JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
From article in post 374:

"Last week, adult fall Chinook salmon made it all the way to Oregon's stretch of the Klamath Basin for the first time in more than a century — swimming more than 200 miles from the ocean. Salmon were also seen spawning in a tributary above the former Iron Gate Dam site for the first time in more than 60 years."

I'm curious. Salmon supposedly return to the same area where they were spawned, being able to detect differences in water chemistry. If these spawning grounds were inaccessible to fish for so long, why are these fish "returning"? They were not spawned there.
The "Urge-To-Merge" is strong with these fish! :D It's not uncommon for anadromous fish to stray to other waters. I'll guess there must have been some spawning taking place in the stretch of the Klamath from ocean to the first dam too? Who know what makes them stop at any certain river mile?
 


Seems the Feds are suggesting to Army Corps of engineers to shut down the Willamette hydroelectric dams.... Again, "to save salmon" :rolleyes:
 


Seems the Feds are suggesting to Army Corps of engineers to shut down the Willamette hydroelectric dams.... Again, "to save salmon" :rolleyes:
Yeah. And soon, to reduce pollution and save lives, free-ways will be reduced to ONE lane in each direction.

Good old oregon! Always helping save the environment and mankind!
 
From article in post 374:

"Last week, adult fall Chinook salmon made it all the way to Oregon's stretch of the Klamath Basin for the first time in more than a century — swimming more than 200 miles from the ocean. Salmon were also seen spawning in a tributary above the former Iron Gate Dam site for the first time in more than 60 years."

I'm curious. Salmon supposedly return to the same area where they were spawned, being able to detect differences in water chemistry. If these spawning grounds were inaccessible to fish for so long, why are these fish "returning"? They were not spawned there.
1737056502942.png
 
Weren't there all kinds of maps and proof of an global cooling and mass death predicted way back in the 60s-70s? With maps proving it was coming too? And the ocean rising and flooding everyone out?
 
Weren't there all kinds of maps and proof of an global cooling and mass death predicted way back in the 60s-70s? With maps proving it was coming too? And the ocean rising and flooding everyone out?
No. That is factually incorrect. The majority of the scientific articles at the time were not predicting cooling.
 
These are projections.


I see, they predicted it with incorrect science at that time. People are so much smarter now, so, they have it right this time.

OKAY. :rolleyes:
 


I see, they predicted it with incorrect science at that time. People are so much smarter now, so, they have it right this time.

OKAY. :rolleyes:
First, that is not what that article says. It's saying the details and evidence for the theory was still being hashed out at that time, but that the research being done and data being gathered laid the foundation for the overwhelming consensus that there is today.

This is one of the subjects that I actually know a bit about. There is a huge amount of misinformation on this subject and it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion if you don't have good resources. If anyone is actually interested in some facts about it, here they are.

After 50+ years of research the answer is quite clear. In the 60's and 70's they didn't have the mountain of evidence that there is today. The bottom line is that the theory is based on rock solid radiative physics and the theory of global warming based on it was first proposed over 150 years ago. But the real difference between the 60's and 70's is that now there are literally millions of scientific papers documenting the evidence in great detail.

And no, they did not recently change the name from global warming to climate change because bla, bla, bla... Global warming is one part of climate change, and the term climate change is not new, it has been used for decades. For example, the IPCC was formed in the 80's.

This idea that "the models have been wrong" is partly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a model, and partly based on misinformation. It is correct that the models are not 100% accurate. No model is... it's a model. What the people repeating that talking point don't tell you is that one of the most common errors in the climate models is that they have consistently under predicted the changes we are now observing. One clear prediction they make is that the average global temperature will increase. The 10 hottest years on record have ALL occurred in the last decade.

And finally, yes, the earths temperature has always changed. The issue is that the RATE of change is much faster and that means there is not sufficient time to adapt to those changes.

Which goes back to the original subject. One of the consequences of the rapid rate is that water resources will shift faster than we will want them to and baring any major technological changes, that is likely to cause turmoil.
 
First, that is not what that article says. It's saying the details and evidence for the theory was still being hashed out at that time, but that the research being done and data being gathered laid the foundation for the overwhelming consensus that there is today.

This is one of the subjects that I actually know a bit about. There is a huge amount of misinformation on this subject and it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion if you don't have good resources. If anyone is actually interested in some facts about it, here they are.

After 50+ years of research the answer is quite clear. In the 60's and 70's they didn't have the mountain of evidence that there is today. The bottom line is that the theory is based on rock solid radiative physics and the theory of global warming based on it was first proposed over 150 years ago. But the real difference between the 60's and 70's is that now there are literally millions of scientific papers documenting the evidence in great detail.

And no, they did not recently change the name from global warming to climate change because bla, bla, bla... Global warming is one part of climate change, and the term climate change is not new, it has been used for decades. For example, the IPCC was formed in the 80's.

This idea that "the models have been wrong" is partly based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of a model, and partly based on misinformation. It is correct that the models are not 100% accurate. No model is... it's a model. What the people repeating that talking point don't tell you is that one of the most common errors in the climate models is that they have consistently under predicted the changes we are now observing. One clear prediction they make is that the average global temperature will increase. The 10 hottest years on record have ALL occurred in the last decade.

And finally, yes, the earths temperature has always changed. The issue is that the RATE of change is much faster and that means there is not sufficient time to adapt to those changes.

Which goes back to the original subject. One of the consequences of the rapid rate is that water resources will shift faster than we will want them to and baring any major technological changes, that is likely to cause turmoil.
Okay.
 

Upcoming Events

Roseburg Rod and Gun Club Gun Show
  • Roseburg, OR
Redmond Gun Show
  • Redmond, OR

New Classified Ads

Back Top