How sad - VT College loss of life

[Dr D]

I've been wondering about this - has the cougar population actually increased DRAMATICALLY, or is it just that humans have been encroaching further and further into their territory so they therefore seem more prevalent, as they get used to humans being around and figure out that we make a good dinner (as C5 pointed out earlier)? I'm jw if you know data on # of cougars in the area (I know you have a problem with traditional counting methods, but that aside, any ideas?)

ALSO, new rules about killing wolves ...

"But until now, private individuals needed special permission to kill wolves that had developed a taste for domestic animals. Under the new rules, they may shoot wolves that are harassing livestock or other domestic animals. In addition, the federal government will relinquish responsibility to states and Indian tribes that develop approved wolf-management plans. At the moment, Idaho and Montana fit that category.

The general idea, officials say, is to increase opportunities to remove problem wolves while still protecting the majority of wolves that are not causing conflicts with people."

Both are true. The natural balance was thrown off long ago before hunting and conservation laws were in effect. We have been the only predator/competitor for the larger predators since. When we quit actively managing predator populations due to environmentalist pressure they started overpopulating. we are obviously encroaching into native habitat in some areas all though out west most of those areas are parks wilderness usfs or otherwise protected from encroachment anyway. Traditional counting methods need to change and they need to be managed responsibly. I know its not a common thought among environmentalist types but hunters collectively have the most to lose if animals are over hunted and mismanaged. Hunters as a whole take a great interest in proper game management and promotion of the various species. That wasn't true earlier in our history before game laws etc. Commercial hunting was what really hurt game populations. since the advent of hunting laws and game management and the abolishment of commercial hunting. game populations have skyrocketed. Some Fur bearing species, wolves and buffalo were so far gone that they have taken much longer to recover. we are at that point with wolves now.

AS for the new rules for wolves that is all we are asking for. Nobody is promoting the wholesale slaughter of wolves. Wyoming is also included in that group of states. Montana and wyoming already meet federal guidelines for delisting and Idaho is close. They are required in some way to delist as a group and all three have to comply before it will happen. The tribes have a vested interest in maintaining populations on their land for cultural reasons and the state game depts have huge oversight and input from various government agencies. The management will be highly regulated just at a more local level.

[carvedog]

It is not just the cougar and wolves issue -- other predators that are wrecking once plentiful amounts of steelhead, salmon and precious sturgeon.

The damn Sea Lions--- they are protected so no one can do anything - just like wolves, most people that want them do not understand or care about the side effects.

The sea lions just sit and swim outside the locks and have a gourmet meal all day without having to work for it. The salmon and steelhead are trapped – to them it is like shooting fish in a barrel.

http://www.usa10.com/riverrun/seals.htm

Obviously the Sea Lions have an impact on migrating Salmon and Steelhead from Idaho and other NW states (didn't know they were dining on Sturgeon too but no surprise). The biggest impact on Idaho Salmon occur during the downstream migration, where most agree that the smolts get lost in the continuous dam systems on the Snake (4 biggies in 80 miles). Up to 90 % of mortality occurs during the run to the ocean.

For the most comprehensive website resource on the problem check this out:

http://bluefish.org/

While this may be more germaine to Idaho's salmon, the issues are the same throughout the Northwest.

[Dr D]

so would you rather have a "natural" environment like what Dr D is talking about, where we masters and everything else can get out of our way, or a natural environment that is as close to natural as we can get it?

Where did you come up with that??

All I am saying is that a knee jerk reaction will swing the pendulum the other way far enough to cause even more problems.

example.

flathead lake was home to a huge kokanee salmon population native to the lake. Every year they run up into glacier park and thousands of bald eagles among other things come to feed. It was nature at its finest. the FWP, goaded by some environmental interest, decided to introduce mycee (spelling?) shrimp to the lake as a new food source for the salmon because their numbers had declined a little. Long story short the shrimp aren't out when the salmon really needed them as a food source and they hatched before the salmon fry and eat the same things as the salmon fry. We no longer have any kokanee salmon in flathead lake and no eagles come anymore etc.

Life runs in a cyclical pattern some cycles are bigger than others and for some reason we are arrogant enough to assume that if the cycles are longer than our life span that they don't exist. I only advocate a more moderate approach not wholesale slaughter.

[Dr D]

hahaha Good One!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was in texas over spring break with visiting my uncle, and next door to him is this geologist that works for the government, consulting with oil companies. Needless to say, we got into the climate change argument. He claims everything is due to natural cyles - which is b*ll sh**.

If it were all part of a natural cycle (which do occur, every 10,000 years), we SHOULD be heading back into the next ice age. I think it was about in about 1960 when we reached the peak of the inter-glacial period, and at that point scientists were expecting the earth to start cooling, not warming.

Again all the data is based on assumptions. we know maybe ten percent of whats really happened in the past especially prehistory. The rest is "educated Guess" As far as the current climate change the best guess I have seen lately is that the MARS probe data shows a parallel temperature increase on mars. Couple that with recent sun activity and you have a cycle much bigger than any on earth. The sun is experiencing some upheaval "storms" I don't know much about the process but its normal and cyclical as I understand it. If that's true then most of the GLobal warming hype is just that.

I don't think we should rape the planet but we should understand that things adapt and change. whitetail deer live in town better than they ever did in the woods if you look at populations and herd health. Spotted owls have been found doing just fine in NEW growth forests. (the panic about spotted owl populations was based on a count done in old growth forests. noone thought to look and see if they were adapting) etc.

Sealions have adapted to easy living in front of a dam. IMHO we need to relax and lose the self loathing and look for simpler commonsense answers that help nature and don't put thousands out of work. We have the technology to improve our impact on the earth and we should use it but we shouldn't run around screaming that the sky is falling.

historically 50% of what was known fact at any given time was later proven wrong. which fifty percent are we screwing up?

now there is a question

[C5 Golfer]

flathead lake was home to a huge kokanee salmon population native to the lake. Every year they run up into glacier park and thousands of bald eagles among other things come to feed. It was nature at its finest. the FWP, goaded by some environmental interest, decided to introduce mycee (spelling?) shrimp to the lake as a new food source for the salmon because their numbers had declined a little. Long story short the shrimp aren't out when the salmon really needed them as a food source and they hatched before the salmon fry and eat the same things as the salmon fry. We no longer have any kokanee salmon in flathead lake and no eagles come anymore etc.

.

Thats a damn shame-- been to Glacier Park -- awesome. Is anything being done to reintroduce the Kokanee? Or is the non-native Lake Trout still king and eating everything? But since the Kokanee were not native to begin with - introduced in 1916 which reduced the native cutthroat - maybe this is mother nature's way of telling us to quit messing around with her species.

[Dr D]

Thats a damn shame-- been to Glacier Park -- awesome. Is anything being done to reintroduce the Kokanee? Or is the non-native Lake Trout still king and eating everything? But since the Kokanee were not native to begin with - introduced in 1916 which reduced the native cutthroat - maybe this is mother nature's way of telling us to quit messing around with her species.

We still have lake trout problems but they keep them in check by massive freeforall fishing derbies. Every spring they tag a few and throw them in with a 50,000 dollare prize attached to the guy who catches it. No limit fish til you get it. draws quite a crowd and they still can't get rid of them.

Interesting note on the cutthroat, hungry horse dam has isolated all the cutthroat above the dam and has accidentally preserved the purest genetic strain left in the Rockies so they are "studying " how to best screw that up .:lol: :lol:

AS far as I know kokanee were the only species affectd by the shrimp. We still have good whitefish populations they even fish them commercially. All attempts to ressurect the kokanee are doomed to failure unless you know how to rid the largest surface area lake west of the mississippi of all the shrimp which incidentally love it here.

[C5 Golfer]

We still have lake trout problems but they keep them in check by massive freeforall fishing derbies. Every spring they tag a few and throw them in with a 50,000 dollare prize attached to the guy who catches it. No limit fish til you get it. draws quite a crowd and they still can't get rid of them.

Interesting note on the cutthroat, hungry horse dam has isolated all the cutthroat above the dam and has accidentally preserved the purest genetic strain left in the Rockies so they are "studying " how to best screw that up .:lol: :lol:

AS far as I know kokanee were the only species affectd by the shrimp. We still have good whitefish populations they even fish them commercially. All attempts to ressurect the kokanee are doomed to failure unless you know how to rid the largest surface area lake west of the mississippi of all the shrimp which incidentally love it here.

Sounds like a good derby-- Maybe I will put that on my "things to do before I die list" when I retire soon.

Too bad a chemical can not be developed that would sterilize the shrimp but then we'd have to deal with the effects of a chemical.

[bobdea]

not global warming per se, global warming is one type

what I was refering to was in reference to more local factors due to logging, dams or whatever, the fact is that it happens naturally and some species manage to adapt quickly but we're really pushing our luck as populations grow and the third world industrializes so anything we do to accelerate it is probably not smart. not because I'm worried about the spotted owl or some type of rare nematode but because our food supply is fragile and we all need to face that fact. That is not going going to be found out it's not true in 50 years, if it were not true there would not be famines all over the world.

I work for a organization that focuses partly on this issue.

[C5 Golfer]

as populations grow and the third world industrializes so anything we do to accelerate it is probably not smart. not because I'm worried about the spotted owl or some type of rare nematode but because our food supply is fragile and we all need to face that fact. That is not going going to be found out it's not true in 50 years, if it were not true there would not be famines all over the world.

I work for a organization that focuses partly on this issue.

Bob,

Not sure if this is relevent but it may be in certain chapters..

But it is an interesting read you may enjoy.

"Guns, Germs, and Steel"

With a new chapter. The phenomenal bestseller--over 1.5 million copies sold--is now a major PBS special.

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" is a brilliant work answering the question of why the peoples of certain continents succeeded in invading other continents and conquering or displacing their peoples. This edition includes a new chapter on Japan and all-new illustrations drawn from the television series.

Until around 11,000 BC, all peoples were still Stone Age hunter/gatherers. At that point, a great divide occurred in the rates that human societies evolved. In Eurasia, parts of the Americas, and Africa, farming became the prevailing mode of existence when indigenous wild plants and animals were domesticated by prehistoric planters and herders. As Jared Diamond vividly reveals, the very people who gained a head start in producing food would collide with preliterate cultures, shaping the modern world through conquest, displacement, and genocide.

The paths that lead from scattered centers of food to broad bands of settlement had a great deal to do with climate and geography. But how did differences in societies arise? Why weren't native Australians, Americans, or Africans the ones to colonize Europe? Diamond dismantles pernicious racial theories tracing societal differences to biological differences.

He assembles convincing evidence linking germs to domestication of animals, germs that Eurasians then spread in epidemic proportions in their voyages of discovery. In its sweep, "Guns, Germs and Steel" encompasses the rise of agriculture, technology, writing, government, and religion, providing a unifying theory of human history as intriguing as thehistories of dinosaurs and glaciers. 32 illustrations.

[Dr D]

our food supply is fragile and we all need to face that fact. That is not going going to be found out it's not true in 50 years, if it were not true there would not be famines all over the world.

IQUOTE]

Our food supply is not only fragile its poisoned and overprocessed etc. We need to return to local production not just for the planet but for our own health. Victory gardens truck gardens etc. local meat producers etc. Factory farming and agricorps are ruining the foodsupply for profit and in the process making it vulnerable to things like the pet food problem of late.

[C5 Golfer]

our food supply is fragile and we all need to face that fact. That is not going going to be found out it's not true in 50 years, if it were not true there would not be famines all over the world.

IQUOTE]

Our food supply is not only fragile its poisoned and overprocessed etc. We need to return to local production not just for the planet but for our own health. Victory gardens truck gardens etc. local meat producers etc. Factory farming and agricorps are ruining the foodsupply for profit and in the process making it vulnerable to things like the pet food problem of late.

+1 Dr D---

Amen to that. Along these lines -- I never knowingly eat or buy farm raised fish like salmon and the gawd awful Talipia.

[Steve Prokopiw]

our food supply is fragile and we all need to face that fact. That is not going going to be found out it's not true in 50 years, if it were not true there would not be famines all over the world.

IQUOTE]

Our food supply is not only fragile its poisoned and overprocessed etc. We need to return to local production not just for the planet but for our own health. Victory gardens truck gardens etc. local meat producers etc. Factory farming and agricorps are ruining the foodsupply for profit and in the process making it vulnerable to things like the pet food problem of late.

Agreed to both,and would add that this all makes our calories less nutritious and our population less healthy ,fatter and more cranky. I'm gonna finish my fries now...

[Dr D]

Agreed to both,and would add that this all makes our calories less nutritious and our population less healthy ,fatter and more cranky. I'm gonna finish my fries now...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

are they local?

[Steve Prokopiw]

Ironically,no.Most of the potatos we eat in North Idaho come from other states.

[skategoat]

+1 Dr D---

Amen to that. Along these lines -- I never knowingly eat or buy farm raised fish like salmon and the gawd awful Talipia.

I can understand where you guys are coming from about factory farming, etc., but the fact is, without large, efficient farms using fertilizer, pesticides and machinery, we would not have the lifestyle that we are accustomed to.

In Canada, only 2.4% of our population are farming full-time. In the U.S., the numbers are similar, I'm sure. There is no way those people could support the rest of us if it wasn't for industrialized, mechanized farming. No way.

Same sort of conclusions hold true for organic farming. Organic or low-input farming is much lower yielding than non-organic. There just isn't the land available to feed our population if we went all organic.

Want to talk about fish? You won't eat farmed fish. I can understand why. But then you lament the loss of wild stocks. The two are mutually exclusive. If you don't eat farmed fish, you're not going to have any wild fish to enjoy as a fisherman or naturalist. We've already raped and plundered the oceans beyond belief. As Mark Kurlansky put it, in his book "Cod", "Today, seafood is whatever is left." We ate all the cod so we moved on to haddock. We ate all the haddock so we started eating pollock. Now we're on to hake. Fish that we used to throw away. And this is just the North Atlantic.

In the Pacific, we discovered huge schools of delicious fish in the 80's. We consumed them in massive quantities until a scientist discovered that the fish we were eating were born in Queen Victoria's reign. The fish were called orange roughy and live to be 100 years old. They grow extremely slowly. Too late, they're all gone.

I'm sorry to tell you this but if you want to eat fish in the future, you're going to have to eat the farmed stuff. I realize the implications of fish farming - disease introduction into wild stocks, etc., but I'll take those risks rather than further plunder our wild stocks.

We've dug ourselves a huge hole. We are completely dependent on petroleum based, mechanized, modern farming. I really enjoy organic foods and wild fish and game. The difference in taste between a free-range chicken and a factory chicken is unbelievable. I was stunned when I first tasted a real chicken. Same with carrots. The organic stuff tastes like - carrots, not plastic. But, wild foods and organic foods are going to have to be a luxury. There is no way we can wind back the clock unless we cull half the world's population.

[skategoat]

Just a bit of thread creep here eh guys?

[C5 Golfer]

I can understand where you guys are coming from about factory farming, etc., but the fact is, without large, efficient farms using fertilizer, pesticides and machinery, we would not have the lifestyle that we are accustomed to.

Want to talk about fish? You won't eat farmed fish. I can understand why. But then you lament the loss of wild stocks. The two are mutually exclusive. If you don't eat farmed fish, you're not going to have any wild fish to enjoy as a fisherman or naturalist. .

I did not say the world should not eat farm raised fish -- I am glad it is there for the reasons you list. 90% of the inland public are unaware of the chemicals it takes to color farm raised salmon to a pinkish color. I am sorry for those 90%. I choose to not participate. I believe the salmon, halibut, crab from Alaska and BC are from healthy plentiful stocks - and as long as it is sold legally and fresh - I'll be first in line. I also don't mind reeling in a few when the season is open. I lament the loss of wild stocks which is why the fishing season is short and only open to the taking of hatchery raised salmon - those with the adipose fin removed. This is a good move for us all - allows the wild ones to co-exist and survive. Now if we could only clean up our streams lakes and watersheds and get rid of most of the sea lions where they are not supposed to be - we might be able to turn this around and feed the world again.

BTW - if you want a short read on the negatives of farm raised fish and it problems - it is here

http://www.deliciousorganics.com/Controversies/wildvsfarmfish.htm#Cost

[C5 Golfer]

BTW- to all readers , I can not believe the discussion of the various topics from my original post. Anyone know how the heck we got here? The mental case who shot the kids did not fish or hunt. If someone were to diagram this post it would be a circle I think -- the only thing missing unless I missed it is a discussion about Hitler.

[Dr D]

I can understand where you guys are coming from about factory farming, etc., but the fact is, without large, efficient farms using fertilizer, pesticides and machinery, we would not have the lifestyle that we are accustomed to.

In Canada, only 2.4% of our population are farming full-time. In the U.S., the numbers are similar, I'm sure. There is no way those people could support the rest of us if it wasn't for industrialized, mechanized farming. No way.

Same sort of conclusions hold true for organic farming. Organic or low-input farming is much lower yielding than non-organic. There just isn't the land available to feed our population if we went all organic.

Want to talk about fish? You won't eat farmed fish. I can understand why. But then you lament the loss of wild stocks. The two are mutually exclusive. If you don't eat farmed fish, you're not going to have any wild fish to enjoy as a fisherman or naturalist. We've already raped and plundered the oceans beyond belief. As Mark Kurlansky put it, in his book "Cod", "Today, seafood is whatever is left." We ate all the cod so we moved on to haddock. We ate all the haddock so we started eating pollock. Now we're on to hake. Fish that we used to throw away. And this is just the North Atlantic.

In the Pacific, we discovered huge schools of delicious fish in the 80's. We consumed them in massive quantities until a scientist discovered that the fish we were eating were born in Queen Victoria's reign. The fish were called orange roughy and live to be 100 years old. They grow extremely slowly. Too late, they're all gone.

I'm sorry to tell you this but if you want to eat fish in the future, you're going to have to eat the farmed stuff. I realize the implications of fish farming - disease introduction into wild stocks, etc., but I'll take those risks rather than further plunder our wild stocks.

We've dug ourselves a huge hole. We are completely dependent on petroleum based, mechanized, modern farming. I really enjoy organic foods and wild fish and game. The difference in taste between a free-range chicken and a factory chicken is unbelievable. I was stunned when I first tasted a real chicken. Same with carrots. The organic stuff tastes like - carrots, not plastic. But, wild foods and organic foods are going to have to be a luxury. There is no way we can wind back the clock unless we cull half the world's population.

The happy medium is truck gardens and local raised products as much as possible. economically they went away because of cheap factory farm stuff on the market, now that the awareness is there about health issues involved the market is willing to pay a premium for these items. You will see a huge increase in small farms and others willing to produce under those market conditions.

Farm fish wouldn't be so bad if we didn't feed them the same crap we use in our feedlots. ORganic fish farms are the happy medium there as well. better product higher price and the market is increasingly willing to pay it.

[Dr D]

the only thing missing unless I missed it is a discussion about Hitler.

Did he even eat fish?:lol:

Good dialogue from both ends of the spectrum is a good thing maybe a better understanding of each other would help prevent some of the evil in the world?

there full circle:biggthump

[Erik J]

Wow, talk about a drifting thread.

On farming - Huge mechanized organic farms are simply the lesser of two evils. Our population is so huge that, as was said previously, it's the only way to feed the status-quo-of-eating-habits in this country. Large organic farms are still a cause of pollution, a sigifigant amount, it's just less toxic than standard industrial farming. Organic does not automatically mean that it tastes better either - in some cases it's more principle than flavor. A carrot picked the same day that it is eaten from a farm that sprays with synthetic chemicals can be significantly better tasting than a carrot from an organic farm that was shipped across the country before getting to you. The shipping across country of an organic carrot can also negate the benefits of buying organic by simply placing the pollution to a different area of the growing/processing/shipping cycle.

On fish - those poor little fish. We are eating them to extinction. We mostly buy farm raised in our restaurant. I love wild caught but I cannot in good conscience contribute to overfishing. With that being said, there is some excellent farm raised fish out there. It all depends on their diet and living quarters. The trout we buy comes from a local organic hatchery - the fish still have rigor mortis when they come in - the freshness and flavor are absolutely there. The salmon we buy comes from Loch Duart http://www.lochduart.com/ - which for consistency, quality and responsibly raised, is really effin good. Wild salmon tastes great, but one day they're eating delicious shellfish, the next they're chewing on a car tire. So for our use, I feel the farm raised in consistently better.

There is so much out there to consider. The ripple effect of each one of our practices goes places that are so far reaching. It's mind boggling.

[roscoe]

Again all the data is based on assumptions. we know maybe ten percent of whats really happened in the past especially prehistory. The rest is "educated Guess" As far as the current climate change the best guess I have seen lately is that the MARS probe data shows a parallel temperature increase on mars. Couple that with recent sun activity and you have a cycle much bigger than any on earth. The sun is experiencing some upheaval "storms" I don't know much about the process but its normal and cyclical as I understand it. If that's true then most of the GLobal warming hype is just that.

I don't think we should rape the planet but we should understand that things adapt and change. whitetail deer live in town better than they ever did in the woods if you look at populations and herd health. Spotted owls have been found doing just fine in NEW growth forests. (the panic about spotted owl populations was based on a count done in old growth forests. noone thought to look and see if they were adapting) etc.

DrD - sorry to bring this up again after its been a while - havent been on the computer at all today.

For your climate change argument - you should look into a paper by Mann et al - I think it was done in 99? - anyways, it takes tree ring data (which tells tree growth), which correlates exactly to temperature (they were able to figure out the conversion based on recent, recorded data). From this data they figured out that yes, in fact, earth is warming, and there is a direct correlation to increased CO2 data ... so what i'm disagreeing with you about is, yes, yet again, data. We know a LOT about historical climate - tree rings and ice cores tell us what the temperature and CO2 concentrations were.

However, I hadnt heard about the mars idea, I'll email my professor right now about that and see what he says.

and for the northern spotted owl - it is actually still in great danger today. I dont remember the exact data, but certain states/territories in canada there are something like 8 mating pairs. the biggest issue that the guys from the ESA found wasnt even the destruction of spotted owl habitat (still AN issue), but was actually another owl species (i think bard) that was being driven northwest b/c its own habitat is being destroyed by us. these owls can outcompete the spotted owl, and spotted owls are therefore dying off again.

One interesting method of control was just shooting the bard owls - within 2-3 weeks of shooting a good number of bard owls, a few spotted owls returned to their habitat - owls that the scientists had thought had migrated elsewhere b/c they had been silent for years.

I thought it was interesting to see how we intially destroyed Spotted Owls habitat, and then their demise was furthered by the destruction of the Bard owl habitat - who are habitat generalists and can migrate/take over Spotted owls' habitat.

[roscoe]

So i just read the abstract to the article - they dont say anything about larger system changes that are causing the changes on mars and therefore also on earth. Instead, they found that its due to changes in albedo and weather patterns specific to Mars.

here's the abstract ... Fenton et al. Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on mars ...

For hundreds of years, scientists have tracked the changing appearance of Mars, first by hand drawings and later by photographs1, 2. Because of this historical record, many classical albedo patterns have long been known to shift in appearance over time. Decadal variations of the martian surface albedo are generally attributed to removal and deposition of small amounts of relatively bright dust on the surface. Large swaths of the surface (up to 56 million km2) have been observed to darken or brighten by 10 per cent or more3, 4, 5. It is unknown, however, how these albedo changes affect wind circulation, dust transport and the feedback between these processes and the martian climate. Here we present predictions from a Mars general circulation model, indicating that the observed interannual albedo alterations strongly influence the martian environment. Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation. The increase in global dust lifting by both wind stress and dust devils may affect the mechanisms that trigger large dust storm initiation, a poorly understood phenomenon, unique to Mars. In addition, predicted increases in summertime air temperatures at high southern latitudes would contribute to the rapid and steady scarp retreat that has been observed in the south polar residual ice for the past four Mars years6, 7, 8. Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.

[C5 Golfer]

I'd say something but I know nothing about Albedo changes,

So I'll change the subject -- Dr D -- since you are from Montana - any chance you had the pleasure of knowing or meeting the infamous Elmer Keith?

I have yet to read his book "Hell, I was There" but one of these days I will.

I'd consider him one of my heros. A man's Man

http://www.sixguns.com/bunkhouse/elmer_keith.htm

[Dr D]

So i just read the abstract to the article - they dont say anything about larger system changes that are causing the changes on mars and therefore also on earth. Instead, they found that its due to changes in albedo and weather patterns specific to Mars.

here's the abstract ... Fenton et al. Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on mars ...

For hundreds of years, scientists have tracked the changing appearance of Mars, first by hand drawings and later by photographs1, 2. Because of this historical record, many classical albedo patterns have long been known to shift in appearance over time. Decadal variations of the martian surface albedo are generally attributed to removal and deposition of small amounts of relatively bright dust on the surface. Large swaths of the surface (up to 56 million km2) have been observed to darken or brighten by 10 per cent or more3, 4, 5. It is unknown, however, how these albedo changes affect wind circulation, dust transport and the feedback between these processes and the martian climate. Here we present predictions from a Mars general circulation model, indicating that the observed interannual albedo alterations strongly influence the martian environment. Results indicate enhanced wind stress in recently darkened areas and decreased wind stress in brightened areas, producing a positive feedback system in which the albedo changes strengthen the winds that generate the changes. The simulations also predict a net annual global warming of surface air temperatures by 0.65 K, enhancing dust lifting by increasing the likelihood of dust devil generation. The increase in global dust lifting by both wind stress and dust devils may affect the mechanisms that trigger large dust storm initiation, a poorly understood phenomenon, unique to Mars. In addition, predicted increases in summertime air temperatures at high southern latitudes would contribute to the rapid and steady scarp retreat that has been observed in the south polar residual ice for the past four Mars years6, 7, 8. Our results suggest that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars, and thus albedo variations are a necessary component of future atmospheric and climate studies.

:lol: Like I said historically 50% of what is known fact is later proven totally wrong. Which 50% is anyones guess just like the mars data above etc etc.

I read the spring report on Elk populations in MT in the local paper this AM and was tickled to see they had reported the "counting method" The count done shows large increases in herd size this year which is great news if its true. Here's the scientific method of choice. They flew a helicopter over the open areas in one (yes thats right one) hunting district in MT they chose the district based on the amount of open area. Apparently it's hard to see through trees:lol: Any way they extrapilated total state population from the number they were able to count in the open in one small district. there are 5-10 districts in a given county. Never mind the racket from the helicopter etc. they are counting only what they can see in one area with no accounting for predation etc in other areas. Its scientific though don't you worry:biggthump

When did science lose its healthy dose of skepticism?

We can guess based on what we see in things like tree rings etc and how it correlates with what we think we know, But we don't know it to be true and history proves that we are at least half wrong. If you are really committed to an idea you need to try and prove the opposite as well. I am just saying don't take the prof's word for it. THINK its fun and you can do it anywhere!