Another alarmist study with predictable results - This time it´s about trout

The reality: “We are not yet seeing the trend in the trout populations themselves,”


A fresh study about the impact of  predicted global warming on trout habitat in the Western US is a good example of what´s wrong with most similar studies. If the researchers - in this case biologists Seth Wenger and Dan Isaak - base their studies on erraneous climate models, they are bound to get results that fit into the alarmist agenda:

When Seth Wenger and Dan Isaak release a scientific paper that predicts hard times for the West’s trout, they know a lot of people are skeptical.
“Fundamentally, skepticism is a good thing in science,” said Wenger, a fisheries researcher with Trout Unlimited in Boise.
Both Wenger and Isaak, a fisheries biologist at the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station in Boise, were a part of a team of 11 scientists who said trout habitat could drop by 50 percent over the next 70 years because of a warming world. The paper, published Monday in the peer-reviewed science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, predicts native cutthroat habitat could decline by 58 percent.
The two men, who have devoted their lives to scientific research, say they depend on the scientific method and peer review to judge the quality of the research that underscores their findings. The climate predictions are based on 10 of the 20 climate models developed independently worldwide that all show the world is getting warmer.


“The climate models have been right for 30 years and they are getting better all the time,” Isaak said. (!)

The most dire climate models show temperatures in Idaho rising an average of 9 degrees in 70 years, Wenger said. “That would make Boise pretty unpleasant,” he said. “None of us want to believe that.”
But Wenger is a scientist. He may hope the models that predict only a 4- to 5-degree rise over 70 years are more accurate, but he has to use the science that is available.
“I have to set aside my feelings and use the best data,” he said.
The best data says it’s going to get warmer, but there remains a lot of uncertainty in the numbers, especially past 2050, Wenger said. So there is a range of possible impacts on cutthroats. The scientists forecast reductions in habitat ranging from 33 percent to 58 percent.
But these findings are only predictions.
“We are not yet seeing the trend in the trout populations themselves,” Wenger said.
---
But what if all the climate models are wrong?
“There just is not a lot of data supporting the alternative view,” Wenger said.
There are natural events that could change the trend, Isaak said.
A large volcano eruption could cool global temperatures for years or even decades.

Read the entire article here


On can only wonder why scientists like Isaak and Wenger still blindly believe in the alarmist climate models, which have been proven wrong so many times, most recently by Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell:

On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from
Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance
Read the research article here

Another article here
And here

Even one of the lead writers of the IPCC reports admits that the climate models fail:

Yet even Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, has admitted that the IPCC models have failed to duplicate realities. Writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journal Nature.com he stated, “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Read the entire article here

If you would like to remind Isaak and Wenger e.g. about the Spencer and Braswell
study, here is where to write:
Daniel Isaak, Fisheries Research Scientist

email: disaak@fs.fed.us

 Seth Wenger, Staff Scientist
 swenger@tu.org

Another useful link:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-10-reasons-why-climate-model.html