Global Warming

[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....

[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. 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.

[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