The new calf in J pod, designated J-48, is seen here in this photo taken by Candice Emmons between Kingston and Edmonds
Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NMFS Permit 781-1824)

By Christopher Dunagan
cdunagan@kitsapsun.com

KINGSTON — A newborn killer whale has been spotted and confirmed in J pod, one of the three pods of orcas that frequent Puget Sound.

The new calf, designated J-48, was observed Saturday between Kingston and Edmonds by Brad Hanson and Candice Emmons of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center. J and K pods arrived in Admiralty Inlet west of Whidbey Island on Friday and stayed off the northeast corner of the Kitsap Peninsula for most of Saturday.

“Normally when they are traveling, they are spread out,” Hanson said, “but this time they were fairly grouped up. Our first thought was that they couldn’t make up their minds where they wanted to go.”

As Hanson and Emmons identified one whale after another from their markings, they noted one group of orcas off by itself. Among the group was a 39-year-old female, J-16 or “Slick,” along with several of the offspring she has had since 1991. And right in the middle of the group was what appeared to be a newborn orca.

“The calf was pretty young and still had its fetal folds,” Hanson said. “I would say it had been born in the last 24 hours or so.”

The whales kept milling about and swimming in circles just north of the Kingston-Edmonds ferry lanes.

“They were probably waiting around for the calf to figure things out and get with the program,” Hanson said. “It takes a little time for the mom and her calf to get their footing. The young calves sort of throw themselves up in the air. They are learning to breath and to clear the water.”

Hanson said he noticed that kind of milling behavior when another killer whale was born several years ago.

This was the fifth calf for Slick, named after rock singer Grace Slick, according to Howard Garrett of Orca Network, an organization that keeps track of whale sightings throughout the region.

Every whale counts, he said, because the three Southern Resident pods are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act and considered at risk of extinction. J-48 brings the number of orcas in J pod to 27 and the total for all three pods to 89. Researchers believe the pods may have totaled about 200 whales in the past.

The new baby is only the second orca born to the three pods in 2011, compared to six for 2010. Of those born last year, four were in L pod, with one each in J and K pods.

Orca Network’s Susan Berta said Saturday’s encounter was the result of shore observers in the area reporting their sightings.

“This is one of the times when the public information really helped us,” Berta said. “People told us the whales were coming in, and we were able to get the call to NOAA Fisheries, and Brad and Candi were able to get with them right away.”

The whales have not stayed in Puget Sound much this year compared to previous years, Hanson said.

“Every time the whales do come in, we try to get out,” he said. “We are still monitoring their foraging activity in the sound. We hadn’t been out with them in quite a while.”

Hanson and other researchers have shown that the orcas eat mainly chinook salmon in the summer and chum salmon in early fall. But what they eat the rest of the year — especially from January through May — remains largely a mystery.

Besides identifying the animals on Saturday, Hanson and Emmons were able to collect fish scales and samples of fecal material to help identify what they are eating.

Shortly after the two researchers visited the whales Saturday, the animals headed back out of Puget Sound, and no further reports have come in, Berta said.

“Some years we have a lot of whales coming in and other years we don’t,” she noted. “It brings up many questions about what makes a good year for whales. I’m hoping they come back for Christmas.”

Share on Facebook

"Evolution of Sport" by Sue McGrew of Tacoma took second place in this year’s Windemere Sand Sculpture Contest in Port Angeles. (Click to enlarge)
Photo courtesy of Kristy Martin

I especially liked a piece called “Evolution of Sport” (right), which features a man throwing a discus while a boy maneuvers a game controller. The sculpture, by Sue McGrew of Tacoma, took second place in the contest and tied for the “Sculptor’s Choice” award.

By the way, I just noticed that today’s News Tribune in Tacoma included a story about McGrew and her travels around the country pursuing this unique art form.

First place in the Port Angeles contest went to Sandis Kondrats of Latvia, who shaped a sand sculpture he called “Ice Hockey: Energy on Ice” (bottom of page).

The list of winners is available from a story July 24 in the Peninsula Daily News, which also produced a nice video showing the artists at work and featuring brief interviews with some of them.

I want to thank Kristy Martin for providing these photos, some of which are posted on her thoughtful and amusing blog, “Port Angeles Daily Photo.”

The ninth annual sand sculpture contest in Port Angeles has become part of a new qualifying process for the World Championship of Sand Sculpting to be held in Federal Way Aug. 18 to Sept. 5. Five contests in North America and four in Europe have been chosen as qualifying contests for the World Championship. Organizers hope to eventually have about 15 qualifying contests around the world.

"Ice Hockey: Energy on Ice" by Sandis Kondrats of Latvia took first place in the Port Angeles sand sculpture contest.
Photo courtesy of Kristy Martin

Third place in the contest went to Karen Fralich of Burlington, Ontario, Canada, with a piece featuring a snowboarder.
Photo courtesy of Kristy Martin

Share on Facebook

Orca travels

The Southern Residents have settled down somewhat in their summer waters in and around the San Juans. One can follow their travels by joining Orca Network’s Sightings List or by checking the website for reports by observers.

K-27, who is the mom of the new calf, and K-13, his grandmother.
Photo by Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research

I was interested in a comment made a week ago by Ken Balcomb of the Center for Whale Research following his observations of the new calf and his mother, along with the mom’s brother, who were all joined later by the calf’s grandmother. Here’s Ken’s comment:

“It would be fascinating to eavesdrop on the whale communications at this time, especially those of matriarchs J2 and K13. There is a mixing of incomplete subgroups and matrilines this year, and much less of a pattern to their distributional movements. But they all appear to be in good body condition. We are getting good documentation of the condition of the new calf frequently for assessment.”

“Orcas in Our Midst”

Howard Garrett of Orca Network has updated his 33-page book “Orcas in Our Midst.” Volume 3 is dedicated to J-1, known as Ruffles, by far the oldest male among the Salish Sea killer whales when he went missing last fall.

Howie explains the natural history of killer whales in the Pacific Northwest and their evolution from land-dwelling creatures, as he delves into the cultural aspects of killer whale society. A special focus in this edition are the differences between resident and transient killer whales.

Howie and I recently discussed our mutual curiosity about killer whale culture and what researchers are discovering. As he noted:

“We’re seeing a new global awareness, an understanding that there is not just one orca. There are many, many forms around the world. How did that come about? How do they get their own identity, and how do they maintain that?”

At just 33 pages, one might consider this a basic book about killer whales — and it is — but Garrett has a knack for taking side trips that give you a sense of the complexity of this topic while hinting at the questions yet to be answered. To order the book, go to Orca Network’s Web Shop.

Who’s the daddy?

You may have read one of the recent news stories about how Southern Resident killer whales occasionally mate within their own pods, unlike Northern Residents of Upper British Columbia, which almost always breed outside their own pods.

We’ve always known the moms, because their offspring stay with them for life. But the dads are another matter.

J-47, the newest calf in J pod, was born last year.
Photo by Ken Balcomb, Center for Whale Research

It was previously believed, for example, that males in J pod would mate with females in K and L pods, but not those in J pod. The latest findings conflict with that view and bring up many questions.

Because of the small population size of the Southern Residents, the new study raises concerns about inbreeding and the extent of the genetic bottleneck. At least, the researchers found, Southern Residents do not mate with close relatives, as might be the case with a few bottlenose dolphin groups.

Michael Ford, who led the study for the National Marine Fisheries Service, told reporter Craig Welch of the Seattle Times that since the whales occasionally breed outside their pods, the population does take advantage of the larger gene pool:

“In terms of how bad it is … that depends on how long the population size stays small. Brief bottlenecks don’t necessarily have to have a long-term impact. But as a general rule, we should be concerned about small population sizes because genetic diversity is the raw material for adaptation and evolution.”

Of the 12 identified paternities, five involve mating between J-1 and a female in J pod. J-1, who disappeared last fall, was the oldest male around. The evidence suggests that older males are more successful reproductively, and J-1 may have been the most successful of all. The researchers could not conclude whether the apparent success of older males is the result of dominance over younger males, a selection by their female partners or a combination of factors.

With J-1 out of the picture, it will be interesting to see whether the frequency of intrapod mating declines.

Other info: News release (PDF 72 kb) from National Marine Fisheries Service.

Share on Facebook

I actually offered what I hoped were several funny entries before July 14, 2008, but this was the date I officially launched the weekly feature. The item below was the first “Amusing Monday” entry ever posted.

—–
July 14, 2008

I have no intention of making Watching Our Water Ways an All-Serious, All-the-Time blog, so I’m always on the lookout for some humorous stories and videos on the subject of water.

I’m going to try to make lighter topics a weekly feature of this blog, which I’ll call Amusing Mondays. Please contribute any amusing water-related topics that you come across. They may be stories, cartoons, photographs, videos, just about anything. (If copyright is an issue, we’ll have to link to someone else rather than running the raw text or images.)

For today’s entry, I came across this cool human-powered hydrofoil water scooter. You need to watch two short videos, the first from the manufacturer.

You can actually buy this thing from Hammacher Schlemmer.

Now watch MythBusters’ Adam Savage (Discovery Channel) demonstrate his rare and unique skill with the device.

Share on Facebook

Conditions have remained pretty much the same the last couple of days, although the intrusion of dense higher-oxygen water from the ocean is beginning to create a thicker layer at the bottom of Hood Canal. The middle layer of low-oxygen water remains fairly thick, but the upper layer with higher oxygen concentrations is still providing fish some relief. South winds remain a threat, as I’ve explained for the last few weeks.

One can observe the three layers in the upper graph. The lower graph shows changes over the past week or so. Notice how oxygen concentrations are rising in the deep layer.

—–

Fish in southern Hood Canal got a little more room to breathe this morning, as oxygen levels rose in the top 30 feet of the water column.

Many spot prawns died Tuesday near Hoodsport Hatchery while swimming into fresh water to get oxygen.
Photo by Wayne Palsson, WDFW

I described the latest observations from researchers in a story published this morning on the Kitsap Sun’s website. A story written for today’s Kitsap Sun also contains some important observations about events of the past two days.

The rapid recovery may have been largely the result of a seiche, in which waters pushed away by winds came back when the winds ceased. In terms of the overall conditions, nothing major has changed, however, and south winds could trigger another fish kill.

One thing I found interesting but disturbing was that many of Hood Canal’s famous spot prawns were making a deadly choice. They were swimming into freshwater inlets, where the waters were more oxygenated, only to die when they could not survive the low salinity. I understand that the greatest losses were at the outlet of the lower Cushman Dam at Potlatch, where waters from the North Fork of the Skokomish River come into Hood Canal.

Here’s how the oxygen levels have changed at Hoodsport since 11 o’clock last night and 10 o’clock this morning. Note the blue line, which is about the 9-foot level, as measured by a monitoring buoy that operates around the clock.

Share on Facebook

Dicks had just come off a tour of several low-impact development projects in Bremerton. He complimented the city for its downtown paving project using pervious asphalt. This and other low-impact development projects are designed to reduce stormwater pollution flowing into Puget Sound. I believe David’s group also got a chance to see a couple of East Bremerton parks that are using pervious pavement, rain gardens and green roofs.

The interview, shown in two segments on this page, begins with David talking about the background and accomplishments of his agency. Questions began with how the agency is responding to the recent state audit report, which was highly critical of some of the Partnership’s purchasing and contracting practices.

David Dicks, who grew up spending time on Hood Canal, talked about some of the special places on the Kitsap Peninsula and elsewhere in Puget Sound, along with the need to direct development to places where it will cause less harm. He talked about the effort to use science to set priorities and the need to measure success using environmental indicators.

Creating incentives to encourage restoration — including use of the state budget and naming of “partners” — are among the ongoing efforts.

David talked about education and the need for the public to understand the problems facing Puget Sound and to help with solutions — both in their own lives and in the overall effort.

Focusing on Hood Canal, he talked about the low-oxygen problem and efforts to address those problems.

Toward the end, David Dicks addressed population growth, the desire of people to move to the Puget Sound region and how he is interconnecting his agency with the Puget Sound Regional Council to plan for growth. He also talked about the prospects of developing Port Gamble and protecting other parts of North Kitsap from the effects of development.

Share on Facebook

Regulatory and even legislative changes are in the works, and the law could become a tool in dealing with greenhouse gases related to climate change.

Coming Together

The latest signal that something is afoot is the launch of a new blog this week by the EPA. It is called “Coming Together for Clean Water.”

The EPA is “seeking public input on how the agency can better protect and improve the health of our waters…” according to a news release. “The feedback received on the online forum will help shape the discussion at EPA’s upcoming conference in April, ‘Coming Together for Clean Water,’ where we will engage approximately 100 executive and local level water leads on the agency’s clean water agenda.”

Three topics are mentioned: “The Watershed Approach,” “Managing Pollutants from Nutrients,” and “Stormwater Pollution.”

It is interesting to see how people in various parts of the country are responding to these topics and how local issues play into the national overview. Some folks seem fairly alarmed and are demanding that the EPA take firm actions. Others have responded by spelling out technical solutions or offering case studies about how the EPA has failed in the past.

Enforcement plan

In October, the EPA released what is now called the Clean Water Act Action Plan. It calls for greater and more consistent enforcement nationwide of the clean water law under three strategies:

• Target enforcement to the most important water pollution problems
• Strengthen oversight of the states
• Improve transparency and accountability

Dealing with jurisdiction

The Clean Water Act of 1972 made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into a navigable body of water without a permit. EPA’s Watershed Academy offers an informative introduction to the Clean Water Act.

One of the key issues before Congress right now is the definition of “navigable waters,” which had been extended to include source water and associated wetlands. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued five separate opinions that reined in the EPA’s jurisdiction by saying waters of the United States extend only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water” connected to traditional navigable waters, and to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to” such relatively permanent waters.

The EPA has been struggling to define its jurisdiction ever since. Environmental advocates would like to see EPA’s jurisdiction restored to what the agency previously assumed it was.

A bill by U.S. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., was introduced last year to include all tidal waters and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing… “

The New York Times described the problem triggered by the Supreme Court ruling in a series called “Toxic Waters,” which included these quotes:

Douglas F. Mundrick, an E.P.A. lawyer in Atlanta: “We are, in essence, shutting down our Clean Water programs in some states. This is a huge step backward. When companies figure out the cops can’t operate, they start remembering how much cheaper it is to just dump stuff in a nearby creek.”

James M. Tierney, New York State assistant commissioner for water resources: “This is a huge deal. There are whole watersheds that feed into New York’s drinking water supply that are, as of now, unprotected.”

About 117 million Americans — more than a third of the U.S. population — get their drinking water from intermittent sources that may not be covered by the Clean Water Act, according to a report by the EPA.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has called for a legislative solution in Congress, but Feingold’s bill faces opposition from farmers and industrial groups who have stirred up fears of a “government takeover” of all water supplies. Agricultural organizations, for example, say they don’t want the EPA involved in measuring pollutants in their irrigation ditches before the water goes back into public streams.

Water and climate change

Before I leave this complex subject of the Clean Water Act, I want to mention one other major new development related to climate change. There’s been plenty of discussion about regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, but now the EPA has agreed to consider regulation under the Clean Water Act as well.

The agreement settles a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, which raised concerns about ocean acidification caused by CO2 off the Washington Coast. I talked about this in Water Ways in some detail last May.

EPA is expected to publish has published (3-22-10) in the Federal Register an approach that involves a particular provision of the Clean Water Act, which requires states to identify threatened or impaired waters and to set limits on pollutants going into those waters.

Share on Facebook

Newton Morgan of the Kitsap County Health District is tracking pollution getting into Lofall Creek. Yesterday, he removed a charcoal pack from the stream. The charcoal will be tested in a lab to see if it has absorbed a tracer dye flushed down the drains of nearby homes.
Kitsap Sun photo by Meegan Reid

Monthly testing of nearly 60 local streams gives them an early warning about pollution problems as they begin to develop.

Working with property owners who care about the environment and voluntarily open their homes for dye testing is a major part of the success. These friendly water-quality detectives avoid using the heavy hand of government unless there is an obvious problem that a property owner refuses to correct.

Yesterday, the health district released its annual Water Quality Monitoring Report, which includes a description of every watershed and major stream in the county. The report also compiles the data to show us which streams are the cleanest and dirtiest.

As you can see from a story I wrote for today’s Kitsap Sun, these health inspectors have encountered a water-quality situation in the Lofall area of North Kitsap that has puzzled them for more than a year. It will take their ingenuity and persistence to figure it out.

I spent a little time yesterday with Newton Morgan of the health district to try to gain an understanding of the problem. He showed me where Lofall Creek comes down through a pipe and spills into Hood Canal adjacent to the old ferry dock.

This is where more bacteria are concentrated than in any natural waterway in the county. It is somewhat of an anomaly, because Hood Canal streams are generally far cleaner than those draining to the east side of the Kitsap Peninsula.

It doesn’t take long for me to understand why Lofall remains a pollution mystery. The pipe that drains to Hood Canal is at least 100 feet long and is buried under people’s yards where the steep hillside is somewhat terraced.

Farther uphill, a drainage system takes stormwater off paved streets and dumps it into a series of catch basins that drain to other buried pipes.

Standing on one street, Newton points downhill while explaining that one pipe apparently goes directly under someone’s house before tying into another pipe that cannot be seen.

Leslie Banigan, another water quality expert with the health district, describes the maze of underground pipes as buried “spaghetti.”
Complicating the situation even more are the high groundwater levels in some areas of Lofall.

When a septic system fails — which generally means the bacteria are not being trapped in the soil — the polluted water can find its way into this underground drainage system rather than rising to the surface where the odor of sewage reveals the problem.

Health inspectors have located some failing septic systems and even a couple of direct discharges of sewage to the beach. But they are still looking for one or more septic systems that must be getting worse, because the stream is getting dirtier, despite the repairs.

Because of their experience over the past 15 years, these inspectors exhibit a confidence about their ability to find the sources of pollution. They know they must remain persistent and continue to work on the problem. If dye testing doesn’t work, they have other ideas up their sleeves.

After watching this program all these years, I can’t help but wonder why every stream in the state isn’t being monitored monthly to establish cleanup priorities. And, while health officials are focused on bacterial pollution, similar testing could be extended to other pollutants that can harm salmon and other sealife.

Cost? Yes, there’s a cost. Residents of unincorporated Kitsap County pay about $67 a year on their property tax statements for the Kitsap County Surface and Stormwater Management Program, which is managed by Kitsap Public Works. That fee covers not only water-quality testing but also maintenance of public storm drains, upgrade of regional stormwater infrastructure, regulatory oversight of stormwater permits, education of livestock owners and commercial business operators, and more.

One of the best overviews of the program was put together in 2005 by the Puget Sound Action Team, now absorbed into the Puget Sound Partnership. Download “Kitsap County Surface and Stormwater Management Program: A Case Study” (PDF 1.3 mb).

Share on Facebook

On the wall of her home, Diane Fox of Bremerton displays this photo of the Bremerton waterfront in 1942, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the previous Dec. 7. Family friend George Wraith took the shot, which shows searchlights from the Navy shipyard scanning Bremerton’s skies for signs of enemy aircraft.

In memory of Pearl Harbor, Kitsap Sun reporters Ed Friedrich and Derek Sheppard, intern Tara Garcia-Mathewson and other staffers produced an impressive package of stories, pictures and videos — including interviews with 12 local survivors of the attack and an interactive map showing where their ships were located.

Share on Facebook

Sir Muir Russell, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Glasgow from 2003 to 2009, was appointed by the University of East Anglia to head up a review of allegations against the Climate Research Unit.

The review will look at the stolen e-mails for evidence of data manipulation or suppression, review CRU’s overall data-handling policies, and investigate compliance with disclosure laws. Review is designed to determine whether activities were at odds with acceptable scientific practices.

The university has asked that the review be completed by spring, 2010.
———-

UPDATE, DEC. 1

Phil Jones has stepped aside as director of the Climatic Research Unit pending completion of an independent review of allegations involving e-mail hacked from the server of the University of East Anglia in England. Details of the investigation will be announced within days. See news release from East Anglia.
———–

Prospects appear to be fading for any meaningful international agreements for addressing climate change, as originally planned for a conference in Copenhagen next month.

Meanwhile, climatologists and those familiar with recent studies continue to warn us that, if anything, early climate models were too conservative in their predictions of climate change. The longer we wait to take action, the harder it will be to slow the rate of warming. Plants and animals (including humans) will have a harder time adapting to new conditions. Some populations, possibly entire species, may have no place to go as they attempt to adapt or face extinction.

I tend to take such warnings seriously, although I am not oblivious to the many skeptics on this topic. In fact, in my search for understanding, I’ve read more than my share of blogs written by folks who either don’t believe the planet is warming or else don’t believe man has anything to do with it.

This morning, I participated in a national telephone conference with three climate experts: Richard Somerville, coordinating lead author of the last report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); Eric Steig, professor of earth and space sciences at the University of Washington; and Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Penn State University.

They answered a variety of questions — ranging from new climate data to the implications of more than 1,500 “stolen” e-mails that have revealed the hidden, personal side of a few climatologists.

At the same time, a new 64-page report, authored by 26 scientists from around the world, was released today. It provides new insights based on some 200 studies published since the latest report by the IPCC three years ago. Check out “The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science.”

Here are some of the findings highlighted in the report:

• Global temperatures continue to show the effects of human-caused greenhouse gases. Despite short-term fluctuations, the trend over the past 25 years has been an average global increase per decade of 0.19 degrees Celsius or 0.34 degrees Fahrenheit. Those changes are consistent with predictions.

• The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at increasing rates. Summertime melting of the Arctic sea ice is now 40 percent greater than the average predicted by IPCC climate models. Melting of glaciers in other parts of the world also have accelerated since 1990.

• Sea-level rise — about 3.4 millimeters per year over the past 15 years — is now about 80 percent greater than IPCC predictions. That rise is consistent with the increased melting of glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica. Without major changes, sea levels will rise by three to six feet by 2100 and will continue to rise for a few centuries.

• Vulnerable elements in the climate system — such as continental ice sheets, Amazon rainforests and West African monsoons — could be pushed toward irreversible change. Waiting for more scientific certainty could result in surpassing critical thresholds before anyone knows what is happening.

• The worldwide goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 2 degrees C. (3.6 degree F.) is not likely to be achieved unless emissions peak by 2020 and then decline rapidly. Near-zero greenhouse gas emissions need to be achieved well before the end of the century.

Many of us have heard rumors that temperatures have leveled off or declined the past few years. “The Copenhagen Disagnosis” discusses and generally discounts this notion. If you take a 10-year period from 1998 to 2008, you will indeed see an overall decline in temperature, because 1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year and 2008 was an exceptionally cold La Nino year, Steig explained. To measure a true long-term trend, however, you need to go back 25 years or more, he said. In fact, when 2009 temperatures are completed and factored in, it will be more difficult for people to claim a cooling trend. (See graph at right.)

Let’s talk about the e-mails, which involved personal correspondence between several climate scientists. They were apparently stolen by someone hacking into a computer network operated by the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia in Great Britain.

At first, I didn’t feel right about reading the stolen e-mails, but I could not develop an opinion unless I had an understanding of what they said. I’m still reading through them, but I find them to be mostly conversations about how to present data in reports and to the public.

It is true that a “circle the wagons” mentality came out in a few e-mails along with several less-than-flattering comments about specific climate skeptics, but my review found such e-mails to be few and far between. By reading these e-mails, we are seeing the human side of scientists who believe strongly in their work and defend their findings against attacks from outside.

I know that doesn’t sound very objective, but I’ve personally seen the human side of many researchers over the years. They may be outspoken in private, but their reports stand or fall on the data, which are open for public review. To the extent that some of these e-mails suggest keeping data away from specific opponents, that is perhaps a low point in the discussion. But a scientific conspiracy? I have yet to see one.

In fact, if all of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails were totally discredited — which has not happened — there would still be hundreds of other scientists backing up the general predictions of climate change with real-world findings. While the uncertainty of computer models gives people plenty to argue about, it is getting harder to argue that the changes we’re seeing are totally natural.

As Eric Steig said this morning: “The science itself is nonpartisan. There is no politics in the melting of ice sheets.”

And Richard Somerville pointed out that it is “preposterous” to think that real science could become frozen out of scientific consensus. Anyone who has contrary views is free to publish his or her papers, provided they have data to back up their conclusions.

Personally, I don’t think these e-mails are going to go away soon. If you wish, you may download them yourself for free at File Dropper, but be aware that the package of documents and e-mails totals about 60 mb.

As for further discussion, I suggest these sources:

Real Climate: A blog by climate scientists, including some whose e-mails were revealed. More than 1,400 comments have been posted to two entries focusing on the e-mails. An entry about the new climate report also is attracting attention.

Reuters: An analysis by reporter Timothy Gardner.

The Wall Street Journal: “Climate e-mails stoke debate,” a story by reporter Keith Johnson.

Fox News: An opinion piece by contributor John Lott expressing outrage about what the e-mails represen

Share on Facebook