Highlights from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report - Summary for Policy Makers - Humans are driving climate change!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a draft of its Summary for Policy Makers report on Friday 9/28/2013.

This posting is a summary of the main points from that document.  The parts in bold font below are direct quotes from that document.  I inserted some additional comments clarifying or commenting on those quotes in the text in brackets below each quote.

You can read the entire document by clicking this link - it's about 30pp long:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Point #1 - Overall state of the climate:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of  greenhouse gases have increased.

(In other words, the climate is changing, and not for the better - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #2 - State of the Atmosphere:
Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any  preceding decade since 1850

(Not only is the Earth's surface temperature warmer than it used to be, decade by decade it's getting even warmer - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #3 - State of the Ocean:
Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain (=99-100% confidence) that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010 

(The upper ocean is warmer than it used to be - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #4 - State of the Cryosphere (frozen regions):
Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent.

(Ice is melting and ice masses are in decling everywhere - an observation, not a prediction, not a model.)

Point #5 - Sea Level:
The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901–2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m 

(Sea level has risen 10" - so far - since 1901 - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #6 - Carbon and other Geochemical Cycles:
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification. 

(Burning fossil fuels together with land use changes produced unprecedented levels of CO2 compared to its levels over the past 800K years - an observation, not a prediction, not a model)

Point #7 - Drivers of Climate Change
Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system. The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 since 1750.

(Radiative forcing is the term used to determine whether climate is warming or cooling.  Positive forcing is warming, negative forcing is cooling.  So, the largest contributor to current climate change is CO2 emissions - a conclusion based on many observations.)

Point #8 - Understanding the Climate and its Recent Changes
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.

(What humans have done and are doing affects climate.)

Point #9 - Evaluation of Climate Models
Climate models have improved since the AR4 (4th assessment report - 2007). Models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence)

(Climate models are better than they used to be, and are now quite good at modeling observed climate history and observed current trends in climate change)

Point #10 - 2 Quantification of Climate System Responses:
Observational and model studies of temperature change, climate feedbacks and changes in the Earth’s energy budget together provide confidence in the magnitude of global warming in response to past and future forcing.

(In other words, the accumulated mass of observations collected so far, together with improved climate models increase our confidence that what we think is happening [i.e., human-driven global warming] really is happening.)

Point #11 - Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century.

(The term "extremely likely" correlates with a statistical significance of 95% confidence, which is about the same degree of scientific confidence we have about the link between tobacco use and cancer.  So, the data now show that we are in the realm of scientific certainty that human activities have been the dominant cause of recent observed climate change.  Bottom line - HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.)

Point #12 - Future Global and Regional Climate Change
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

(Translation - if we just keep doing what we're doing, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with reckless abandon, things will just keep getting worse.  The only way to mitigate the climate change problem is to cut back, way back, on carbon emissions.)

Point #13 - Future of Atmospheric Temperature
Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP (modeled) scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform.

(No matter what we do, the atmosphere is already on a warming trend that will continue for some time to come, even if we cut carbon emissions to zero immediately.)

Point #14 - Future of the Atmosphere: Water Cycle
Changes in the global water cycle in response to the warming over the 21st century will not be uniform. The contrast in precipitation between wet and dry regions and between wet and dry seasons will increase, although there may be regional exceptions.

(Most likely wet areas will get wetter, and dry areas will get drier, with some exceptions.  Get ready!)

Point #15 - Future of the Ocean
The global ocean will continue to warm during the 21st century. Heat will penetrate from the surface to the deep ocean and affect ocean circulation.

(The ocean will continue to warm, no matter what we do - this will affect the movement of water, and consequently of heat around the planet)

Point #16 - Future of the Cyrosphere (ice regions)
It is very likely that the Arctic sea ice cover will continue to shrink and thin and that Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover will decrease during the 21st century as global mean surface temperature rises. Global glacier volume will further decrease.

(There will be less ice on average, everywhere.)

Point #17 - Future of Sea Level
Global mean sea level will continue to rise during the 21st century. Under all  RCP scenarios the rate of sea level rise will very likely exceed that observed during 1971–2010 due to increased ocean warming and increased loss of mass from glaciers and ice sheets.

(No matter what we do, sea level will continue to rise for a prolonged period of time.  All we can do now is limit how fast and how high it will rise - this is linked to carbon emissions.)

Point #18 - Carbon and Other Geochemical Cycles
Climate change will affect carbon cycle processes in a way that will exacerbate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (high confidence). Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

(Emitting even more carbon will make things progressively worse, and will drive ocean acidification - a change that will almost certainly affect marine ecosystems and probably cause the extinction of many marine species)

Point #19 - Climate Stabilization, Climate Change Commitment and Irreversibility
Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2.

(There is no stopping anthropgenic climate change now, our actions from this point though will determine how far it will go.  It's our call.)

Backpacking in Yellowstone National Park - Bechler Region

I hike and I like to camp, well, except for the sleeping part, but I've never been backpacking...until this summer.  

Some friends and I went backpacking for three days and two nights in the back country of the Bechler Region of Yellowstone National Park (the SW corner of the park).  This area is accessed by taking Cave Falls Road east from Idaho State Highway 47.  Stay on Cave Falls Road until you see the sign on the north side of the road to the Bechler Ranger Station.  BTW, you need to pay either $25 for a one-time YNP pass or $50 for an annual pass to park there and enter the park. You are also required to view a back country safety video before you will be issued a camping permit.  

We stayed at different camp sites each night.  On Day 1 we hiked 10 miles in to campsite 9B6, and on Day 2 we hiked two more miles toward Three River Junction to camp site 9B8.

Here is our crew in a "before" shot, mid-morning on the first day.  See how clean and chipper we look?

So, Day 1 we covered 10 miles.  When/if you start to feel "hot spots" on your feet STOP!  I learned this the hard way...I waited too long, and proto-blisters became the real thing.  Sadly, I was one of the two people who got blisters mid way through the first day.  I haven't had blisters in I don't know how long!  I don't even get blisters while running a half-marathon...sheesh!

I think that I got blisters because of my shoes, either that or a slightly modified gait due to a knee injury (ACL) I had this Spring.  I did everything you are supposed to...wear broken in reliable shoes and wicking socks, stop and check feet when "hot spots" show up, and apply moleskin as needed, but no matter what I tried blisters happened.   Enough of that...for now.

A few miles into Day 1 we crossed Boundary Creek.  There's a nice suspension bridge over that muddy creek.  Make sure you take it easy as you cross, one person at a time, and step in the middle of the planks as you go over.  If it weren't for this bridge we would have been muddy at least from the knees down, and that's not really what anyone wants when you are not even halfway through a 10-mile day.

Once over the bridge we pushed on, toward Bechler Meadow.

Bechler Meadow (see below) is huge.  I hoped/expected to see moose or elk or deer there, but all we saw was meadow, meadow, and more meadow, oh, and trees, hills, and mountains in the distance.

The Tetons were visible to the south.  Beautiful!

We had only one river crossing on Day 1.  It was at the north end of Bechler Meadow.  Here we are changing into water shoes/sandals before crossing (below). Lightweight pants with zippers at the knees so the bottom half of the pant legs can removed were a good investment.  

Once across we took a break, relaxed, filled our water bottles, and had some lunch.

Pretty soon we entered for forest for good as we moved toward the mouth of Bechler Canyon (below).  The shade was a welcome change.  

We heard that the mosquitoes can be thick from the ranger station through Bechler Meadow, but, thank the Maker, we saw/heard very few of them.  

This hillside marks the mouth of Bechler Canyon.

The rest of  Day 1 we hiked up  beautiful Bechler Canyon (below).

Here are a couple of must-see waterfalls on this trail.  The first major one is Collonade Falls (below). 

A few miles farther up the canyon is Iris Falls.  You have to hike off of the main trail a hundred yards (meters) or so to an overlook to see it, otherwise you'll walk right by.  Watch for a sign on the left side of the trail.  Don't skip it!  Go and see it, after all, why are you in the park, anyway?

Here's the crew, still grinning while at Collonade Falls.

We saw lots of berries as we moved farther up the valley.  We ate wild blackberries and huckleberries too!  This is the sort of place I imagine you could see bears, but I guess we were making such a racket that if they were in the neighborhood they hot footed it out of there.  Come to think of it, we didn't see any wildlife larger than birds the entire trip.  That was kind of a let-down, but IMO that's better than having run-ins with bears.

Here's one of the huckleberry patches. 

The photo below shows campsite 9B6 where we hoisted a bear bag containing all of our food, toothpaste, deodorant, and other things that might bring in bears.  The bear bag was well off of the ground so bears can't get to them.

Bear bags MUST be used.  In fact, park rangers come by regularly to check and make sure everyone is following good back country bear procedures.  The rangers' main job is to keep the visitors, the park, and the wildlife safe.

The photo below shows the right-hand support of the bear bag hoist.  The marks are where a black bear(s) climbed the pole to try to get to bear bags.  This didn't happen while we were there, but bears had obviously been there in the past!  

Even in the middle of summer, nights can be COLD in Yellowstone.  I found that out the hard way.  I don't care for mummy style bags, but I should have brought mine...instead I opted for a bag that wasn't rated as cold...brr...I froze that first night, even with a knit hat.  

Luckily, dawn always follows even the darkest night, and a fire and a bite of hot breakfast helped me gather myself for the day.

We broke camp and hiked another two miles to 9B8 - our second camp site.  This short hike required two river crossings.  

Here's the bear bag hoist at camp site 9B8.

On an aside, it's imperative that you have one or two good water filters (below) when you go backpacking, because water is HEAVY and you want to carry as little as possible.    

Day 2 was used mainly to take a day hike to see some waterfalls and a hot pool.  My feet were in so much pain from Day 1's blisters that after about 100 yards of the day-hike I turned around and went back to camp where I put my feet up.  That was, I believe, the only way I was going to have a prayer of hiking the 12 miles back out the next day.

After the group returned some of them took advantage of a fantastic way to cool off.  The water was actually warmer here than it was father downstream because of hot/warm springs at several spots along the river.  It wasn't "warm" but it wasn't frigid either.  

Night 2 went much better for me than Night 1 for two reasons:  1) I wore ALL the clothes I had with me to bed...pants, shirt, sweatshirt, socks, knit hat, etc., so I wasn't as cold as I was on Night 1, that's not to say that I was warm, I was just not AS cold; and 2) I knew that the next day we would head home. Yeah!

The morning of Day 3 I checked my blisters...installed new mole skin around each one, laced up my shoes, bucked up my faith and courage, and set off...with pain in every footstep.

We made it back to the ranger station 7-8 hours later, around 5pm.  We forded the river three times and covered 12 miles.  I literally kissed the ranger station sign when I saw it again!

Once I got home I removed all of the moleskin and checked out my feet.  This is what I found.  I had to cover 12 miles, step after step, on these blisters.  Luckily, if you just embrace the pain and keep going it's not all THAT bad.

I had three blisters on my left foot.  This is the blister about the size of a quarter below my second toe and another one on the little toe of my left foot...

This blister was on the side of the heel of my left foot.

My right foot had only one blister, but it was a doozy!

In retrospect, I have to say that the scenery was beautiful, the friendships good, the park was amazing, and the outing was overall an unmitigated success, but for me personally, the hike was from hell.

So, what's my impression of backpacking?  At least for now if someone asks if I want to go...I'll pass.

Holy cow! The 2013 Arctic sea ice melt is accelerating like crazy!

I know I just posted on the Arctic Ocean sea ice melt, but, well, that was three days ago.  And three days ago it looked like an acceleration of sea ice melt might have been on the way, but I'd say that now it's official!  Look at the difference between the 1981-2010 baseline trend and the observed sea ice melt between the latter half of June and July 4th.  Wow!

I did a little math, and here's what I came up with.

On June 21st the historical baseline (1981-2010) showed sea ice extent at about 11.4 million km2 and 10.55 million km2 on July 4th.  That's a difference of 850,000 km2 of sea ice, or a melt rate of about 65,400 km2 of sea ice per day.

By comparison, the observed time period between June 21st and July 4th 2013 showed a sea ice extent of 11.1 million km2 on June 21st and an extent of 9.6 million km2 on July 4th.  That's a difference of 1.5 million km2 over that time period for a daily sea ice melt rate of about 115,400 km2 per day.

The observed melt rate for 2013 over the past two weeks or so is therefore nearly double the baseline melt rate for the same time period.  It's doubtful that this melt rate can be maintained for long, but the next few weeks will give us a good indication about whether the 2012 sea ice minimum extent record is in jeopardy. That is, if the current sea ice melt rate will be sustained, at least over the short term.

So, it's true, things are really starting to warm up in the Arctic.

Stay tuned...it's going to be an interesting summer!

Time to check in on the Arctic Ocean summer sea ice melt - 1 July 2013

It's been a while since I posted anything about what's happening in the Arctic Ocean.  In a word, the summer 2013 sea ice melt is "on".  So far this spring/summer, sea ice cover has declined from a winter maximum ice extent of just over 15 million km2 down to 10.5 million km2 as of yesterday (6-30-2013).

The maps below shows that sea ice melt is progressing much faster than the 1981-2010 average in Hudson Bay, the Barents Sea, Baffin Bay, and other areas around the Canadian Archipelago.  Sea ice melt in the Bering and Chukchi Seas are right on the historical average.

The graph below courtesy of NSIDC.org shows the relationship between the 2013 Spring/Summer melt and that of the 1981-2010 average and the 2012 all time record low sea ice melt.  The current melt is currently about midway between the historic average melt and the record melt for this time of year.  The rate of sea ice melt has really increased (as indicated by the steep downward turn in the blue line on the graph below) over the past week or so.  The rate of sea ice melt will really have to speed up, though, if it's going to have a chance of catching last year's record pace. 

If you follow these kinds of data on a regular basis, like I do, you might be surprised to see the current rate of sea ice melt is as close as it is to the historic rate of sea ice melt.  That's because NSIDC recently updated their baseline data for comparisons from a 22-year average (1979-2000) to a 30 year average (1981-2010), since that is standard practice for baselines whenever possible.  You can read more about that change by clicking this link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2013/06/updating-the-sea-ice-baseline/.  FYI, the NSIDC made this change on June 18, 2013.

So as of now, the 2013 sea ice melt is not threatening to break last year's record minimum sea ice extent.  But the only way to know what is going to happen is to be patient and keep checking back.

Have a great summer, but I hope that not too much sea ice melts!

Letting your vehicle idle doesn't help the environment - who knew?

Lots of people have the idea that idling a vehicle for a few minutes here and a few minutes there actually helps the environment by using less gas than starting and then restarting the engine.  That may have been true at one time, but not any more.  

It's time to shut down our engines when we are not driving (drive-throughs, grocery stores, convenience stores, banks, etc.).  That is actually the environmentally friendly thing to do.

Check out the information in the graphic below.

ORIGINAL: By Sustainable America. Check out the I Turn It Off campaign, where you'll get a free bumper sticker for pledging not to idle! 

The difference between climate and weather - funny, but true

This posting to "That Videosite.com" attempts to spoof the British Government's commitment to mitigating climate change, but in a strange turn of events actually does a good job of reminding everyone of the difference between climate and weather, and that an unusually cold day doesn't offset the overall long term trend of climate change, a.k.a. global warming.  Why not click the link below and give it a look.

Cheers!

http://www.thatvideosite.com/v/2981/global-warming

Do we really need to know how to write?

Do Professionals in the Sciences Truly Need to Know How to Write?

Alan Holyoak, PhD

Dept of Biology, BYU-Idaho

May 2009

Introduction

You may be thinking, “I plan on becoming a dentist, a doctor, a conservation officer, etc., do I also need to be a good writer?”  That is what this paper is about.

The current state of writing skill among professional scientists

The ability to communicate clearly, concisely, and effectively is strong evidence of an educated, well-trained mind, and is therefore one hallmark of a true professional.  For this reason the ability to communicate, including writing, is one of the most prized technical skills for a professional in our society.  Yet the ability of scientists and engineers to communicate effectively falls consistently below their employers’ needs and expectations.  This disturbing observation is supported by the findings of Davis, et al. (1989) that showed that second only to hands-on experience, biotechnology companies view the ability to communicate as the most important qualification they seek in job applicants – that means that communication skills are viewed by these companies as being more important than the school someone attended, the grades they earned, or the letters of recommendation they can provide.  The National Research Council (1997) found similar results when it surveyed employers of PhD-level scientists and engineers, and asked those employers to identify weaknesses in their employees’ training.  These employers indicated that the largest deficiency in their PhD-level employees’ training was their lack of communication skills (NRC, 1997). 

About now you may be thinking that those employers have expectations that are just too high, but perhaps we should ask ourselves if there is any evidence that suggests that there is a growing trend of poor writing among professional scientists.  Consider this.  The editor of the journal Evolution provided a shocking vision of the widespread deficiency of writing skills among professional biologists when he wrote, “Much to my surprise, poor writing is almost as frequent a reason for rejection [of a paper] as flawed experimental design or analysis.  Nearly 50% of all rejected papers are so badly written that reviewers, Associate Editors, and the Editor cannot understand the experimental design, the analysis, the interpretation, or all of these components.  In many of these manuscripts even the purpose of the paper is obscure!” (Endler, 1992).  The editor of the journal Integrative and Comparative Biology reached similar conclusions to those of Endler (1992) about the general decline in writing ability among practicing scientists when he stated, “The standard for writing in current scientific journals has reached an all-time low, in terms of both poor grammar and imprecise communication.  This situation has been fueled on the one hand by escalating costs of publication and an attempt to shorten papers, and on the other hand by inadequate training in the structure of the English language…I examined the titles of the articles in the issues [of his journal] from the past five years.  Most contained grammatical errors. Many of the articles, although deserving an “A” for scientific content, scarcely merited a “C–“ were the articles to be submitted as a composition for a high school class in English” (Heatwole, 2008).  So, yes, I’m afraid that there is evidence of a widespread deficiency in the ability of scientists to write effectively. 

The reported inability to write is part of a larger problem

Is this the lack of ability to communicate limited to writing, or is this declining ability to write well a symptom of a much larger problem?  As you ponder that question, consider this account of one professor’s meeting with a student, “He entered my office for advice as a freshman advisee sporting nearly perfect SAT scores and an impeccable academic record—by all accounts a young man of considerable promise. During a 20-minute conversation about his academic future, however, he displayed a vocabulary that consisted mostly of two words: "cool" and "really." Almost 800 SAT points hitched to each word. To be fair, he could use them interchangeably as "really cool" or "cool . . . really!" He could also use them singly. When he was a student in a subsequent class, I later confirmed that my first impression of the young scholar was largely accurate and that his vocabulary, and presumably his mind, consisted predominantly of words and images derived from overexposure to television and the new jargon of computer-speak” (Orr, 1999).  This student, like many other students across the country, was able to accumulate an extremely impressive academic record in high school, but while doing so had not developed the ability to communicate effectively. 

There is disturbing evidence suggesting that our civilization is suffering from a general decline in vocabulary, and, consequently, a diminishing ability to communicate as effectively as we once did.  This assertion is supported by the fact that the average 14-year old living 60 years ago had a vocabulary of around 25,000 words, while the average 14-year old of today has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words (Spretnak, 1997).  Why is this happening? There are almost certainly a number of possible factors contributing to this decline in language. 

Our language is constantly under assault by people that benefit when your abilities to think critically and to communicate effectively are limited (Orr, 1999).  Advertisers are among the most egregious culprits of this attack.  The success of advertisers in their endeavor to influence and limit your thinking is underscored by the fact that the average person can readily identify over 1000 corporate logos, but they cannot identify more than a dozen or so kinds of local plants and animals (Orr, 1999).  If you think seriously about it, virtually every commercial that comes on television insults your intelligence and is an assault on your ability to think critically.  After all, the last thing advertisers want you to do is to think critically about decisions related to the way you spend money – they want to do that thinking for you.  Here’s one common example of an outright assault on critical thinking: follow this link, watch the commercial, and think critically about what these advertisers are trying to sell you (http://www.ktel.com/clevercutter/).  Advertisers do not, alas, have your best interests at heart.  Their primary goal is to make money by getting you to buy as much as they can get you to buy, as fast as they can and as often as they can, whether you truly need the thing or afford the thing they are trying to sell! 

Other constituencies that benefit when you stop thinking and communicating include the television, communication, computer game, internet, and, well, almost the entire media community.  Here’s a sobering fact: total media usage per person in the USA in 2006 was 3530 hours per year or 9.7 hours per day (VSS, 2007).  Those numbers include all forms of media, including print, television, internet, and even computer games.  Of that total media interface time Americans watched an average of 4.35 hours of television per day (VSS, 2003), and the average male college played video games for 2.4 hours per day (Sherry, et al., in press).  It’s little wonder that our collective language is slipping!  We don’t seem to have time for anything other than media.  And most media cannot be considered mind-expanding.  We are, alas, simply drifting along, letting various forms of media think for us, or we do not think at all!  It’s therefore no surprise that we’ve been counseled to “…read more and watch television less” (Hinckley, 1995). 

In short, we habitually waste too much time with mindless media and entertainment.  Then, because there is so little time in our days when we are not diverted by media we do allocate the time to develop the habits and skills of reading, pondering, critical thinking that are needed to write effectively.  When we finally do unplug from our collective media umbilicus, and we realize that we have to think seriously about something or write seriously about something, we may find it difficult to do so.  So we have, unfortunately, developed a tendency to sit down, dash something off, and hand it in.  After all, writing that way has always been “good enough” in the past.  It does not, alas, tend to be good enough anymore, at least not for a professional. 

I hope that we are now starting to think if not sweat a little about how we use our time, as well as about our ability to communicate effectively, particularly in writing.  Perhaps it is time to start thinking seriously about our skills as writers.  After all, as the data presented earlier in this paper suggest, the ability to write can have a significant impact on our prospects for advanced education and employment.  And, being able to acquire meaningful employment matters, because that is how we take care of our families. 

You need to be able to write well in order to succeed as a professional

Do you truly need to be able to communicate well to succeed in your target profession?  Apparently the American Medical Association and the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Dental Association, administrators of graduate schools across the country, and managers of government agencies think so.  If you want to be a physician you must go to medical school, and in order to get into medical school you must do well on the MCAT (Medical College Admission Test).  The MCAT is made up of four sections: Physical Science, Verbal Reasoning, Writing, and Biological Science (AAMC, 2008).  That’s right; nearly half of the MCAT is devoted to assessing your ability to read and communicate effectively. If you want to go to dental school you must do well on the DAT (Dental Admissions Test).  The DAT includes sections on biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, perceptual ability, and reading comprehension (ADA, 2008).  The DAT does not have a written section, but your ability to communicate through writing is tested via a required personal statement you must produce to accompany your application packet.  Your ability to write clearly and effectively is also important when you apply to professional school.  If you hope to go to graduate school you need to do well on the GRE (Graduate Record Exam) General Test. The GRE has three main sections: Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, and Analytical Writing (ETS, 2009).  Again, communication skills are vital not only to gaining admission to graduate school, but to success once you get there.  That is why nearly two thirds of the GRE is devoted to writing and critical analysis of written material.  What if you want to pursue a career in some area of natural resource management?  Do you need to write well?  Yes!  The first thing that employers and supervisors of interns in the field of natural resource management ask about any applicant is whether s/he can write (Stricklan, pers. comm.).  It should be painfully obvious that you need to be able to communicate well, including writing, in order to succeed as a professional in any field of biology.

What you can do to become a more effective writer

The problem of effective writing sometimes seems to be completely overwhelming.  That is particularly true when some professors may tell you one thing, and others tell you something different, and then no matter what you try to do you cannot seem to meet their expectations.  As we start looking at things that we can do to improve our ability to communicate with each other, I hope we will take the attitude of Helen Keller who said, “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” 

Literature Cited

AAMA [Association of American Medical Colleges]. 2008. The Official Medical College Admission

Test Web Site.  Available from: http://www.aamc.org/students/mcat/ 

ADA [American Dental Association]. 2008. Dental Admission Test (DAT) Program Guide 2009.  

Available from: http://www.ada.org/prof/ed/testing/dat/dat_examinee_guide_2009.pdf 

Davis, J.D., A.J. Korchgen, and B.W. Saigo. 1989. Employment prospects in biotechnology.

American Biology Teacher 51: 346-348.

Endler, J.A. 1992. Editorial on publishing papers in Evolution. Evolution 46(6): 1984-1989.

ETS (Educational Testing Services). 2009. GRE Details: Test Takers. Available from:

http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?vgnextoid=e1b42d3631df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=5416e3b5f64f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD

Heatwole, H. 2008. Editorial – A plea for scholarly writing. Integrative and Comparative Biology

48(2): 159-163.

Hinckley, G.B. 1995. Stand strong against the world. Ensign November 1995: 98-101.

National Research Council [Internet].  1997. Preparing for the 21^st Century: The Education

Imperative. Last updated 2009. Available from:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=9537#toc.

Orr, D. W. 1999. Verbicide. Conservation Biology 13(4): 696-699.

Sherry, J. L., K. Lucas, B. Greenberg, and K. Lachlan. (in press). Video game uses and

gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.). Playing Computer Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Information cited at: http://mentalhealth.about.com/cs/familyresources/a/videotv404.htm and https://www.msu.edu/~jsherry/Vita.html

Spretnak, C. 1997. The resurgence of the real. Addison-Wesley, Reading.

Stricklan, D. (pers.comm.). Internship coordinator for ecology and natural resource

management, Department of Biology, BYU-Idaho, Rexburg, Idaho.

Tattersall, G. 2008. Geekspeak: How Life + Mathematics = Happiness. Collins.

VSS [Veronis Suhler Stevenson]. 2003. Communications Industry Forecast and Report. Info

available from: http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/television-rules-america.html

VSS [Veronis Suhler Stevenson]. 2007. Shift to Alternative Media Strategies Will Drive U.S.

Communications Spending Growth in 2007-2011 Period. Available from:  http://www.vss.com/news/index.asp?d_News_ID=166