Comments on: Logic and Passion and the Chesapeake Bay http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/ Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:39:10 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Criticisms of Chesapeake Bay Models Are Off Base | Bacons Rebellion http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6513 Criticisms of Chesapeake Bay Models Are Off Base | Bacons Rebellion Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:38:25 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6513 [...] his October 22nd essay entitled Logic and Passion and the Chesapeake Bay, Dr. Schnare does a disservice to readers by ignoring the world-renowned science and extensive [...] [...] his October 22nd essay entitled Logic and Passion and the Chesapeake Bay, Dr. Schnare does a disservice to readers by ignoring the world-renowned science and extensive [...]

]]> By: Larry G http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6113 Larry G Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:04:53 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6113 I don't think you can know the benefits of "no-till" or anything else that impacts the rivers UNLESS you can MEASURE it. It's smoke & mirrors to advocate for or against a particular activity unless you can show it's impact/effect. and that's the problem with the model. You should be able to point that model at a river segment - generate the predicted values for that segment then go test the water and show what the actual numbers are.. and then use the discrepancies to kick off subsequent analyses that will ultimately result in a more accurate model - one that you know where is it accurate and one where you know it is not and you need the actual numbers from the water body. Unfortunately this IS Rocket Science. This is the same process that Rocket Scientist MUST USE if they are to successfully produce fire control software that accurately guides missiles. The current bay modelling approach is either incompetent or it's wrong on purpose.. I prefer to believe the former but I'm out of patience with the time and money that is being spent essentially chasing our tails... it's time to reform the institutions involved in the Bay modelling and cleanup. The results indicate institutional ineptness - and this is not just the govt folks - we have EDUs and NGOs also doing dumb stuff. I don’t think you can know the benefits of “no-till” or anything else that impacts the rivers UNLESS you can MEASURE it.

It’s smoke & mirrors to advocate for or against a particular activity unless you can show it’s impact/effect.

and that’s the problem with the model.

You should be able to point that model at a river segment – generate the predicted values for that segment then go test the water and show what the actual numbers are.. and then use the discrepancies to kick off subsequent analyses that will ultimately result in a more accurate model – one that you know where is it accurate and one where you know it is not and you need the actual numbers from the water body.

Unfortunately this IS Rocket Science. This is the same process that Rocket Scientist MUST USE if they are to successfully produce fire control software that accurately guides missiles.

The current bay modelling approach is either incompetent or it’s wrong on purpose.. I prefer to believe the former but I’m out of patience with the time and money that is being spent essentially chasing our tails…

it’s time to reform the institutions involved in the Bay modelling and cleanup. The results indicate institutional ineptness – and this is not just the govt folks – we have EDUs and NGOs also doing dumb stuff.

]]> By: Mike http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6065 Mike Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:09:33 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6065 Robert - I think one of the important points things to consider is that if indeed farmers have reduced their load significantly then, perhaps, there are other sources that need to be considered or looked at more closely. For example, are some sectors being under represented? (And always have been?) Robert – I think one of the important points things to consider is that if indeed farmers have reduced their load significantly then, perhaps, there are other sources that need to be considered or looked at more closely. For example, are some sectors being under represented? (And always have been?)

]]> By: Robert Wieland http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6045 Robert Wieland Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:25:52 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6045 This is specious in the extreme. If, without accounting the load reductions that Pugh implies, the Bay is still sick and the Potomac is still loaded with hormones that give us intersex fish, what exactly is it that is not being counted? We know that there are excessive nutrient loads and we know that much of that results from nutrients imported into the watershed (commercial fertilizers, food and other stuff that people process), along with ways in which we have changed eco-system function on the land. The Bay model has been around for 20 years and it is getting better, though it clearly has a long way to go. But the issue that Pugh raises -- that the benefits of continuous no-till are being under-counted -- can be stood on its head with respect to what we see. If any of that was useful, then why has the Bay not recovered? Rather than declaring victory and going home, we need to look at the reduction values credited to low till and no-till and see what else has to be done to reduce nutrient loads from agricultural land. Ms Pugh's argument is just a new version of the old song, "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree". This is specious in the extreme. If, without accounting the load reductions that Pugh implies, the Bay is still sick and the Potomac is still loaded with hormones that give us intersex fish, what exactly is it that is not being counted? We know that there are excessive nutrient loads and we know that much of that results from nutrients imported into the watershed (commercial fertilizers, food and other stuff that people process), along with ways in which we have changed eco-system function on the land. The Bay model has been around for 20 years and it is getting better, though it clearly has a long way to go. But the issue that Pugh raises — that the benefits of continuous no-till are being under-counted — can be stood on its head with respect to what we see. If any of that was useful, then why has the Bay not recovered? Rather than declaring victory and going home, we need to look at the reduction values credited to low till and no-till and see what else has to be done to reduce nutrient loads from agricultural land. Ms Pugh’s argument is just a new version of the old song, “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree”.

]]> By: Larry G http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6041 Larry G Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:05:01 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6041 re: fixation and focus without COORDINATED comprehensive water quality monitoring - we simply do not know. Worse, we don't know the trend data. We have IMHO - an institutional aversion to measuring specifics. Mary H is concerned about Storm Water Runoff. I am too but I'm also concerned about the hormones and prescription drugs that are not entering the waste streams not only from the urban areas but from factor scale animal operations. We have dozens of different agencies all conducting different but similar, sometimes redundant, and sometimes GAPs activities on behalf of the Bay - and at the end of the day - in a town on a river - there is no specific guidance that the public can understand and advocate for their jurisdiction to address. The average citizen - for their town, river, creek, bay cannot tell you what the priority issues are nor how they can be effectively delt with and what exactly to advocate for in terms of remedy. The career professionals and policy people that work for the "Bay" should be embarrassed and ashamed to have spent so much time and money to have accomplished so little and to have put us in this place in time where much of their work relied on models - that they knew were questionable and faulty. shame on them. re: fixation and focus

without COORDINATED comprehensive water quality monitoring – we simply do not know. Worse, we don’t know the trend data.

We have IMHO – an institutional aversion to measuring specifics.

Mary H is concerned about Storm Water Runoff. I am too but I’m also concerned about the hormones and prescription drugs that are not entering the waste streams not only from the urban areas but from factor scale animal operations.

We have dozens of different agencies all conducting different but similar, sometimes redundant, and sometimes GAPs activities on behalf of the Bay -

and at the end of the day – in a town on a river – there is no specific guidance that the public can understand and advocate for their jurisdiction to address.

The average citizen – for their town, river, creek, bay cannot tell you what the priority issues are nor how they can be effectively delt with and what exactly to advocate for in terms of remedy.

The career professionals and policy people that work for the “Bay” should be embarrassed and ashamed to have spent so much time and money to have accomplished so little and to have put us in this place in time where much of their work relied on models – that they knew were questionable and faulty.

shame on them.

]]> By: Mary H. http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6025 Mary H. Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:46:47 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6025 Another serious problem in all of this is the myopic fixation on nutrients while ignoring toxics. The heavy metals and other substances that run off vehicular surfaces are completely ignored. We've asked for years for this to be included, to no avail. It's like your doctor focusing on your bad knee while ignoring your heart condition. Another serious problem in all of this is the myopic fixation on nutrients while ignoring toxics. The heavy metals and other substances that run off vehicular surfaces are completely ignored. We’ve asked for years for this to be included, to no avail. It’s like your doctor focusing on your bad knee while ignoring your heart condition.

]]> By: Larry G http://baconsrebellion.com/2009/10/28/logic-and-passion-and-the-chesapeake-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-6017 Larry G Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:37:47 +0000 http://baconsrebellion.com/?p=820#comment-6017 The "model" supported by a phalanx of public and private career folks - has not been properly validated with real world data. this has been pointed out before. How hundreds/thousands of career professionals will believe a model without doing the necessary water quality validation is a testament to what? I wish I could be polite but I have to ask: How can so many folks working on this problem who say they are committed to the cause of cleaning up the Bay - rely on a model that is obviously wrong - because apparently no one is willing to question why it should not be properly validated? It boggles the mind. You know.. one week.. they're blaming septic tanks.. and the next week they're blaming farms then they're blaming 7-11s and here's the really bad part. If you live in a place in Virginia and you want to encourage your locality to do the things necessary to help bring the Bay back - what exactly do you advocate for and how much will it cost? Which River in Va has the biggest problems ? Which has the least? On a given River - which segments have the most problems and which ones lesser? We are told that this stuff is "too complicated" for the average person. I strongly - vociferously, in fact, disagree. You cannot get the public to support the actions necessary if they do not understand where the problems are, what it will take to fix them and who the folks are that they should be pestering to act. The Bay Program walks and talks for all the world like some kind of a scam.. There is one Guy - Congressman Rob Whitman, with a background in Fisheries Biology, has successfully enacted legislation that will require coordination (vice turf fighting) and results from monitoring... I'm still amazed.. all the career folks working all these years and most all of them apparently okay with a model that no one has insisted be properly validated. The “model” supported by a phalanx of public and private career folks – has not been properly validated with real world data.

this has been pointed out before. How hundreds/thousands of career professionals will believe a model without doing the necessary water quality validation is a testament to what?

I wish I could be polite but I have to ask: How can so many folks working on this problem who say they are committed to the cause of cleaning up the Bay – rely on a model that is obviously wrong – because apparently no one is willing to question why it should not be properly validated?

It boggles the mind.

You know.. one week.. they’re blaming septic tanks.. and the next week they’re blaming farms then they’re blaming 7-11s and here’s the really bad part.

If you live in a place in Virginia and you want to encourage your locality to do the things necessary to help bring the Bay back – what exactly do you advocate for and how much will it cost?

Which River in Va has the biggest problems ? Which has the least? On a given River – which segments have the most problems and which ones lesser?

We are told that this stuff is “too complicated” for the average person.

I strongly – vociferously, in fact, disagree. You cannot get the public to support the actions necessary if they do not understand where the problems are, what it will take to fix them and who the folks are that they should be pestering to act.

The Bay Program walks and talks for all the world like some kind of a scam..

There is one Guy – Congressman Rob Whitman, with a background in Fisheries Biology, has successfully enacted legislation that will require coordination (vice turf fighting) and results from monitoring…

I’m still amazed.. all the career folks working all these years and most all of them apparently okay with a model that no one has insisted be properly validated.

]]>