Mud is pollution

[Rando]

What on earth are you talking about? Can you point me to even one scientific study that comes to the conclusion that the climate is not warming or that there is not a significant human contribution to this?

If you want to talk about the science I would be happy to discuss it with you, but if you want to engage in hearsay and political hackery you should probably take it to townhall dot com it is not really my thing.

"However I don't think climate change/global warming is a good example of this. In this case it is 1000 studies point to one conclusion, 1 doesn't."

You cannot now be serious about this statement, eh?

Ignoring the consequences of swimming upstream against a PC wave, the foundation "science" has been revealed to have been altered to the extent that "every" subsequent or follow on study is beyond tainted.

Moreover, the original data was destroyed to avoid comparison with the altered data.

Even beyond so called scientists' manipulations, no one has explained the earth's natural, historical fluctuations... with data which isn't contradictory.

Now move on to the mutation of the terminology from "global warming" - all but disproved, or at least severly discreditted - to "climate change"... From a hypothesis - the earth is warming due to human invented proccesses - which might possibly be eventually proved correct or incorrect to an interesting but empty political/motivational catch all which is nothing but propaganda... It gets hot... Climate Change! It gets cold...Climate Change! It rains... Climate Change! It doesn't rain... Climate Change!

I'm old enough to recall the dire warnings of other politically motivated so called scientist regarding the coming ice age, which according to those propheses should be here about... now! "There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now." Sound familiar? Peter Gwynne, 1975.

JPK

 

[john101477]

Rando - I was serious when I said I would like to hear, and possibly learn more about what you do. I mostly am referring to industry/privately sponsored science, be it PETA or the NRA, The Sierra Club or Big Oil. Groups like the Sierra Club brag about keeping 150 coal plants from being built. The easiest way to shut down construction is through science (not that I am a fan of building coal mines or anything, I spent 4 months building wind turbans last year). I would think Government sponsorship would be a tricky one depending on what party was in power at the time. I would love to see more pure science. Science for the sake of knowing and possibly helping/curing/etc.

JPK - huh??? Dude...

 

[H2O_Doc]

I sense strong thread drift here. Little talk of mud. Talk of air pollution without regard for what is in the CAA or the whole NAAQS process. Ad hominem attacks, innuendo, mischaracterizations of science and scientists, etc.

Mud: good medium for wrastling, but sometimes bad for fish. Roads: often good, but sometimes a source of mud (non-wrastling grade).

 

[77blazerchalet]

..Can you point me to even one scientific study that comes to the conclusion that the climate is not warming or that there is not a significant human contribution to this?..

I believe we went over this in the big global warming thread that the O.P. deleted in Dec '09. Skeptic scientists don't say the overall climate is not warming, and the IPCC Reports - a huge collection of studies - do not themselves rely on a 'single' study that proves humans cause global warming. In that other thread, if I remember correctly, I offered the NIPCC 2009 Report, which is a similarly assembled collection of studies, peer-reviewed, each in science journals, as meticulously shown in its individual chapters' notes sections. As I also recall, it was rejected out of hand as an '880 page essay by Fred Singer'. Myself, as I've said in so many other instances, this report contradicts the IPCC, not that it refutes it, since I don't have the expertise to say which side is right. The kicker has always been in these cases that skeptic scientists are routinely smeared for some alleged fatal association with big coal & oil interests first and foremost, and we are to simply ignore their science assessments.

Problem is, this industry corruption accusation is guilt-by-association at best. I've gone through numerous books and other presentations trying to find smoking gun evidence pointing to specific instances of money paid = specific fabricated science paper or assessment. None exist that I can find. Worse, what I have found is that a widely quoted phrase that supposedly proves skeptic scientists are under a directive to confuse the public stems from a 1991 coal industry PR campaign memo that is never seen in its complete context in any publication or web site that quotes from it as irrefutable evidence of corruption. To quote an old forum challenge, "Show pics, or it didn't happen". Sure seems weird to me that so many quote it, but none seem to have the courage to show the whole thing top-to-bottom.

So if it cannot be proved that skeptic scientists are corrupt, why should we ignore them?

 

[PirateMcGee]

Global warming is an easy concept............

does everyone know what a greenhouse gas is and what it causes in the natural state (this is a good thing as it allows for life on earth)?
yes? ok

co2 is a greenhouse gas
ok

conclusion
increasing co2 levels in the atmosphere will lead to increased temperature, global quantification of by how much.......nearly impossible but the results could be devastating from even a small increase. Alot of species are already on the edge and the physical evidence of global warming is significant.......especially where I live in the Cascades.

BTW science and statistics cannot "prove" anything, however, they can be used as extremely strong indicators/predictors.

 

[Rando]

I agree with H20_doc that this thread has gone WAY off topic, and I plead guilty to being largely responsible for derailing this and would not be offended if this thread gets closed.

That being said, comparing the NIPCC report to the real IPCC report is a little disingenuous. The IPCC has literally thousands of contributors, all of whom are active and productive scientists in their field. Besides the individual contributors, the IPCC report is endorsed by dozens of professional atmospheric research institutes that perform actual climate research such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Royal Society etc. On the other hand, the NIPCC is produce by a conservative political think tank, has a a couple of dozen or so contributors, none of whom are actively involved in climate science.

I do appreciate you honesty in explaining your stance on the IPCC vs the NIPCC. If you want to compare and contrast the contents of the IPCC and the NIPCC I would be happy to do so in an interactive fashion.

To address the point about dismissing the skeptical scientists because they are corrupt. I agree that that is not a valid argument, in fact it would be an ad hominem. A much better approach is to compare and contrast the claims by mainstream climate scientists, which are supported by extensive research and data, highlighted in reports like the IPCC, to the claims of the skeptics, which are usually made on blogs and opinion pages ad are not supported by research and data. Have you ever heard of a climate skeptic developing a climate model that in fact shows that humans are not forcing the climate? Or read of a climate skeptic that designed and built a satellite that provides data that shows that changes in solar output are causing the observed warming? I haven't but I know of hundreds of mainstream scientists that have done just that.

I believe we went over this in the big global warming thread that the O.P. deleted in Dec '09. Skeptic scientists don't say the overall climate is not warming, and the IPCC Reports - a huge collection of studies - do not themselves rely on a 'single' study that proves humans cause global warming. In that other thread, if I remember correctly, I offered the NIPCC 2009 Report, which is a similarly assembled collection of studies, peer-reviewed, each in science journals, as meticulously shown in its individual chapters' notes sections. As I also recall, it was rejected out of hand as an '880 page essay by Fred Singer'. Myself, as I've said in so many other instances, this report contradicts the IPCC, not that it refutes it, since I don't have the expertise to say which side is right. The kicker has always been in these cases that skeptic scientists are routinely smeared for some alleged fatal association with big coal & oil interests first and foremost, and we are to simply ignore their science assessments.

Problem is, this industry corruption accusation is guilt-by-association at best. I've gone through numerous books and other presentations trying to find smoking gun evidence pointing to specific instances of money paid = specific fabricated science paper or assessment. None exist that I can find. Worse, what I have found is that a widely quoted phrase that supposedly proves skeptic scientists are under a directive to confuse the public stems from a 1991 coal industry PR campaign memo that is never seen in its complete context in any publication or web site that quotes from it as irrefutable evidence of corruption. To quote an old forum challenge, "Show pics, or it didn't happen". Sure seems weird to me that so many quote it, but none seem to have the courage to show the whole thing top-to-bottom.

So if it cannot be proved that skeptic scientists are corrupt, why should we ignore them?

 

[PirateMcGee]

Rando - I was serious when I said I would like to hear, and possibly learn more about what you do. I mostly am referring to industry/privately sponsored science, be it PETA or the NRA, The Sierra Club or Big Oil. Groups like the Sierra Club brag about keeping 150 coal plants from being built. The easiest way to shut down construction is through science (not that I am a fan of building coal mines or anything, I spent 4 months building wind turbans last year). I would think Government sponsorship would be a tricky one depending on what party was in power at the time. I would love to see more pure science. Science for the sake of knowing and possibly helping/curing/etc.

JPK - huh??? Dude...

Government sponsorship is really not that big of a problem. Generally the government scientist will be around far longer than the political people and therefore, the scientists generally make sure their science is heard and sound (look at the NASA scientist vs. Bush admin). Plus the government institutions publish their data/resluts which most of the time is peer reviewed. I am not wary of government science as it relates to the environment.

 

[john101477]

Government sponsorship is really not that big of a problem. Generally the government scientist will be around far longer than the political people and therefore, the scientists generally make sure their science is heard and sound (look at the NASA scientist vs. Bush admin). Plus the government institutions publish their data/resluts which most of the time is peer reviewed. I am not wary of government science as it relates to the environment.

hmmm thats an interesting take on it. I personally am skeptical of anything where humans, money, and special interest collide.
I looked up some of the info on the Bush Vs NASA and I supposed these are the type of issues i worry more about. Also if the Bush Admin was able to do this then how do we know Clinton didn't or Obama now?...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E3D9123AF93AA25753C1A9629C8B63

Many career scientists and officials have expressed frustration and anger privately but were unwilling to be identified for fear of losing their jobs. But a few have stepped forward, including Dr. Hansen at NASA, who has been researching global warming and conveying its implications to Congress and the White House for two decades.

And then also to have something like this
http://www.rense.com/general19/globalss.htm

These are the types of things that make me skeptical. I understand there is a fine line and a few bad apples should not spoil the bunch, but IMO any science that effects me and my loved ones better get it right the first time...

H2O DOC - yeah a little thread drift but considering the thread was started in sept of 2010 and is still being civil, I see no reason to shut it down. We are just trying to get to the bottom of a subtopic that does in the long run have an effect on the original subject, the subtopic being, is there bad science or even bad reporting in mainstream science, by the time it gets to the average persons attention, IE the vast majority of voters. - I personally say yes.

And as for the original topic of mud/silt hurting fish, I wish one of the smart folks here would come up with a viable solution beside shutting down the road. :coffeedrink:

 

[4x4x4doors]

And as for the original topic of mud/silt hurting fish, I wish one of the smart folks here would come up with a viable solution beside shutting down the road. :coffeedrink:

It seems that we (collectively) are unwilling to seek out a solution that meets more than one end. There is little evidence of folks willing to look for a solution that significantly reduces silt in this case while still allowing activity such as recreation or commercial logging.

The discussions seem to be more along the lines of "your solution doesn't eliminate 100% of the negative impact, thus it is unacceptable to me".

 

[john101477]

The discussions seem to be more along the lines of "your solution doesn't eliminate 100% of the negative impact, thus it is unacceptable to me".

I am not sure that i would go that far with this particular group of folks, But I do agree with that statement as a whole where political or extremists are concerned. I honestly believe there is a solution but I alone am not smart enough to design/ create/ test anything, well maybe testing :smiley_drive: would be right up my alley.

 

[4x4x4doors]

The "we" in my statement was intended to encompass a much larger group than just those posting/reading here. Should have made that clear.

 

[PirateMcGee]

the best solution in my opinion would be to re establish the natural riparian area........the natural service that riaparia provides is nearly impossible for us to emulate. Combine this with proper drainge on the roads that does not directly dump into the stream with no filtering and you have a viable solution. If the road directly crosses the stream then there needs to be a bridge.

 

[john101477]

the best solution in my opinion would be to re establish the natural riparian area........the natural service that riaparia provides is nearly impossible for us to emulate. Combine this with proper drainge on the roads that does not directly dump into the stream with no filtering and you have a viable solution. If the road directly crosses the stream then there needs to be a bridge.

I think most of the issue dealing with Mud reaching water in the first place is Via mud around water crossings. I think the vegetation along mountain sides would filter mud and water before it reached a stream. I have a thought that would probably not be very popular with most of my friends. That being that logging companies should maintain a healthy distance from waterways during the falling process and to top it off during the logging companies process they should be required to line crossings for Xft on either side of a crossing. I do not believe that the average off road usage after the logging company is completed would have a huge impact. 5 -6 autos traveling down a dirt road a week does not seem like it would cause to much of a problem. During wet seasons siltation is a naturally accuring event anyways so as long as we Tread Lightly I would imagine it would limit the amount of human interference in the natural order of things.

 

[paulj]

I think most of the issue dealing with Mud reaching water in the first place is Via mud around water crossings. I think the vegetation along mountain sides would filter mud and water before it reached a stream. ....

At least in the PNW, there are few water crossings - roads nearly always use bridges or culverts. Roads also use culverts to drain water from the upside of the road to the down. These culverts are a major problem on unmaintained roads. They clog; water backs up, and then forces its way over over the road, washing out the road, culvert and all.

I've driven decommissioned forest roads in BC, where every culvert had been replaced by waterbar (ditch and berm) - at seemingly regular 100 yard intervals. I've walked US FS decommissioned roads where the waterbars wheren't as deep, but were well armored with rock.

Another problem with unmaintained roads is that traffic loosens the surface, whether it be the dry season dust, or the wet season ruts in mud. In major storms this is a source of easily erodible material. Sure erosion occurs naturally, but vegetation protects most of the surface. It's been argued that overturned trees (esp the large conifers with wide root balls) are the major natural source of downward soil movement in PNW forests, not simple stream erosion). Bare, nearly level, dirt surfaces are not a natural phenomena in these forests.

If sediment eroded from the road surface simply flowed into the bushes beside the road it wouldn't affect the streams. But in heavier rains the sediment laden water flows into the road side ditches, through culverts and on to streams at the bottom of the valley. If you want to keep road sediment from entering streams, you have to construct, and maintain, catch basins and sediment traps.

 

[john101477]

At least in the PNW, there are few water crossings - roads nearly always use bridges or culverts. Roads also use culverts to drain water from the upside of the road to the down. These culverts are a major problem on unmaintained roads. They clog; water backs up, and then forces its way over over the road, washing out the road, culvert and all.

I've driven decommissioned forest roads in BC, where every culvert had been replaced by waterbar (ditch and berm) - at seemingly regular 100 yard intervals. I've walked US FS decommissioned roads where the waterbars wheren't as deep, but were well armored with rock.

Another problem with unmaintained roads is that traffic loosens the surface, whether it be the dry season dust, or the wet season ruts in mud. In major storms this is a source of easily erodible material. Sure erosion occurs naturally, but vegetation protects most of the surface. It's been argued that overturned trees (esp the large conifers with wide root balls) are the major natural source of downward soil movement in PNW forests, not simple stream erosion). Bare, nearly level, dirt surfaces are not a natural phenomena in these forests.

If sediment eroded from the road surface simply flowed into the bushes beside the road it wouldn't affect the streams. But in heavier rains the sediment laden water flows into the road side ditches, through culverts and on to streams at the bottom of the valley. If you want to keep road sediment from entering streams, you have to construct, and maintain, catch basins and sediment traps.

culverts and water bars are the most common in northern california as well. I can also see how upturned trees would cause more erosion. I still think having logging practices steer clear of waterways by Xft would allow a lot better natural filtration system than what we could design. I know my logging buddy uses a furrow system on their private land to keep soil from draining out. He would probably shoot me if I mentioned the need to leave timber along waterways though.