been around for at least 15 years (I first heard it from people in the automotive industry), although I thought it had run its course by now. There are plenty of websites that offer factual responses (one example is http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-change-Water-vapor-makes-for-a-wet-argument.html), but they often take the form of a counter-argument and thus are perceived as political. And too often they're a slog for non-scientists. As a science journalist, I'd love to hear some fresh ideas about how to show scientific concepts like positive feedback loop to the general public. (Journalism is all about showing, rather than telling.) Here are a few things to keep in mind: - Images and graphs are seen as less political than words. - Stories are more memorable than numbers. - Analogies and metaphors can be powerful. - Examples from everyday life can help make science relevant. - Humans tend to be interested in other humans. - Cultural affiliation affects how people perceive certain types of information and sources. - Humor is usually appreciated. - Journalists have a different role than educators and researchers. I enjoyed reading about the creative, respectful ways that some of you respond to individuals you meet. How can those approaches be applied to larger audiences? And which scientists out there are doing the best job of communicating with the general public about climate change? Dawn Stover Independent Writer Editor 1208 Snowden Road White Salmon, WA 98672 tel: 509 493 3652 email: dsto...@hughes.net web: www.dawnstover.com Contributing Editor, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Contributing Editor, Popular Science -- - Jane Shevtsov, Ph.D. Mathematical Biology Curriculum Writer, UCLA co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org In the long run, education intended to produce a molecular geneticist, a systems ecologist, or an immunologist is inferior, both for the individual and for society, than that intended to produce a broadly educated person who has also written a dissertation. --John Janovy, Jr., On Becoming a Biologist
[ECOLOG-L] USEPA Narragansett RI, estuary modeling postgraduate position
A postgraduate research project training opportunity is currently available at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division (AED) in Narragansett, RI. The research participant will use quantitative modeling approaches to represent physical, chemical, and selected biological processes in the Narragansett Bay estuary. These models will receive loadings of nutrients and other stressors from the watershed, and will produce outputs to drive models related to economically valuable endpoints, such as fish and shellfish. Holistic approaches, reflecting population, community and ecosystems dynamics, may be appropriate. With guidance from the mentors, the participant may be involved in the following activities: application of existing models; model set-up and parameterization; executing model runs and analyzing results; and model calibration, validation, and sensitivity/uncertainty analysis. The participant may also be involved in developing new modeling routines and code, and modify existing models. The appointment may be part- or full-time for one year and can be renewed for up to two additional years upon recommendation of the EPA and subject to availability of funds. The participant will receive a monthly stipend. The Research Participation Program for EPA/ORD is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science (Project # EPA-ORD/NHEERL-AED-2012-01). Additional information on the position can be found here: http://orise.orau.gov/epa/description.aspx?JobId=10576 Here is additional information on the ORISE program: http://orise.orau.gov/epa/
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoctoral position -- Ecosystem Services -- Dartmouth College
JOB OPPORTUNITY Postdoctoral Research Associate: Ecosystem Services Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College The Environmental Studies Program at Dartmouth College aims to recruit a Postdoctoral Research Associate with expertise in the science, valuation, and governance of ecosystem services. The successful applicant will work in an interdisciplinary team under the direction of Professor Richard Howarth on a multi-year, multi-institution project sponsored by the National Science Foundation to study the links between forests, watersheds, and socioeconomic systems in the State of New Hampshire. The project provides opportunities related to: * The analysis of tradeoffs between timber values, carbon storage, surface albedo, and biodiversity in the management of forests. * Stakeholder research and the use of scenario analysis to project and evaluate changes in land use and resource management. The successful applicant will have completed (or be near completion of) a PhD in environmental studies, ecological economics, conservation biology, natural resource management, or a related field. To apply, please send a cover letter, c.v., a representative publication, and the names and addresses of three references to: Prof. Richard B. Howarth Environmental Studies Program Dartmouth College rbhowa...@dartmouth.edu The position offers a competitive salary and benefits with a start date of September 1, 2012 or as negotiated. Applications will be considered until the position is filled. Dartmouth College is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and has a strong commitment to diversity. We welcome applications from a broad spectrum of people, including women, persons of color, persons with disabilities, and veterans.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Robert, As I recall, the new aspect of the clouds portion of the climate the model you are referring to was about the height of the clouds in the atmosphere, not about the presence or absence of clouds. Clouds had already been included in the models for quite some time. I may be thinking of a different model that you're referring to though. Ooh, a whole industry generating enormous wealth with a vested interest in promoting the idea of anthropogenic climate change? Where is this money and why don't I or any of my climate change studying friends have access to any of it? The only enormous maount of wealth I know of is on the anti-change side. Neahga On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Ganter, Philip Sent: Thu 7/5/2012 11:47 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum Robert, I am glad that you support the modeling efforts of atmospheric scientists with respect to ozone-depleting substances. Their models are in complete agreement with you: the holes should still be there. The residence times of ODS is so long that, without any new additions, the holes should appear for another 50-75 years. Does this agreement alter your opinion of the science involved? The ozone models have been very accurate but perhaps accuracy is not sufficient. I have not read the primary literature about climate change and so must confess that I am ignorant of the actual global warming models. However, I must ask you a question about them. Have you read them? Do you know that water vapor is not part of the models or that it is not modeled in a realistic manner? If so, some specific criticisms would be very welcome (and I mean this sincerely). Back-of-the-napkin calculations and it-stands-to-reason arguments have not served us well (think of Laffer's napkin and Reganomics) but some specific criticisms are what this forum is about. To be honest, your criticism so far has committed the very error you have so vigorously denounced. Your criticism is bad science. But that may be only because you did not include the specifics and I, for one, would like to read them. If there is real criticism of global warming due to change in CO2 concentration we (ecologists) all need to see it and to see it as soon as possible. Phil Ganter Department of Biological Sciences Tennessee State University On 7/5/12 9:29 AM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.edu wrote: My skepticism regrading the CO2 argument comes from looking at what causes the greenhouse effect and the relative contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. As we all know water vapour is the cause of the greenhouse effect, and lacking water vapour in the atmosphere
[ECOLOG-L] Graduate Research Assistantship at Colorado State University - Ecology
Graduate Research Assistantship. We have an opening for a graduate student seeking a Ph.D. in the Graduate Degree Program in Ecology at Colorado State University starting in December 2012 or May 2013. The successful applicant will study trophic and hydrologic controls on willow communities in Yellowstone National Park to reveal how the reintroduction of wolves has shaped ecosystem processes. The position is fully funded by an LTREB award from the National Science Foundation. An annual stipend, full tuition waiver, and housing during 3-4 months of annual work in the field will be provided. Requirements include a master's degree in ecology or related field, strong quantitative skills, and the ability to communicate effectively orally and in writing. There will be an opportunity to do a preliminary interview at the Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Portland, Oregon (August 4-8, 2012) and at the Annual Meeting of the Wildlife Society, also in Portland (October 16-18, 2012). Contact Tom Hobbs (tom.ho...@colostate.edu) and David Cooper (david.coo...@colostate.edu) to express interest. * Jill M. Lackett Research Associate Natural Resource Ecology Lab Colorado State University 970.491.2343 (p) 970.491.1965 (f) jill.lack...@colostate.edu NREL homepage: http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/ For group mailings: Use of this mail list is intended exclusively for internal communication at Colorado State University. Any unauthorized use is prohibited.
[ECOLOG-L] Phenology-related activites at 2012 ESA Ann Mtg, Portland OR, 5-10 Aug.
All - there is a great variety of activities related to phenology of plants, animals, landscapes and ecosystems (and beyond!) at the Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Portland, Oregon in a few short weeks. We've compiled a synopsis of phenology-related activities and events on our ESA meeting landing page at http://www.usanpn.org/esa2012 Hope to see you there Jake Jake F. Weltzin Ecologist, US Geological Survey Executive Director, USA National Phenology Network National Coordinating Office 1955 East 6th Street Tucson, AZ 85721 Phone: (520) 626-3821 Fax: (520) 621-7834 E-mail: jwelt...@usgs.gov NPN homepage: http://www.usanpn.org/
[ECOLOG-L] FW: JOB OPPORTUNITY – Director, Institute of Pacific I slands Forestry, PSW, USDA-Forest Service
JOB OPPORTUNITY – Director, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, PSW, USDA-Forest Service The Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry (IPIF), USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) is advertising for a full-time, permanent GS-14/15 position as the Director of the Institute. The position will function as a Program Manager within the PSW Station, which encompasses California, Hawaii, and the U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands. The IPIF Director will be assigned to lead the IPIF research portfolio and coordinate with the four PSW research program areas and associated Program Managers: Fire Fuels; Forest Ecosystem Function Health; Conservation of Biodiversity; and Urban Ecosystems and Social Dynamics. The position is located at the PSW facility on the University Hawaii campus in Hilo, HI. The Pacific Islands are recognized as outstanding native and cultural ecosystems with high biodiversity, environmental vulnerability, and cultural significance. Pacific Island landscapes considered part of PSW and addressed directly by the Institute include Hawaii, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the Marshall Islands. The geographic area served by the Institute is a culturally rich environment, and the Institute places a high priority on science delivery and capacity building in a manner that is culturally appropriate and useful. The Institute Director plans and supervises the execution of multidisciplinary research conducted primarily in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. The Director Leads the integration of research and development into practice, and serves as primary spokesperson for IPIF research and for the Station, serves as primary Station liaison for international, national, and regional efforts related to IPIF, and engages with partners, collaborators and stakeholders on behalf of the Station and the agency. The Institute Director serves as part of the Station's leadership team in developing research programs and strategies, including budget and workforce planning, to meet Station and agency goals and objectives. The incumbent provides administrative and technical leadership and oversight for a staff of 15-20 permanent employees and three major facilities. For more information contact Dr. Jane Hayes: jlha...@fs.fed.usmailto:jlha...@fs.fed.us To apply – closes July 13: · Federal employees with competitive status: TA12-2754-0362G-EB: http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/320451800 · All other US citizens: TA12-2754-0362DP-EB: http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/320451900 R. Flint Hughes, Ph.D. Research Ecologist Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry USDA-Forest Service 60 Nowelo Street Hilo, HI 96720 Phone: 808 933-8121 Fax: 808 933-8120 Cell: 808 430-0662 From: Peter Vitousek [mailto:vitou...@stanford.edu]mailto:[mailto:vitou...@stanford.edu] Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2012 6:06 PM To: lisaa...@hawaii.edumailto:lisaa...@hawaii.edu; ruthagurai...@hotmail.commailto:ruthagurai...@hotmail.com; alison_ainswo...@nps.govmailto:alison_ainswo...@nps.gov; Steven Allison; Katie Amatangelo; sel...@hawaii.edumailto:sel...@hawaii.edu; katei...@uiuc.edumailto:katei...@uiuc.edu; rob_ander...@usgs.govmailto:rob_ander...@usgs.gov; Courtney Angelo; greg_ap...@tws.orgmailto:greg_ap...@tws.org; 'Gregory Asner'; carter_atkin...@usgs.govmailto:carter_atkin...@usgs.gov; Susan Culliney; Amy Austin; diveg...@aol.commailto:diveg...@aol.com; teribal...@yahoo.commailto:teribal...@yahoo.com; paul_ba...@usgs.govmailto:paul_ba...@usgs.gov; r.bardg...@lancaster.ac.ukmailto:r.bardg...@lancaster.ac.uk; Kasey Barton; Kamanamaikalani Beamer PhD; kbe...@cc.usu.edumailto:kbe...@cc.usu.edu; be...@hawaii.edumailto:be...@hawaii.edu; cbnel...@geol.sc.edumailto:cbnel...@geol.sc.edu; david_beni...@contractor.nps.govmailto:david_beni...@contractor.nps.gov; jben...@alumni.princeton.edumailto:jben...@alumni.princeton.edu; Bennett, Karen A -FS; sbenn...@hawaii.edumailto:sbenn...@hawaii.edu; Tracy Benning; cb...@usgs.govmailto:cb...@usgs.gov; d...@cnr.colostate.edumailto:d...@cnr.colostate.edu; Blum, Michael J; hj.boeh...@uni-bonn.demailto:hj.boeh...@uni-bonn.de; abras...@usgs.govmailto:abras...@usgs.gov; kolhaw...@gmail.commailto:kolhaw...@gmail.com; t...@hawaii.edumailto:t...@hawaii.edu; kevin_bri...@usgs.govmailto:kevin_bri...@usgs.gov; Eben Broadbent; marie_bruegm...@fws.govmailto:marie_bruegm...@fws.gov; Thomas D Bullen; burke...@hawaii.edumailto:burke...@hawaii.edu; kburn...@hawaii.edumailto:kburn...@hawaii.edu; busacc...@yahoo.commailto:busacc...@yahoo.com; Posy Busby; rick_c...@usgs.govmailto:rick_c...@usgs.gov; can...@hawaii.edumailto:can...@hawaii.edu; rc...@pitt.edumailto:rc...@pitt.edu; car...@steuber.commailto:car...@steuber.com; tlcca...@aol.commailto:tlcca...@aol.com; cass...@hawaiiantel.netmailto:cass...@hawaiiantel.net;
[ECOLOG-L] ...socially-mediated speciation...call for paper by 7/8/2012...
list-servers...i'm attempting to round-out a mini-series [~ 5 papers] on EvoSoc that i'm guest editing for *Journal of Zoology*...if you have scholarly experience with the topic, socially-mediated speciation and would like to propose a topic for my consideration, i'd be really interested to have you contact me...we have a rapid turnaround for this mini-series, thus, i'd need to hear from you by sunday 7/8/2012 if you have a serious interest...thank you for any attention to this query...clara clara b. jones Blog: http://vertebratesocialbehavior.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/cbjones1943 Cell: -828-279-4429 Where no estimate of error of any kind can be made, generalizations about populations from sample data are worthless. Ferguson, 1959
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Cherubini, the fallacy of your interpretation of the graph has been pointed out several times on this list. What part of the explanations did you not understand? You certainly have no reason to extrapolate that the temperatures will not rise in the future on the basis of one short period in the graph. That short period is only a few years out of a very long trend of increasing temperature. I could just as easily pick out one of the periods when the temperature rose dramatically more than at other times, and say that the temperature might increase at that rate in the future. Good grief!! So far as jobs being generated, institutions are going to want to study things that exist. Makes sense to me. David McNeely Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Beth wrote: given the claim that so much money is involved in advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change, I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'. Consider the job postings to Ecolog-L the past 2 years. At least half of them involve the study or mitigation of (assumed) CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. So like Rob said, enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. If the warming trend line of this NOAA graph http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt continues to stay relatively flat for another 5 years then more and more people will become anthropogenic doubters which in turn could deminish the creation of climate change jobs and threaten existing ones. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Dear Rob, I doubt that ignoring the conclusions of previous climate studies will improve the vitality of Ecology or Climatology as fields of inquiry. You seem to assume that climatologists don't use the scientific method, but what you describe is exactly the process they have used to assess whether and how CO2 contributes to climate change. They developed alternative explanations of warming trends (e.g., CO2 vs water as drivers), derived predictions from these explanations (e.g., annual mean temperatures should correlate with CO2 levels, or CO2 should absorb and re-emit infrared radiation more than other atmospheric gases), and tested these predictions using observational studies and/or experiments. To ignore the results of these previous studies and deny their most fundamental conclusions (e.g., that CO2 contributes to global temperature increases) would be counter-productive and keep science from progressing. If their conclusions turn out to be wrong, then eventually the weight of evidence will move the field in a new direction. But, the weight of evidence is pretty strong now for CO2-induced warming, so I sort of doubt that conclusion will be overturned anytime soon. Personally, I am grateful to the many climatologists who have cared deeply enough about the causes of climate change to test their ideas and publish their results. This is partly because I suspect many of them have made personal and financial sacrifices to maintain their research programs. Sincerely, Tom Raffel On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Robert Hamilton roberthamil...@alc.eduwrote: I really don't care if CO2 causes global warming or not. It is irrelevant to what I am trying to say. If the science was being done right we would look at a variety of theories regarding human causes of climate change, and there are several, derive basic statements (to test risky predictions) from various theories and test them. Some theories would make accurate predictions and survive, others would not and would be falsified and discarded. We do have a whole industry of people promoting the theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. They are 100% vested in that conjecture. If it is falsified they lose their jobs and or their influence. I find it curious when some of these people claim to be underground in some sense when they in fact are the establishment; they are the man! Enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. The last climate model I looked at was last year, someone had a model that included clouds! These models, in my experience, predict a static effect of water vapour, when it is clearly highly dynamic, and generally they don't consider winds, and I don't see why they cannot include the dynamics of water vapour and winds if they are simply trying to model climate. As for the fact I live in coal country, my view on coal is that its future value greatly exceeds its present value; it is worth far more in the ground. It is somewhat of a waste to burn it as there are probably a lot of hydrocarbon based materials that can be made from coal, types of materials that are in great demand and whose value will increase as other fossil fuel reserves decline. My last word on this at this time, and hopefully I will be able to curb my tongue on this in the future. What we say doesn't really matter anyways, and I certainly have no real influence in this area, and thus don't need the aggravation of this sort of a discussion. All I really care about is the vitality of the Science of Ecology with respect to this issue. Rob Hamilton -- Thomas R. Raffel, Ph.D. Visiting Assistant Professor Biology Department, Dickinson College 28 N. College St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Phone: 717-254-8193
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate change - EOS Forum
Its hard to interpret all that.
Its amazing how any one of us can make a mistake, or a bad
judgementbut it would be nice if once in a while each of us
actually listened to others more knowledgeable than we are, and
recognize that our judgement may be again flawed.
No admissions necessary.
:)
Can you imagine having a moment of bad judgement leading to your
setting up an automatic sprayer in someone's property w/o obtaining
permission, and then setting the time w/o the owner's knowledge so
that the sprayer sets off the burgler alarm, leading to the arrival of
police officers who check out the scene only to get sprayed with
pesticides???
None of us is beyond reproach, all of us make mistakes.
I wish more of us were born with perfect judgement in all
things,...pesticide application, climate change, whatever.
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM, David Schneider david.schnei...@mun.ca wrote:
Hello all,
We have seen considerable diversity in how to respond, as
scientists, on the topic of climate change. Clearly one
size does not fit all. For those friends and acquaintances
who ask, I like to start with simple statements based on
evidence, which I value highly as a scientist - evidence
assembled by IPCC and accessible explanation of what happens
in a greenhouse and why it applies to CO2 (methane etc)
in the atmosphere.
For policy makers, I start with evidence (IPCC) and
then to risks if no action (much less clear!).
For those who respond with arguments we recognize
(ad hominem attacks, cherry picked data, etc) I describe the
fallacy, being careful not to stray to the ad hominem.
For those who venture into a public forum (e.g. talk on
College campus) I like debate, not surprise. In the
debates about evolution, Stephen J. Gould mastered the
arguments, and so was prepared to debate the topic.
For those who go political ('warmist' or 'climate alarmist' as
below) I like Don Stong's response - call them on going political.
Finally, it helps to do some research on the person to whom you
are responding, to find out motivation ($$$ ? or something else?).
Search
Paul Cherubini El dorado
You might be surprised.
David Schneider
http://www.mun.ca/osc/dschneider/bio.php
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote:
On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Corbin, Jeffrey D. wrote:
1) but I made the specific point at our counter-presentation that
we have a great deal to discuss as to HOW society should
confront climate change - CapTrade, Carbon tax, mitigation,
etc. But such a discussion must begin with an acceptance of
the understood science.
The notion of anthropogenic global warming is not hardly
settled. There is a large body of anthropogenic doubters,
especially because global mean temps have stabilized
since 1998 http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt That flattening of
warming was not predicted by the anthropogenic warmists.
2) the general public who does have difficulty filtering
out the conflicting sides of the debate.
The public and industry pay alot of attention to websites
such as http://wattsupwiththat.com/ that examine the
claims and track records of the anthropogenic climate
alarmists in great depth and provide evidence suggesting
global mean temps may continue to be relatively
stable for another 20 years or so.
The public also listens to industry leaders who says things like:
fears about climate change, drilling, and energy dependence
are overblown - http://tinyurl.com/6wezuce
Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.
The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o character
Commerce w/o morality
Science w/o humanity
Worship w/o sacrifice
Politics w/o principle
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
This electronic communication is governed by the terms and conditions at
http://www.mun.ca/cc/policies/electronic_communications_disclaimer_2012.php
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
School of Biological Sciences
University of Missouri at Kansas City
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive -
Allan Nation
1880's: There's lots of good fish in the sea W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi)
Wealth w/o work
Pleasure w/o conscience
Knowledge w/o
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS Forum
Sorry to chime in here but this is a good example of what I meant when I said that some individuals are just not worth the effort because no matter how much data and logic your present they will remain intransigent. I strongly suggest you just ignore this guy - you're wasting your time. Maybe ask him so just what would convince you? My bet is that he would say nothing - he sees exactly what he wants to see. Mitch Cruzan On 7/5/2012 6:58 PM, David L. McNeely wrote: Cherubini, the fallacy of your interpretation of the graph has been pointed out several times on this list. What part of the explanations did you not understand? You certainly have no reason to extrapolate that the temperatures will not rise in the future on the basis of one short period in the graph. That short period is only a few years out of a very long trend of increasing temperature. I could just as easily pick out one of the periods when the temperature rose dramatically more than at other times, and say that the temperature might increase at that rate in the future. Good grief!! So far as jobs being generated, institutions are going to want to study things that exist. Makes sense to me. David McNeely Paul Cherubini mona...@saber.net wrote: On Jul 5, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Beth wrote: given the claim that so much money is involved in advancing claims of anthropogenic causes for climate change, I am interested to know the facts figures and comparisons behind this claim that it's simply about salaries and 'influence'. Consider the job postings to Ecolog-L the past 2 years. At least half of them involve the study or mitigation of (assumed) CO2 driven anthropogenic climate change. That wasn't the case 10 years ago. So like Rob said, enormous wealth is being generated based on consequences of the belief that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause climate change. If the warming trend line of this NOAA graph http://tinyurl.com/6ca5gzt continues to stay relatively flat for another 5 years then more and more people will become anthropogenic doubters which in turn could deminish the creation of climate change jobs and threaten existing ones. Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. -- David McNeely
[ECOLOG-L] AGU session on carbon cycling in inland waters and terrestrial-aquatic linkages
If there are any folks working on carbon cycling in inland freshwater systems or on aquatic-terrestrial coupling, please considering submitting an abstract to our AGU session: B009: Carbon in the Warming Water: Role of Inland Aquatic Ecosystems in Regional and Global Carbon Cycling There is growing recognition that inland waters are a major component of regional and global carbon budgets. Experimental, observational, theoretical, and model investigations are revealing new perspectives on rates and fate of carbon transport, linkages of terrestrial-aquatic processes, and influence of climatic variability on nutrient cycling. This session solicits abstracts that advance our understanding of these processes across aquatic ecosystems, including lakes, streams, and wetlands, using novel approaches at multiple scales, such as over-water eddy covariance and in-water high resolution observations, physical-biological limnological modeling, and cross-site ecological synthesis. http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/session-search/single/carbon-in-the-warming-water-role-of-inland-aquatic-ecosystems-in-regional-and-global-carbon-cycling/ Sincerely, Ankur R Desai Associate Professor Atmospheric Oceanic Sciences Dept. University of Wisconsin - Madison http://flux.aos.wisc.edu
