Did they bother to ask any of the old timers around here what the river has been doing for the last 80 year? Or have a look in the PG history books. Everything is cyclic!

What global warming?

Please do not get a study dealing with "Canada's northern waterways" confused with the Fraser and the Nechako.

If you read carefully, it states:

"The research, to be published next month in an international Geophysics journal confirms early predictions of how an increase in global temperature will affect ARCTIC and SUB-ARCTIC regions."

The Nechako and Fraser are not part of the Arctic or sub-artic regions since they do not flow into the Arctic ocean.

If they had studied the Nechako and Fraser, do you think that the above would have only referred to the Yukon River? Also, it states:

"For example, Dr. Déry’s research shows that the Yukon River’s annual fluctuation increased by approximately 20%. From 1964 through 1986, the standard deviation was 8.15 cubic kilometres per year. From 1988 until 2008, this had increased to 10.51 cubic kilometres per year."

Do you think that the information he presents is wrong? Do you think that he should have presented information for a longer period?

Globull warming what globull warming. This is turning into the biggest scientific scam ever. Where is the good prof getting his globull warming information from. I think he should be checking his sources of information a little better. I suggest he get his grant money fast as the globull warming scam is fast falling apart. Here are a couple of good sites for up to date information icecap.us and wattsupwiththat

Oh dear, those poor rivers. Triple my carbon tax please, so it will help!

Right on Harbinger. If they truly wanted to do something they would invest in fuels that don't contribute C02 rather than just taxing it. What Gordon Campbell has done will not reduce C02 in any way that will help.

It is great to see this kind of research coming from UNBC. Although northman's wisdom about everything being cyclic is important, we simply cannot ignore the impact of humans on the environment and climate. Just like the long line farmers in my family will tell you, how you treat the earth you want to sow will determine your yield. Nowadays that too often means lack of nutrients and plenty of toxins in our food chain. It also means that we can no longer expect predictable cycles. This report spells it out plainly. We can also no longer afford to turn away simply because it does not appear to directly effect us. I think it was Newton who explained that what goes up must come back down.

Could everyone who attributes global warming to human causes in this thread please re-read the article above. Better yet, read the actual report.

It says absolutely nothing about what causes global warming - human, natural cycle, both, whatever.

What it does do is identify that in the Canadian Arctic watershed there are larger than normal fluctations of water volumes since 1964 with an increasing fluctation in the last 20 years. There are more arid areas and wetter areas.

Such fluctuations affect various parts of the enviroment, some of which then affects the human condition on the landscape as well.

End of story.

Other than, we have to learn to live with it and it might get worse or it might revert back to what we are used to in the past few generations. it is worth monitoring the same way as one monitors many things we do so that we can try to accommodate and adapt to changes.

The interesting thing is that it states "an increase in fresh water discharge into the Arctic Ocean also impacts climate on a global level.”

So, it is a progressive, integrated system which feeds on itself until a new state of equilibrium is achieved.

BTW, humans do not affect the natural system one bit. The fish, for instance, would have disappeared without our fishing and other habits. And the forests of Calabria would have disappeared even if the Romans had not decimated them for their shipbuilding.

1964 - hey Charlie, did you notice the river this year is quite high?

1974 - Hey Charlie, neve seen the river this high.

1984 - Charlie!! The river is getting awfully close to the house this year.

1994 - Charlie - come quick, the dog just got swept down the river when he stepped off the front steps.

2004 - Charlie, I think this is ridiculous eating in the dining room sitting in floating air mattress chairs at the table. How hight are you going to let this water get before you decide to move us out of here?

It pays to monitor the natural systems around you to help you make timely decisions.

I don't believe in the "global warming" thing at all. I think it's the natural evolution of our planet. Al Gore has made a ton of money off this flavour of the day. I think David Suzuki is a fear mongerer as is Al Gore. Not one of them mentions the dust bowl of the 30's.

"I don't believe in the "global warming" thing at all."

Okay, so you do not have to believe that the globe is warming (a.k.a. "global warming")

"I think it's the natural evolution of our planet"

Wait a minute. I thought you said that you do not believe in "global warming". Now you say it is the natural evolution of our planet.

So, which is it. You believe the planet is warming up or you don't.

-------------
The dust bowl was supposedly cause by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation or other techniques to prevent erosion.

I really do not know whether the mere act of farming a part of the earth would cause such a phenomenon. It would be impossible for little olde man to cause such vast destruction.

I think it was just the natural evolution of that part of our planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

I think Kenny Dam has more to do with fluctuations in water levels than this so called global warming...

for global warming to be real, there has to be warming. Where's the warming? Where's the beef?

If there's no global warming, then global warming can't be affecting our rivers.

...so the study makes no attempt to analyze or explain HOW this supposed warming is affecting our rivers, it simply lays blame to global warming. Sounds like a big, unscientific waste of time. Reading it would only waste valuable seconds.

If you are going to come into a discussion to dispute a study backed up by cold hard data, you might want to have some data of your own. Otherwise, you're just more sound and fury.

Obviously, this is just a summation of research that has taken years to compile, and if you want to get in the ring, get a thesis going, head up to the uni and get on with it.

If you are going to come into a discussion to dispute a study backed up by cold hard data, you might want to have some data of your own. Otherwise, you're just more sound and fury.

Obviously, this is just a summation of research that has taken years to compile, and if you want to get in the ring, get a thesis going, head up to the uni and get on with it.

Right on the money Crocker.

Some on here do not even understand how the temperature of the planet is derived. They think because it is a cold few weeks here again that there is no global warming. They think PG = global.

So, that is the first notion someone will have to understand in order to even think of a defensible hypothesis, get into the discussion group, and defend their hypothesis.

Where's the warming? Simple.

Start here and read it. Take somne time to enlighten yourself rather than spending time with your head in the sand and saying no, no, no .......

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming

The National Post journalist ,Peter Foster, did a column on Friday, June 19th. There is a very recent book entitled 'Green Hell'. It provides a jaw-dropping account of a society gone eco mad. "This book is far more than a catalogue of political and business idiocy and cowardice. It represents a wake-up call against a relatively small group of enormously-powerful activists whose motivation appears to be much more the control of our lives than the achievement of a better world". Those are the words of Steve Milloy; the author. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/06/18/peter-foster-for-junk-science-week-breaking-out-of-green-hell.aspx

Judging by those I speak with,it seems there are very few people who believe in anthropogenic global warming. It also appears that those who do, will not take the time to educate themselves on the subject, but would rather take the word of a falure politician or David Suzuki, whose degree is in genetics, so what in hell qualifies him to lie to us about climate? . I hardly call that good science.

There is a table in the north-west corner of the dining area at Rolly's Restaurant in Hope, BC at which the Flat Earth Society meets.

Here is a web page for those who believe that the world is flat. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org

As far as I know, Peter Foster is a lifetime member of the Flat Earth Society.

Remember people, we are not talkin' a "who done it" here. We are talkin' a "what is" here.

Is the earth a sphere or is it a flat plate?

At the time that we are living in, is the earth warming, or is it cooling?

I know, I know. It is beyond some of you to get off the eco treadmill, the tree hugger treadmill and the its all our fault treadmill.

That is not what the study above is about. It merely tries to look at almost half a century of data and determine whether the Canadian Arctic has been cooling, staying steady, or warming. It is really not that complicated a notion to understand. At least I thought so. However, there are those who have a fixed mind and try to introduce their spin on things and make it a question of is anyone at fault. What is the cause.

I really do not care whether it is God, man, woman, the devil, or the fact that we live on a flat earth or a globe that might be the cause.

GLOBAL TAXES = GLOBAL WARMING Don't you get it!

While Gus is right, he is also pretending. The fact is that global warming is a people-political issue. Most discussions of the phenomenon (real or not) end in a statement blaming various human activities. Any global warming study is therefor thrown into the pail to be used to support political movements.
If man has not caused global warming then there is no reason to think there is anything man can do to slow it down or stop it. Thus, while Gus is correct that a lot of people posting here are blurring the line between global warming and the cause of global warming it is also true that there is seldom discussion of the former without implications of the latter.
I think it is becoming very clear that the whole issue of global warming has become more political than scientific. While it is possible to quote a great many studies supporting either side of the argument it is still an argument, not a fact. Also, given the subjective nature of scientific funding, the preponderance of studies supporting one side is not a useful measure.
There is a lot of misunderstanding out there with regards to science and the scientific method. While Dr suzuki may be a scientist, I do not think he is not much of a fan of tru escientific method (in my opinion). Others tend to follow the latest research findings as they would a religion. In truth, science has a lot in common with religion and faith.
It is a mistake to use the flat earth society as an example of people in denial (you also ought to look into the real reason these people get together). There are a great many examples of the scientific community being wrong and suppressing those who disagreed with them. The earth being round, for instance. WHile it is usual for people to dismiss this as a relic of the past or an artifact of religious involvement there are certainly many more recent (though less well known) examples.

Peter Foster didn't write the book; Steve Milloy did.

"There are a great many examples of the scientific community being wrong and suppressing those who disagreed with them"

Just to make sure that everyone understands that there are a great many examples of the scientific community (or often not even the entire community) being right and being suppressed by those who do not want that kind of information to get out becuse it would impact their view of life or their livelyhood.

Of course, that can sometimes take a decade or even a century to be proven one way or another.

Probably the one most often cited is the geocentric view of the universe versus the heliocentric view wich was promoted by Galileo.

The pizza pie of a flat earth around which the rest of the flat plated pizza pans rotated.

"It is a mistake to use the flat earth society as an example of people in denial"

Flat Earth Society members and Geocentrists are not so much in denial as they are purveyors of the notion that a single viewpoint is quite adequate to give one the correct perspective on any matter.

Interestingly enough, these are traits also common to religious fundamentalists as well as ardent supporters of dogmatic political points of view.

If the world ain't flat, then how come it can't ever pay all its debts?

The earth has no debts. Humans have debts.