Hopefully there is hope...

[Aces]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130125103927.htm

 

[Jesse B.]

As fishing persons are we addicted to hope? If we lost hope would we put away our rods? May you always hope.

 

[tincan]

I've seen that article before. Someone posted on here a little while ago to prove that the sky isn't falling. Just wondering if that is peer-reviewed and published on any journals or just a website article on a study done by one person? Also, if you click on the "Story Source" at the bottom where the word "materials" is highlighted you will go to the source story that has the following printed in bold directly under the story (and is omitted in the reprint on the science daily article):

UPDATE:

All research results in this news brief have not yet been published. The research has been completed, so this news brief is a synthesis consisting of both published and thus far unpublished findings. In consultation and collaboration with the researcher, the Research Council has chosen to release this news at the completion of the research project because the project is of general interest. However, the Council releases this news with the caveat that the findings outlined in this news brief have yet to be verified and that the results will only become significant once they are confirmed by other studies. For further information please visit CICERO

Hate to be a downer but the study has yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal. For now I'll stick with sources such as:

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.nature.com/
http://www.sciencemag.org/

And from reading recent articles from these most respected sources the overall picture for global warming is not very rosy at this point.

 

[seadna]

I've seen that article before. Someone posted on here a little while ago to prove that the sky isn't falling. Just wondering if that is peer-reviewed and published on any journals or just a website article on a study done by one person? Also, if you click on the "Story Source" at the bottom where the word "materials" is highlighted you will go to the source story that has the following printed in bold directly under the story (and is omitted in the reprint on the science daily article):

UPDATE:

All research results in this news brief have not yet been published. The research has been completed, so this news brief is a synthesis consisting of both published and thus far unpublished findings. In consultation and collaboration with the researcher, the Research Council has chosen to release this news at the completion of the research project because the project is of general interest. However, the Council releases this news with the caveat that the findings outlined in this news brief have yet to be verified and that the results will only become significant once they are confirmed by other studies. For further information please visit CICERO

Hate to be a downer but the study has yet to be peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal. For now I'll stick with sources such as:

http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.nature.com/
http://www.sciencemag.org/

And from reading recent articles from these most respected sources the overall picture for global warming is not very rosy at this point.

Agreed. It's also worth noting that the CO2 levels we see now in the atmosphere are higher by far than any that the earth has seen in about 400,000 years (based on ice core data). So while there are both long term and short term temperature rises that are "natural", the CO2 rises we are seeing now are man made and nature hasn't experienced anything like them in at least 400,000 years.

 

[Jesse B.]

ah f--k! I'm hoping for change!!!!