Gobal warming and its effects on fishing

[FIN-S-R]

Despite our differeing POV I can appreciate your concern nboucher.

In approaching the rate of change issue you brought up, all i can say is that in terms of geological time transitions are but a moment, and yes these transitions are typically the time periods where extinction occurs for fringe species, thats just how it goes...sorry.

Typically core species of mamals (those with wide geographic distribution) realize little or no population disruption. This is with the exception of drastic "overnight" changes like the beginning of the cold cycle that killed off the dinosaurs, or the rapid warming trend that was the demise of many enormous creatures such as mamoths.

But But But that is not where we are, and even if we were we are able to harnes the resources at hand and manipulate the environment in which we live such that it is made to accomodate us, or you might say we can "evolve" to live under different conditions than we currently experience.

The only real threat we can possibly ever face is if by some act of god or man the land masses we live on became uninhabitable ie. nuclear radiation, bio-pollutant inundation, inaccessable due to flood.

The flood deal gets some attention from the glbal warming community, but it isnt going to happen very fast if it does, though there is a reasonable chance oklahoma could become an inland sea again 1 day. The only deal here is that there is plenty of land area which is marginally inhabitable due to cold as is. A warming trend would render the more northern latitudes more preferencial real estate, and as has always been the case, biology migrates to that area which best suits it.

Now all this is very possible, but not eminant for us, our children, or their children, now 100-200 years down the road you never know, but I know that fish were some of the first critters around and will probably out live us bi-peds (just trying to stay with the original thread a little).

[nboucher]

Fin, I actually don't think we're that far out of agreement. I think it may be a matter of time scale. As a New Englander and an angler, I'll benefit from whatever minimal effect global warming will have in my lifetime (I won't have the northern climate to blame for my ineptness, that is). The more immediate problem for the flora and fauna is habitat destruction, which is the prime cause for the accelerated extinction rates. That doesn't have anything to do with global warming.

Still, as someone raised to believe humans have a stewardship responsibility toward what we've inherited, I do think there is enough evidence to be concerned about global warming over the longer term (100 years? 200? 500?) . No one can be 100 percent sure whether the accelerated warming trend that coincides with industrialization turns out to be just a coincidence or a consequence, but so far the accelerated rate of carbon emissions makes the most logical sense. On the other hand, it seems too easy (to me) at this point to just dismiss this as a blip, though, as you say, the size of the time frame means that can't entirely be dismissed eitherit may be too short a time to show up in any core samples. But that combination of caution and openness to the hypothetical as the evidence is examined is how science works best, I think. Better to keep an open mind about what evidence there is, IMHO, than dismiss it as yet another political trick or hype created by ambitious scientists.

Okay, now we're way off topic, I suppose, so I'll shut up . .  

[FishTank]

I am sorry I found this post. Let me just say that this topic is something I happen to know quite a bit about. With that said, I will not voice my complete opinion but I will say this: In order to fully understand this subject you need more than to just look outside your back door, read the daily political BS from any of your left or right wing news sources, or listen to any one that is ignorant to science and not politics. What is needed is a real college degree in environmental management, meteorology, or geology. These are the men that seperate the fact, the fiction, and the political truth, no one else. Please read and research the technical facts and ignore the paraded television scientists and politicians.

[roadwarrior]

Fish Tank,

No way, buddy!

You don't get off that easy. I don't care if you support my view or the other side...really.

Please add you thoughts, but preface it with your credentials*.

*(NOT required by anyone else, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm just interested in Fish Tank's background. Am I being clear? This was NOT meant as challenge, I'm just curious).

[Troutfisher]

Understood, Roadwarrior.  I too would like to see some info Fish Tank...  

[FishTank]

I needed to think about this for a few minutes so I will do my best to keep it short and simple. It might take two post to complete my total thoughts.

My background: My family and friends live and work inside the environmental world and I am on the low end of the spectrum. So here goes, I have a degree in Psychology with a minor in chemistry. I followed a different path after I graduated and got into the printing industry. My father was an enviromental engineer, as well as my two brothers, one cousin is a nuclear physicist and another is a geologist, and one of my best friends has a degree in forestry and works for a logging company. I could go on.

Is Global Warming real?: Yes and No. The term Global Warming is, IMHO, a made up term to make us feel safe about a real condition, politcal not scientific. Like the term Post Dramatic War Syndrome, it used to be called Shell Shock. With Global Warming a better term would be an "Enviromental Imbalance". The earth is an ever changing, living thing and will continue to do so with or without our help. But it is this process of change that effects all of the living creatures on it.

What causes this imbalance?: (I hate this term too), Greenhouse gasses: Carbon Dioxide, Methane, the flouro. gasses, and Nitrious Oxide (human and animal waste so light a match ;D). The earth produces these gases naturally to keep itself healthy but when we add to them we are making the earth sick. We are destroying our protective shell (the Ozone Layer and yes, it is real) at a faster rate and it also changes the atmospheric temp. Which brings about, everyone favorite, the ICE AGE. This, IMHO, is what heals the earth and our ozone layer. I can't say for sure, I was not around for the last one.

How can I tell if it is effecting me and my fishing?: As fisherman we tan out in the sun. Think back twenty or so years ago. At least for me, I burn like crazy now. This is gray to me, but according to family, this is where the UV index comes in. Less ozone layer=crispy earth (sort of). When the ozone layer allows more UV, Xray and Gama rays in to the earth the ground temperature will rise but with less of an ozone layer we can't keep that heat locked in. Ask any saltwater fisherman, how the fishing has changed around the reefs which are older than some land masses.

The human race has changed the earth more in the a last 200 years than anyting has in the last 10,000. The earth needs to find a way to keep the balance in check and this will directly effect how we enjoy our sport. This again is just an opinion. I have had to retype this BS twice because my computer connection is bad so I am tired and feeling my age. 5 am comes early so I might continue this tomorrow when I can think straight.

[Guest avid]

I am sorry I found this post. Let me just say that this topic is something I happen to know quite a bit about. With that said, I will not voice my complete opinion but I will say this: In order to fully understand this subject you need more than to just look outside your back door, read the daily political BS from any of your left or right wing news sources, or listen to any one that is ignorant to science and not politics. What is needed is a real college degree in environmental management, meteorology, or geology. These are the men that seperate the fact, the fiction, and the political truth, no one else. Please read and research the technical facts and ignore the paraded television scientists and politicians.

So according to your own standards you are:

Not able to fully understand this subject because you do not possess any of the degrees you claim are required.

So now that we know you are no more expert than any of us (my wife is a Ph.D. psychologist, I do not claim to be a therapist due to marriage) you are free to join the discussion on equal terms with the rest of us.

Just kindly park your high horse outside the barn before choosing not to voice your complete opinion.

[FIN-S-R]

Since we are sharing backgrounds, here is what I have to back up my previously stated "opinions?" 7 yrs in institutions of higher learning and 3 degrees ending with an M.S. in environmental science specializing in applied environmental chem. with a geology minor. Atop that you can add 5-6 yrs research studying dirt, grass, critters, rocks, air, clouds, and everything else that resides in the natural world. I have multiple pubs in scientific journals dealing with soil and WATER chem. issues. As I have stated in other posts on this site, everything is chemistry. Understand the chemistry and the biology and physics present themselves as obvious and emphatic. Now refer to my previous posts if you want to know the FACTS about this global warming business.

P.S.

I try not to ride a high horse see'in as its a longer way down when you fall than if you ride the shorter version.

[nboucher]

The irony about the whole global warming debate nationally is that everyone in my part of the country is convinced that global warming exists because of the record-breaking warm temps we've been having in the Northeast this winter. In my view, it's good that people are tuning into the issue, but the irony is that global warming probably has, at most, little to do with the weird weather this year. Climatologists who are convinced carbon emissions and greenhouse gases are having an effect on global temperatures are the first to point this out. They say that an unusual patternan abnormally vigorous el Nino in the Pacific coupled with an unusually persistent warm-circulation pattern the Atlanticare pretty clearly responsible for the high temps in the Northeast and the Midwest, and timing of the Colorado snows.

Even the increased warmth of the past 20 years may have little to do with climate change. I now regularly see species of birds around me all year that I never saw when I took ornithology in college because they had always been more southern species. But this could be a normal cycle of fluctuation.

None of this proves that global warming is not happening, however. The chemistry makes sense, and the timing with the rise of the industrial age in the late 1800s, early 1900s. Human actions may be intensifying a naturally occuring cycle and, as I posted earlier, may nullify all, or part of the later part of the cycle, which depends on the trends in place long after our lifetimes.

Oh, my qualifications? Citizen, reader, aspiring angler. Pretty good husband and father (depends who you ask), a softball coach with a losing record . . . Need I go on?  

[timmyswetarded]

my theory isnt so scientific, its more of a historic theory.  i live in kansas on the vast great plains.  i have talked to grandparents and other elderly people about the "old days"  (starting around 1915) i have been told of the huge snow drifts and great amount of snow that fell.  now (minus the recent snow in western ks) it hardly ever snows, heck it has rained more times then at has snowed this year.  sure my historical info is secondary source because its well over 20 years old but i believe it.  i have seen changes in my own life even from year to year.  i believe that global warming is a real issue, though i cant say if it is all natural or not, i cant test the amount that we have accelerated it, if at all.  i just know what i see.

[Water Dog]

What we think based on being outside and having observed the weather in our short lives means nothing in the overall argument, much as we would like for it to. It's not about "feelings" or how we feel.

I have had graduate level courses in organic chemistry, statistics, environmental sciences, botany, plant science, entomology, and ecology. Life also is an education.

I have worked 37 years in the field dealing directly with environmental issues, dirt, water and air pollution, etc. What humane kind has adversely done to the earth is insignificant compared to the natural cyclic changes of a dynamic planet over eons.

We need to recognize that all is not gloom and doom Many hard working Americans have done much to clean up our rivers and lakes and small streams and air over the last 50 years. These positive accomplishments should be celebrated and appreciated by all of us. Much is left to be done. Each of us can help in his or her own way. We need to find that way. The more that we do through our influence as individuals and as a group will increase fishing opportunities for all of posterity and us.

We won't get to heaven on good works, but a lifetime of good work will certainly help our Nations natural resources.

It would appear that some of you are too young to fully appreciate the strides that have been made, and yet, a fifteen year old boy on this post has confounded some of you with his logic and all that you can do is redirect his honest work of response to your comments with some lame joke or attempt to belittle him, while never answering his research with any of your own. I would encourage you to do better.

Quit whining (those of you who are) and go do something positive for the environment. ;D

[Troutfisher]

Thanks Water Dog...I enjoyed the post!