Global Warming

[SuperFlyGuy]

Dont mean to damper everyone's new year, but has anyone seen the documentary / presentation "An Inconvenient Truth", by Al Gore?

I watched it this past weekend, and I was startled at some of the findings concerning global warming, and the rate in which it is increasing. I couldn't help wonder how this would effect our beloved sport of fly fishing, and moreover the world's survival.

Global Warming = Less Snow run off = decreased streams and rivers = ....?
Considering how delicate our the fisheries already are, its kind of scary.
You can see where this goes.

Well at any rate, if you havent seen the movie, please do, and share it with a friend. I think alot of us, including myself have thought it not to be such a big deal, but when you look at the science behind it, it does draw some concern.

Anyhow, just thought I'd ask everyone's opinon.

[Terry Thomas]

I saw it over the holiday and was very impressed. The facts do not lie.
T.

[Darian]

Hey SFG,..... Haven't seen the movie, yet.... While I believe that warming has been occurring, globally, there's some controversy among researchers/scientists about whether it's occurring as a result of a natural cycle or not. Some of the materials I've read, indicate that the atmosphere has been warming, gradually, since the last ice age.... :? :? For what it's worth, I subscribe to the theory of a combination of natural warming and man made accelerants/activities (e.g. pollution, greenhouse gases, etc.). Not being a scientist, my opinion doesn't matter much. 8)

IMHO, the affects of global warming don't appear to be readily predictable as the models used vary in approach. As an example, depending on who's predictions you accept, there's some difference of opinion about whether global warming could trigger a new ice age or not. Also, I recall that during the late 60's a professor at Stanford University predicted mass starvation within 30 years from the affects of overpopulation and related activities. The scale at which it was predicted to occur hasn't happened yet. 8) 8)

At any rate, the earth is a dynamic place where change will occur regardless of what we do about it and will survive global cooling/warming just as it has since it was formed long ago. Everything on it might be changed thru adaption or may not survive.... Whether that is a good thing or not I really don't know but it's the natural world at work.... 8) 8) 8)

[Nip Hadlock]

I saw it too.

I would sugesst that anyone who considers themselves a steward of our sport and/or the environment check it out. Or maybe see it because your a parent. Do research and challenge assumptions and sources.

The DVD available at Walmart bundled with a CF light bulb.

If you become convinced you are one large pizza away from hosting a viewing for people you know that are willing to take a look at the film.

In fact if enough Kienies can make the Pleasanton fly show I'll host a pizza deal and show the film.

We can't change some of the inevitable evolution the world goes through...but we can reduce our negative impact. Hey, I'm going to die anyhow but for me that doesn't mean I should smoke, drink too much, do without sunscreen and play russian roulette on the weekends. I can take action and make decisions to make the ride the best possible for me and my family.

[OregonSalmon]

The reviews of the movie say it is a must see. A bummer must see at the very least. I'll be taking the dirt nap (which will be the underneath the water nap) when the full effects hit. Gonna be the sheets for future generations.
Speaking of which: the Union of Concerned Scientists reported between 1998-2004 Exxon paid $16 million to causes which denied global warming. Robert F. Kennedy coined the term "biostitutes" for people that will take a buck to disseminate baseless studies on the environment. Hey, remember in the 60's, when cigarettes were not only harmless but good for you? Global warming....fo'-get about it!!!
Dept. of Even Worse: Melanie Morgan, a right wing pundit, pointed to the...get this...The Weather Channel, as being an example of liberal control of the media since they were reporting on global warming. Somehow she cracked the code and now knows of all our worldwide liberal weather making machines. Our liberal plot to raise sea level thus forcing the rich conservatives from thier beach front homes to higher ground where they can easily be slaughtered has been foiled by the genius of Melanie Morgan. No matter...I couldn't afford the electricity to run mine anyhow.
Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction, and sometimes fiction is treated as fact. Even so early in the year, I'm betting already on Melanie Morgan for the "Crazier Than An Outhouse Rat Award" of 2007. Apparently she finds truth inconvienent.

-----"Well boys, I'm just down here to test out a theory...that they are in the sand". --Galen Geller clamming on the beach in Seaside telling a joke even his mother will not laugh at.

[slipjoint]

i personally don't know who to believe anymore - you hear two completly different stories - just because it's Al Gore telling me the sky is falling i need more proof from experts - Mr. Gore is only stating what he has been told by others - not saying i don't believe it because it's Al Gore telling the story - t

[sacreno]

LOL....

I have heard both sides of the so called facts and for some reason I can't believe a man that told us "He invented the internet" as much as the scientists and professors I have seen explaining the cyclical pattern the world keeps going through. I do believe we contribute to it but history proves this is not the first time Global warming has happened and humans couldn't even start a fire let alone a car.

An interesting film to watch is Imax's Coral reef adventure http://www.coralfilm.com/. It shows what is happening to the major reef in the world and how a few degree difference will efect an entire reef system.

I am sure there is some things we can do to help but if a big rock hits the earth again or 10 of the largest volcano's go up all at once, we are screwed anyway. Good luck to humanity. LOL

Just my opinion.

[bigtj]

Here is the simple truth - the planet is getting warmer. Period. All of the "experts" agree on this point (except a few yahoos with political agendas). I believe it has a lot to do with man - the carbon loading to the atmosphere is on a scale so far beyond anything natural we have expontentially increased the ability for the atmostphere to hold heat in. So what? The natural systems will adjust. It's human beings that will have a harder time - increases in sea levels, changes in weather cycles, crop failures are all issues that we're going to have to deal with if the current trends continue. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the earth has been a lot warmer in the past, so I think the fish will be fine, they have been adjusting to climate change for millions of years. Some of the marginal habitat will go to warm water species but you're not going to see mass extinctions on short time scales. Our inability to be as flexible as natural ecosystems with the levees and low-lying buildings and dependence on industrial-scale agriculture that is highly sensitive to climate change means we are the ones in for a rude awakening.

[alaskanfish]

If Al Gore said it, then it's the truth... afterall, he invented the internet!!! :lol:

For those of you who think the entire globe is warming... maybe you should visit me??? We've been -30F for the last few days... November started out -20 for about 2 weeks. I understand that this is Alaska and those whose knowledge of Alaska come from the TV expect that we all live in igloos and drive dog sleds to work... well not entirely true.

This winter is much like the winters of 30 years ago... snow in Oct-Nov.. Cold in Dec-Jan Snow in Feb-Mar and then spring. Though we still don't have as much snow as then (it's coming I believe), some areas, like Anchorage are setting records with snowfall.

Now, all of that being said, certainly the global climate is changing. We have records of glaciers receding for the last 150 years, that is quite impressive. On the other hand, we also have some very active glaciers that will grow so fast that they will turn a coastal sound into a lake...

Bottom line, in our few hundred years of records, we may be showing certain climactic changes, but I believe that these are cyclic and could be influenced/accelerated by pollutants. Biblical records account for draughts, floods, famines, insect invasions, and so on...

[bigtj]

I just wanted to point out that our climate record is much, much longer than a few hundred years. We have a climate record that is up to several hundred thousand years long. Ice cores, spring deposits (calcite), isotopes, and dendrohydrology (overlapped tree ring records going back thousands of years) - they give us a good picture of many thousands of years of climate, in some cases hundreds of thousands of years. The research is all out there and it's saying the same thing...the planet is getting warmer now, it has been warmer in the past at times, and it's been colder in the past at times, too.

The biggest change over the past 50-100 years is the tremendous upset in the planet's carbon balance. Carbon dioxide acts as an insulator holding heat in the atmosphere. We can measure what the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is now (PCO2) and what it has been in the past. The fact that the PCO2 trends upwards with the increase in buring of fossil fuels is not a coincidence. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is through the roof, and that spells trouble. The other problem is we haven't had many volcanic eruptions lately, which tend to cool the atmostphere (one eruption about 600 years ago completely elimated summer for 3 years). Anyone who is interested can do a simple web search or check the abstracts at the local library, if you don't just want to take Al's word for it.

[jbird]

This looks a lot like polotics on a flyfishing board...Think I'll pass on any comments. :)

Jay

[Hairstacker]

Truly scary stuff. On a more hopeful note, I hereby predict there will be more venues for largemouth bass topwater fly fishing. Let it be known you heard it here first. :unibrow:

[Wednesday Caster]

Doesn't seem to be any solutions stated so I will raise mine...
We set off 3 volcanoes with nuke bombs. Let the ash cover
the planet and float around for 5 years. Sure will cool things
down a little. Question: which 3 volcanoes?

[alaskanfish]

Interesting you bring up volcanos.... here is a web link to the Alaska Volcano Observatory (http://www.avo.alaska.edu/activity/) You can see that there are a couple of volcanos in code orange status on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Likewise, do a search of past eruptions... It has been 1 year since Mt. St. Augustine erupted in Cook Inlet (South of Anchorage) and less for a couple of other volcanos on the Aleutian chain. Here is another link for volcanic activity around the globe USGS Current Volcanic Reports (http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/)

[Darian]

While I have no concerns with Al Gore's past statements about anything, he is a politician, first and foremost.... I regard politicians of any party with a great deal of skepticism. It's, also, true that scientists can be like anyone else; whoever pays their way can influence their findings.

As a possible source of counterpoints to, An Inconvenient Truth, try Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear. Altho I haven't seen the CD, yet, I believe that both are entertaining. I know the book is a good read as well as informative. 8) The book contains many footnotes/references to scientific materials, etc. Some are supportive and others are not. :? :? :?

[slipjoint]

Ed - little bit off topic - you don't know Larry Keen do you - he has lived in you fine city for many years - Larry & i went to school together for many years - t

[Digger]

The folks in Colorado right now would laugh about this.

For every point for, there's a counterpoint against that works.
As an engineer, I know that ANY set of data can be presented and skewed in which ever direction desired.

We've been keeping 'accurate records' for what percentage of the earth's existence? .00000000001 % ????

I live for winters, I ski, I board.
Last couple years have been record years for snowfall in the Sierra's.
It comes and goes.

Actually, wouldn't it be foolish to think things aren't changing constantly on a living planet? And who says warming is/isn't good/bad ?

Besides, that big ass asteroid is going to ruin our day before global warming will.

[Frank Alessio]

My bet is that Man will not do a lot about any of this and I will put My Money on Nature taking its course......Any Takers?????

[Frank Alessio]

Wow........ I can't believe He did that.........

[Darian]

Tristan,.... Don't jump to conclusions about what I said about Michael Crichton.

I've re-read my post and don't find anything in it that sets HIM out as an authority. I did say his book was a good read and informative and that it did include some footnotes and references to scientific materials.... 8) 8) Sorry if that offended you.

Of course the book is fiction; but like all fiction, there is some basis in fact (however small). The materials referenced in the footnotes were what was the basis for my comments. Take the info for what it's worth but please don't attribute more to my post than was intended/offered.... :? :?

[Darian]

Yeah,... You're right. The sources for those footnotes are probably not overly reliable. After all, you just can't trust info obtained from places like University of Cambridge, The National Acacdemy of Sciences, The American Meteorilogical Society, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Universty of California or University of Texas, International Journal of Climatology to name a few....

It's tough finding reputable sources nowadays.... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[alaskanfish]

how much we have changed this earth over the course of our evolution and society. Through my research I can say without a doubt that the carbon emissions/other greenhouse gasses that cause warming have increased unnaturally, which can only be attributable to a single factor: man.

Tristan, while I hated philosopy... this though came to mind while reading your post.

If evolution is true, then would emissions and other greenhouse gassed produced as a result of man's evolution really be unnatural? :?

Not opposing your points of view... this thought just came to mind... There is no doubt that our global climate is warming (however that could be debated presently in AK), and no doubt that we have an influence on the rate of this trend.

Slipjoint... I do not know Mr. Keen. I live in the Soldotna area (150 miles from Anchorage). I did know a couple of Keen's in Anchorage, but forget their first names... they worked for the FD, but are retired by now.

[jbird]

Isnt all of this earth dating speculative? I dont like to argue about science because I think its incredibly fascinating yet I dont know a whole bunch about it. I tend to be one of the small population of nut cases that bases my beliefs biblicly. Mainly because science is always changing and many scientists cant agree. I want to believe in something solid and unchanging.
My understanding of accurate historic dating by scientists includes carbon dating. The problem with this theary is that you need an "absolute positive" on the correct date of a particular artifact, Ice layer, geologic event, etc... in order to start comparing one thing to another. The problem is that there is NO "absolute, positive" for historical dating before the records of man. So the very foundation of the earths age is speculative. At the rate the human race reproduces (much faster than the rate of death) dont you think, if our planet is as old as many scientists suggest, we would be so overrun with people by now it would be incalculable?
The only reason I've gone on this tangent is, the graph above shows data dating back 100s of 1000s of years. Which makes the data 100% speculative.

I beleive our planet is in a warming trend, and we have definitly put a lot of toxins into the atmosphere that needs to be addressed. Whether or not the warming is a result of the toxins, I dont know. Or a result of our earth "living its life"?

Jay

[Rick J]

I also do not believe we can say the fish will be ok it is just us humans that will need to cope. The warmer conditiosn up in Alaska has allowed a hyge infestation of bark beetels as teh ycan now go throug hseveral breeding cycles - tehre is a tremendous die off of forests occuring and thsi sure can't be good for our watersheds

[alaskanfish]

Rick J,

While you are very correct on the die off of the spruce trees on the Kenai Peninsula (and other areas of AK), the answer is not quite so simple. I have heard that it takes temperatures of -40f to kill the beetle larvae and we haven't seen that for many years. But the other beetle nemesis is fire. We keep putting the fires out!!! Of course, this is related to the societal evolution, if I may use Tristan's term, in that we have moved into more and more remote wooded areas. Our government's charge is to protect the consitituents from many hazards, including wildfire...

Nevertheless, nature uses fire to recycle a mature forest to allow for new growth... with the lack of fire, this allows for the beetles to recycle the forest. A mature forest chokes out under brush which is an essential food source for ungulates (i.e. moose, caribou, deer, etc) which is essential food for predators (including man). So, recycling the forest is very healthy for the trees, for the animals and for the environment.

In Alaska, and I am sure other areas, the biologists and forest managers recognize the importance of recycling these mature forests that they utilize a process called "prescribed burns" to intentionally burn off the mature trees to allow for new growth. These prescribed burns also provide a buffer against the hazards of wildfires infringing on the properties of the citizens (sometimes this doesn't work, such as in S. California...)

So, to bring this back to fishing, the problem with a mature forest is that it chokes out the deciduous trees, which, for those in the riparian zones of the waterways, provide critical habitat for fry as well as provide food for the aquatic insects that are food for the resident fish... So, recycling the mature forest will in many ways enhance the fisheries.

The erosion problems come from clear cutting where the forest carpet is disturbed (which has great benefit on the not so steep terrain, by the way). The dying and thus falling trees, as they are digested by the fungi and insect world, return many nutrients back into the soils and while unsightly, are a great benefit to the ecology as a whole.

[Wednesday Caster]

Shouldn't the temp on our planet be about 800 degrees (F) given the CO2 levels. It has not reached the high temps of 125,00 years ago.

We're doomed. :shock: How can we recover when it takes 100K+ years for the earth to "naturally" go through a cycle without any manmade combustibles.

Better go with the SPF 2000 lotion (mud coating) on your next outing.
[-o< [-o< [-o<

[bigtj]

Jay -

The climate records and PCO2 plots would be speculative if only one method of calculating them said the trend was there. Multiple methods are independently all saying the same thing. As you know scientists are trained to be susupicious of their results they have to go through peer review and stringent oversight. They're almost all coming to the same conclusions after about 25 years of intensive research in a number of different fields. To me, the writing is on the wall, we're in for a change. It's only the long-term results of these changes that are open to interpretation and remain to be seen.

I don't know I guess I'll take global warming over nuclear holocaust any day. 50 megatons of thermonuclear air-detonated warheads in the pacific northwest would put a real damper on my steelhead fishing a lot faster than global warming.

Wednesday caster - I know you are being tongue and cheek with your answer, but keep in mind that even 1 degree change in the average global temperature is a big change. It doesn't take more than a few degrees for a big upset in the natural balance. Also, what we have no idea of is if the Earth really can recover from a man-made spike in the climate. Systems put into un-natural disequilibrium often have a heck of a time recovering. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that the perturbation we're causing to the earth's weather could have substantial negative long-term consequences that may be difficult or impossible to reverse.

[Darian]

It seems to me that there is one sure thing in all of this. The earth will survive and recover. It may look/feel and be something different than we know it to be and many or all species may adapt or not survive but this planet will be here;.... regardless of what resides on it's surface. 8) 8) 8)

[SuperFlyGuy]

Tristan hit the nail right on. Im glad you found that graph. Notice how there are two graphs illustrating that the CO2 levels are directly related, if not proportionate to the temperature of the Earth. The science is not speculative, and my studies have found the same; that 99.99% of scientists are in agreement that the earth is warming. And this, is directly related to the levels of Co2 levels in our atmosphere. Never in recordable history has there been this level of burning of fossil fuels.

Bottom line, This is a FF board and I know there are a lot of environmentalists out there that preach catch and release, preservation, and the minimizing of our impact on our fisheries. And as such, I think it is our moral responsibility to make sure we do our part to not contribute to this deterioration of our earth. If we truly beleive the above principals, I think that Global Warming should be our concern as well... teaching it to our kids and them to their kids.

The receding Glaciers is tremendous, and as we all know, snow run off and Glaciers are the source of our beloved sport. At least if you love fresh water trout and ocean run half pounders =) There is science that suggests that snow fall and glaciers are decreasing at an exponential rate due to the warming effect that this increased Co2 level is creating.

Fact: The science is there to support global warming
Fact: The science is there that suggests our emissions are the primary cause.
Fact: In all of measureable history, there has never been this high of a co2 level in our atmosphere. (even in last 80 years if you don't believe the core isotope measurements, it supports the same conclusion)


Now the question is, are we willing to take that chance to not believe we have a problem? Its not a political issue, because frankly environmentalist ideas are very costly for all sides. But consider the consequences if we are wrong? We have much more to lose then we would to air on the side of caution.

Write congress, your reps, your governer. Fly fishers have always been a sense of reason in this crazy world. I urge each of you to seek the science and support yourselves. Then make your decision based on your findings. Don't believe the companies which pay millions to cause doubt in the hard-core scientific facts.

Tell a friend!

[WinterrunRon]

I'm with you, Jay.

All this talk about global warming and politics makes me want to, well... fish for steelhead!

Let me know when the earth starts to cool down again, I'm heading to the river...

Ron

[Digger]

why not use all the money you make selling hydrocarbon fuel and create your own cold climate:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4491210.stm

[fallriverfish]

Wow, I am glad I ride my bike everywhere and don't drive a big stinking diesel rig with only me in it. :lol:

[Ed Wahl]

Hey, you live in Burney. Stop gloating. :D

[SullyTM]

:? and it took a documentary produced by Al Gore to wake up America to global warming?

I'm with Winterrun...I'm going fishin' :D

Later...

[Mike McKenzie]

or propaganda??? What ever it is, it ain't " the truth"....
Below is a copy of an article with a few comments by real scientists that dispute Gore's assumptions (which is what the movie is and no more)
Remember Al Gore is a politician at heart and politicians always have an agenda!!
A little skepticism is healthy, read with an open mind!!


A sample of experts' comments about the science of "An Inconvenient Truth"
By Tom Harris, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, New Zealand: ”I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands have fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific.”

Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden: “We find no alarming sea level rise going on, in the Maldives, Tovalu, Venice, the Persian Gulf and even satellite altimetry if applied properly.”

Dr. Paul Reiter, Professor - Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France, comments on Gore’s belief that Nairobi and Harare were founded just above the mosquito line to avoid malaria and how the mosquitoes are now moving to higher altitudes: “Gore is completely wrong here - malaria has been documented at an altitude 2500 m - Nairobi and Harare are at altitudes of about 1500 m. The new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago. None of the “30 so called new diseases” Gore references are attributable to global warming, none.”

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Manager, Wildlife Research Section, Department of
Environment, Igloolik, Nunavut, Canada: “Our information is that 7 of 13 populations of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (more than half the world’s estimated total) are either stable, or increasing …. Of the three that appear to be declining, only one has been shown to be affected by climate change. No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has.”

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: “Mr. Gore suggests that Greenland melt area increased considerably between 1992 and 2005. But 1992 was exceptionally cold in Greenland and the melt area of ice sheet was exceptionally low due to the cooling caused by volcanic dust emitted from Mt. Pinatubo. If, instead of 1992, Gore had chosen for comparison the year 1991, one in which the melt area was 1% higher than in 2005, he would have to conclude that the ice sheet melt area is shrinking and that perhaps a new ice age is just around the corner.”

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California: “The oceans are now heading into one of their periodic phases of cooling. … Modest changes in temperature are not about to wipe them [coral] out. Neither will increased carbon dioxide, which is a fundamental chemical building block that allows coral reefs to exist at all.”

Dr. R. M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia: “Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening. The temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than 1 degree C since 1950. And the area of sea-ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.”

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, formerly advisor to the World Meteorological Organization/climatology research scientist at University of Exeter, U.K.: “From data published by the Canadian Ice Service there has been no precipitous drop off in the amount or thickness of the ice cap since 1970 when reliable over-all coverage became available for the Canadian Arctic.”

RobScagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Colombia, Canada comments on Gore’s belief that the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) is an “invasive exotic species” that has become a plague due to fewer days of frost: “The MPB is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

A whole lot more info is out there all one has to do is look

[Katz]

If any of you would like some interesting reading, which is also mostly entertainment take a look at:

"State of Fear"

by

Michael Crichton

Very interesting reading with a lot of research to back it up.

I was trying to stay out of this one, but one thing I realize the more I "try" and follow this is that there are not as many "facts" as we think/realize.

Enjoy if you choose to read it.

Kraig

[Frank Alessio]

Ok...... When I write to my Congressman and Govenor, what exactly do I ask them to do????? Concrete suggestions only......

[Darian]

Hi Frank,.... Nobody's suggesting that warming is not occurring but the extent of human activities involved in the cause is open to debate. 8) The predicted affects of warming either haven't materialized or haven't been as extreme as was anticipated (e.g. sea level rising). :?

One thing that is certain is that pollution from burning of fossil fuels fouls the air and contributes to things like acid rain.... All of that is provable, now. So, that is something you can write your congressman about and it may have the crossover affect of addressing warming, indirectly (if and when scientists reach concurrence on this issue). 8) 8)

I'll add my letter and maybe we can get some attention.... :) :)

[Dustin Revel]

I was trying to stay out of this one, but one thing I realize the more I "try" and follow this is that there are not as many "facts" as we think/realize.

Enjoy if you choose to read it.

Kraig

but there are definately trends. trends are a good enough basis to take precautions don't you think?

here is a little analogy i used in a class debate that i thought was funny, but still has some relevant implications. if you're standing on train tracks, and you can sense signs a train is coming it is better to move away from the danger than to wait and find out if it really is a train.
My point is if you ( no one in particular here ) are skeptical of Global warning it is better to take precautions than to take your (our) chances.
Dusty

[Darian]

Dustin,..... Not trying to start something here but I'm not sure your debate point translates to this subject well. If I'm a skeptic, I probably haven't accepted a particular idea/event (global warming) as fact. :? :? If that's the case, why would any skeptic take a precaution against something that isn't yet a fact :?: :?:

I guess if I were skeptical about a fact in doubt, I might want to try to confirm it thru some means.... Is that what you were getting at :?: :?: :?:

[Dustin Revel]

Darian
if you say something isn't yet a fact that implies it could at some point become fact, but i see what you are saying.
and yes that is essentially what i am getting at.

[Wednesday Caster]

We had snow in Chino (no not Chico, Chino- So. Cal.)! Those folks are praying for a warming trend :lol: !

[Nip Hadlock]

This sure has become a tired thread...

I personally buy in to the notion that global warming is bringing about climate change. Some dry places will get wet, wet places dry...cold places warmer, warm places.... :shock:

I say this with a touch of scepticism though...but I know that air pollution is bad. Letting oil run our foreign and domestic policy making is worse. :x

So I can shoot my mouth off...maybe write a letter or two...but the most valuable things I can do are vote and act. :nod:

Off to the store I go today to buy CF light bulbs. :idea:
Lord help me my 8 cylinder is gone and replaced with a rig that gets twice the mpg. O:)

I'll vote for folks who will lead us to independent, clean energy.
Hell, I'll even get off the couch and campaign for them. :nod:

So even if global warming is hyperbole ](*,) I believe this:

Air pollution is bad. :\
Letting oil run our foreign and domestic policy making is worse. :x

[alaskanfish]

Nip, I am with you. Great post...

[bigtj]

Natural Resources Stewardship Project? :lol: Those guys are the right-wing equivalent of radical environmental groups. No thanks on paying any attention to what those guys have to say.

Nip you have a great point. Regardless of the possiblity of global warming, air pollution and energy policy changes are needed. We don't need scientists to figure that out.

[Mike McKenzie]

You can't trust those terrible right wing scientist, especially when they call some left wing idiotic ex-VP on his bluff..
:twisted: :twisted: BTW about this statement quoted below....

"The biggest change over the past 50-100 years is the tremendous upset in the planet's carbon balance. Carbon dioxide acts as an insulator holding heat in the atmosphere"

A 100 parts per million by volume increase is a tremndous upset?? Come on now.. Not nearly enough to disrupt the heat transfer mechanics of earths atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is not an insulator as it does not stop heat transfer by convection, period! At 70%+ of the atmosphere, water vapor has by far the largest effect! Shall we get rid of it?? :shock: :shock:

I have no argument with the fact that there may be some "gobal warming" occuring but it sure ain't caused by the piddling little amount of Co2 added to the atmosphere by the industrial revolution.

The biggest problem with the whole issue is faulty computer modeling..You know computers..Garbage in garbage out... I can't figure out why some folks think that scientists can model weather conditions 50 years from now yet can't get it right a week from now!! :lol: :lol:
Mike

[Frank Alessio]

Darian.... As usual you make more sense than most... I heard that the raising of beef cattle contributed more to ozone layer loss than burning fossil fuels....Go figure..... Frank

[bigtj]

Mike,

An agenda cloaked by science isn't science. It's an agenda. Period.

All computer models are wrong, some are useful. I used models every day in my job. In fact I have been running one all weekend, that's why I'm wasing time on this site. I don't let them do the thinking for me. I use them as tools to test my own conceptual models of environmental systems. Without computer models we wouldn't have much of what we take for granted today - faster computers, 3-dimensional imaging of internal organs and tumors, modern aircraft design, dynamic systems allocation (i.e. airline scheduleing), more reliable automobiles. Damning computer models doesn't change anything, it just shows that you don't really understand their value and how they work. Good scientists use models to test their ideas, not to do the thinking for them.

It's the relative change in C02, not the absolute change, that matters. The atmosphere is big. Double the concentration and you double the amount of carbon tied up as carbon dioxide. Take some time to read journal articles for yourself, don't let some spin machine interpret it for you, and you'll come a long way to understanding the issue from whatever side you are coming from.

This has gotten pretty far off topic. I need to tie some flies or something and leave this thread alone.

[Mike McKenzie]

standby what I said. I have yet to see any peer reviewed science that says Co2 is an insulator.

Here's a basic primer on "greenhouse gasses, you might want to check it out..


http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

I think there is little hope for the getting much done with the condition of our planet when we still have so many countries who are at war with each other.

Until that changes there will be no way we can get together Internationally to get something done here in time.

[bigtj]

Mike,

Yes you are right on the semantics, CO2 more or less acts to reduce heat loss:

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

However, the point is so fine it is lost on most everyone, the bottom line is that CO2 and many other gasses trap energy in the earth's atmosphere that would otherwise be lost if the concentrations of these gasses were lower.

The plots that always give me pause are ones like these (the source of this graph is the DOE/Oak Ridge labs):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

The industrial revolution has brought about major changes in the carbon accounting in the atmosphere, that is for sure.

For further reading on CO2 dynamics and other greenhouse gases and aerosols, from some well known and reliable sources that have nothing to do with our buddy Al:

The US EPA's website on climate change:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

The international panel on climate change (these guys are affiliated with the United Nations):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

The references section on this link is a great start on a list of literature on the subject. Check it out there are several pages of authors & their publications. It's all about seeing what's out there and making informed decisions for yourself. Only time will tell what is in store for us in the future.

Now if only it wasn't 10 degrees outside, and ice wasn't floating on the river, I could go fishing tomorrow and forget all about this global warming stuff.