Alaska Pollock Spawning Affected by Climate Change, Fishing Pressure
- Thread starter Derby
- Start date
National Climate Assessment Report Released
November 23, 2018
The recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume ll is an extensive scientific assessment of climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States. The assessment includes climate change impacts on 10 US regions and 15 sectors including oceans and marine resources, ecosystems, coasts and others.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/national-climate-assessment-report-released
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/
and this one, especially:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch09_Oceans_ExecSum.pdf
November 23, 2018
The recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) Volume ll is an extensive scientific assessment of climate change impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States. The assessment includes climate change impacts on 10 US regions and 15 sectors including oceans and marine resources, ecosystems, coasts and others.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/national-climate-assessment-report-released
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/
and this one, especially:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_Ch09_Oceans_ExecSum.pdf
Last edited:
The psychology of climate change: Why people deny the evidence
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-psychology-1.4920872
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-psychology-1.4920872
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
It’s the CBC! Same old, same old.
https://polarbearscience.com/2018/1...bear-fate-with-unsupported-claims-falsehoods/
https://polarbearscience.com/2018/1...bear-fate-with-unsupported-claims-falsehoods/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Wow there are now peer reviewed science papers documenting the denial sphere on polar bear research and climate change. Not a good sign for a person in the science community. I guess ..... Paid doubters gotto doubt.
Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy
Published: 29 November 2017
Abstract
Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513
wildmanyeah
Crew Member
They did a study and picked 100 peer reviewed papers and found that most could not be replicated or found different results.
I posted a good pod cast by npr that dove into this.
Their is a big problem with the way we do science.
This was done after a famous scientist posted a paper that said esp is real.
https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=463237871
"KESTENBAUM: How do a bunch of scientific studies that seem to follow all the rules of the scientific method and make it into peer-reviewed journals - how is it possible that so many of them seem to be wrong?
GOLDSTEIN: The first thing to say - this is not about fraud. I mean, sure, there are examples out there of researchers just straight-up faking their results, but Nosek says - that's not what's going on here.
KESTENBAUM: He thinks what is going on here is something really more interesting. One of the ideas for what's happening is that a lot of what you are seeing in the journals are flukes, statistical flukes.
Here, let me give you an example. This is from a little experiment I did this morning flipping a coin 10 times.
I flipped it 10 times, Jacob. Nine times I got heads, only one tales. If you do this statistical analysis you do for, like, a drug trial or any scientific paper, this looks like a remarkable result. There's only, like, a 1 percent chance that this is a fluke. So I send this off to the Journal Of Coin Flipping or whatever.
And just to be clear, like, there are certainly plenty of things that science knows for sure, like smoking causes cancer. Climate change is real. The Higgs boson, I'm telling you, exists. There's lots of stuff that gets published in the journals where there's just no question about it. Like, it happened on a lab bench somewhere. They can repeat it. Other people have repeated it. It is definitely true.
But there is this other category of scientific research. You know, single studies that have not been replicated that rely on correlations, where the file drawer effect is a problem. And researchers tricking themselves, even though they're trying not to, is a problem.
Last edited:
Similar threads
