Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sandman]

Oh...I should mention that I am set to make billions of dollars by buying up all the cheap land in Richmond once I have scared you all into moving upcountry to avoid the rising sea level, only to sell it back at premium prices when Global Warming is proved to be scam by my fellow conspiracy theorist nut jobs.

[Ian Forbes]

I'm surprised at how some here jumped all over TNANGLER. What I got from his message was... 1. THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE TODAY. 2. It has been going on for as far back as we have recorded history. 3. One large volcano anywhere in the world will produce far more particulates in our atmosphere than man does.

What I DIDN'T hear him say is that man has had no affect on the planet... which seems to be the rant from a few of you.

Of course man has had an affect on the planet in a negative way. However, we have done a few things to curb the downward cycle. I doubt any of you would accept the obvious, quick solution...  kill off as many humans as possible and stop all future child birth until we fix the over population problem. When do we invade India? 

.....................................................................

The ORIGINAL topic was what changes in the environment, in regards to fishing, have you noticed recently? Let's stick to that.

I have a book written but not published yet. It has to do with over 50 years of my fishing diaries on Vancouver Island, and my observations of changes. I've held off publishing the book because I'm still seeing remarkable changes that could change my original ideas.

[RalphH]

Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013?  Instead it grew 29% in a year.

from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/:

The linear trend in ice extent for December (1978 through 2013) is now −3.5% per decade, or −46,500 square kilometers per year (−18,000 square miles per year). The lowest December extent was recorded in 2010 (12.02 million square kilometers or 4.64 million square miles). The spatial pattern of ice extent in December 2013 was similar overall to what was seen in 2010, except that 2010 had much less ice cover in Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay....

While the most notable aspect of 2013 was the much higher September ice extent relative to the record low for 2012, extent in 2013 was nevertheless low overall. The maximum extent for 2013 of 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles), recorded on 15 March was the sixth lowest over the period of satellite observations. The minimum of 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles), recorded on 15 September, was also the sixth lowest.
 

from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/arctic-ice.htm :

On Aug. 19, 2007, a joint survey by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency revealed that Arctic ice was melting at a far quicker rate than anticipated. What's particularly alarming about this discovery is that the United Nations' scientific models anticipated that the ice levels measured by the Japanese team would not be reached until after 2040 -- and possibly not until 2050.

so the original prediction for ice thickness levels of 2040 to 2050 were reached in 2012 though ice increased in 2013.

 

They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there. 

I think this a confusion of Vinland, (Wine Land) the ancient Norse name for North America (excluding Greenland). Wild grapes are common in many parts of North America. They are present in Newfoundland the one place in North America where the Vikings are known to have had a settlement - this is a National Historic Site at L'Anse aux Meadows. As far as I know there is no evidence the Vikings at that site grew domestic grapes there. Transporting them over the North Atlantic from Denmark via Iceland would have been a challenge. One thousand years ago Newfoundland was significantly warmer and wild grapes may have been more common so the conventional wisdom was that was the origin of the name. There is another theory that Vinland is actually a corruption of another near identical Norse word for meadow and did not refer to grapes at all but would translate as Land of Meadows.

Easy google searches can find all this information

One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year.

This seems to be a frequently made but specious claim. One estimate places man made CO2, the gas most frequently linked to anthropomorphic GW as on average 150 times that emitted by volcanic activity. (http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html) Still major eruptions have significant short term effects on climate and shouldn't be dismissed lightly.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

[islanddude]

You all worry about global warming. There is some thing worse than that coming to a shore near your. Our so called friends in Japan are sending us an never ending supply of radiation. This is going to be in your food, water, soil, etc. This is going to affect your families health. There is going to be a rise in all number of different cancers.
   They say Fukushima was an world changing event. Some say a extinction event. What every one should become aware of is what low level radiation can do to you.
   There is a number of good web sites with lots of information on what is really happening. Don't look to main stream media or the goverment for they have there own agenda of false science.
    Rense and Coast to Coast are  a couple of the best.
   Anyone heard about the carbon credit market. Who do you think benifits from gobal warming. Could be that one of the former vice presidents of the U.S.A has become a very rich man due to formation of the carbon credit market. Wouldn't happen to be the guy that brought global warming to the forefront.

[Suther]

The global warming premise is likely politically driven...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

I love it!

An article written by a known skeptic, who has no formal training in climate - this guy has been a  palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist... And currently holds NO academic post.

How about we go ask a climatologist - or anyone else with relevant training and isn't just being paid by some conservative lobbist group. OH WAIT! He was being paid by the Heartland Group, a Conservative/Libertarian think tank from the USA. OF COURSE hes going to tell us nothing is happening...

Oh, even better... In the 90s the Heartland Group teamed up with Phillip Morris (the cigarette company) the question the validity of the dangers of second hand smoke, and even lobbied the US government to try and stop health reforms.

[blaydRnr]

What I DIDN'T hear him say is that man has had no affect on the planet... which seems to be the rant from a few of you.
 

.... Climate change, sure.  Man made, laughable....There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming.  If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job.  You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?

I didn't hear him say anything either, but what i read seems direct to the point...how did you interpret this?
.....................................................................

The ORIGINAL topic was what changes in the environment, in regards to fishing, have you noticed recently? Let's stick to that.

ok, last Saturday they called for rain and/ or light snow in Chilliwack with a mean temperature of -2 ...I dressed accordingly only to cook under a slight over cast with periodical sunshine and temperatures hovering around 4....

lately, I've noticed the weather man sucking at predicting the weather. 
 

[Suther]

lately, I've noticed the weather man sucking at predicting the weather.

They kind of always do... Because of how complex the atmospheric system is, and the fact that we really dont know exactly how it all works, weather predictions work on 3 scales.

The 24-hour scale is usually pretty damn accurate.
The 72-hour scale is decent, but gets less useful by the end.
The week+ scale is garbage. The system is more complex than we understand it, so we lack the ability to accurately forecast what will change in this long of a time period.

[Suther]

One thing I wouldn't consider "normal"...

I observed button up fry (one step up from alevin - already emerging from gravel) North island (either sockeye or coho, didn't take a close enough look) a week ago.

The time salmon eggs take to hatch depends on the water temperature - lower water temps means it takes longer to hatch... So if you are seeing the fry earlier than usual, I would be willing to guess water temperatures are higher than normal.

If I am not mistaken, its a pretty linear relationship too - it takes a certain number of degree-days for the eggs to hatch. Lets say its 90 degree-days(just a random number for example.) Thats only 10 days of 9 degree water, but 20 days of 4.5 degree water.

I can't remember if alevin use up their yolks sacks faster in warmer water though..

[DionJL]

You all worry about global warming. There is some thing worse than that coming to a shore near your. Our so called friends in Japan are sending us an never ending supply of radiation. This is going to be in your food, water, soil, etc. This is going to affect your families health. There is going to be a rise in all number of different cancers.
   They say Fukushima was an world changing event. Some say a extinction event. What every one should become aware of is what low level radiation can do to you.
   There is a number of good web sites with lots of information on what is really happening. Don't look to main stream media or the goverment for they have there own agenda of false science.
    Rense and Coast to Coast are  a couple of the best.
   Anyone heard about the carbon credit market. Who do you think benifits from gobal warming. Could be that one of the former vice presidents of the U.S.A has become a very rich man due to formation of the carbon credit market. Wouldn't happen to be the guy that brought global warming to the forefront.

I'd suggest you frequent the forum I suggested for TNAngler as well.

Here is something else everyone should be scared of: Dihydrogen Monoxide. Scary stuff.

[Suther]

I'd suggest you frequent the forum I suggested for TNAngler as well.

Here is something else everyone should be scared of: Dihydrogen Monoxide. Scary stuff.

This is a joke right?? That website looks fraudulent as all hell. And wtf is the US Environmental Assessment Center? Click on the logo and it doesn't go anywhere...

And here is my favorite part!

"A recent stunning revelation is that in every single instance of violence in our country's schools, including infamous shootings in high schools in Denver and Arkansas, Dihydrogen Monoxide was involved. In fact, DHMO is often very available to students of all ages within the assumed safe confines of school buildings. None of the school administrators with which we spoke could say for certain how much of the substance is in use within their very hallways."

[RalphH]

Di = 2

hydrogen = the most common element in the universe

Mono = 1

oxygen = the gas

put ' em all together and what have got?

H20 - commonly known as water

[TNAngler]

This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.

You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.

Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change.  Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change.  Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced.  This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.

The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.

What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"?  No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda.  Where would the money come from?  If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research.  That should be self-evident to even a half-wit.  Look at which scientists lost their job recently.  Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding.  Experimental Lakes Are: shut down.  Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.

Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better.  Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid.  Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.

I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.

Alright, well, since you drink the koolaid this might be a little harder to explain.

"Hockey stick"?  Seriously?  That is the first thing you are going to pull out?  That thing was found to be a piece of crap years ago because the data was cherry picked.  Even people claiming bad things are happening and it is all man's fault don't use that anymore, well, maybe Al Gore still does but that guy is just a joke.  So yes, the "scientific community" is in complete agreement that the hockey stick you speak about is complete BS.

As I said previously, the Earth has been through many changes in temperature.  Google ice age, mini-ice age (which we are now coming out of), Medieval warm period.  These all happened way before the Industrial Revolution except the mini-ice age which was already going on during then.  What caused all of those?  The weather changes, it goes in cycles.

The North pole might not be growing, the South pole hit a new record.  Oh, wait, oh no, does that mean the world is going to get bottom heavy or something?

All of these scientists that are telling you things are warming/changing and it is man's fault, who pays them?  They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart.  So who is paying them?  A vast majority of them are funded by the government.  Which option does gov't prefer?  That climate change is caused mainly by humans or that it just happens?  Well, I guess it depends who is in gov't.  One option (it is man made) gives them a right, no, a responsibility to pass laws and restrict people's rights for the good of the planet.  The other doesn't.  I'm sure since you are so good with google you can search and find plenty of scientists who have come out saying that man made global warming/climate change is complete crap.  You will also find that most of them have lost their funding.  So, if you tote the gov't desired line, you get paid, you don't, you lose your job.  Is it any wonder that a majority of them "agree".

And oil companies do have a lot of money but they can't compare with the power created by all of the governments that met in Denmark a couple years back.  The oil company money is a drop in the bucket compared to that.

As far as models go, I work with models every day.  I project stuff out with them some 40 or 50 years.  Models are very finicky, especially out 50 years.  Heck, anything more than the first ten shouldn't get a lot of consideration.  And the number of inputs that I have is way fewer than those that go into a climate model.  And there are interactions between inputs that we don't fully understand.  Like many things, models like this are garbage in, garbage out.  I can be off on one of my assumptions less than 1% but if it is an important assumption my results 50 years out could be off by 50%.  Listen to what the people shouting the loudest about this say.  The models have shown them that this is going to happen with a 95% certainty.  As stated elsewhere, weathermen can't even predict the weather for the next 3 days with 95% certainty.  Go back and look at the claims made in the 70s, 80s, 90s of what was going to happen and when.  How many of those came true?  Trust me, it is very easy to fit a model to reproduce historical results accurately which gives you confidence that it will predict things going forward but there is all kinds of bias built into models like that because it was built to fit a certain set of data points.

I am not saying man has no effect.  We can very easily destroy all kinds of things through pollution.  8 legged frogs and turtles with 2 heads and all of that can easily be caused by man.  There are many things that affect temperature and ice accumulation at the poles and all of that.  Our contribution to that is very very small.  To think otherwise is to give ourselves way too much importance.

What is the newest pollution they are complaining about?  Carbon Dioxide.  The stuff you breath out.  The stuff plants use to make oxygen.  We have to stop making that though.  The world is going to burn up because there is too much carbon dioxide.  So, if you believe that, do me a favor.  Take your hands, put them around your throat.  Now squeeze really hard.  You have to keep that carbon dioxide from leaking out so make sure the grip is really tight.  When you wake back up, repeat.

[Every Day]

The time salmon eggs take to hatch depends on the water temperature - lower water temps means it takes longer to hatch... So if you are seeing the fry earlier than usual, I would be willing to guess water temperatures are higher than normal.

If I am not mistaken, its a pretty linear relationship too - it takes a certain number of degree-days for the eggs to hatch. Lets say its 90 degree-days(just a random number for example.) Thats only 10 days of 9 degree water, but 20 days of 4.5 degree water.

I can't remember if alevin use up their yolks sacks faster in warmer water though..

I'm very well aware of Accumulated Thermal Units. It is indeed the case that the water temperatures are higher than normal, but what consequences will this have when we are now (at this present time) going into a cold snap, and the water temp will decrease drastically (especially being low). Hopefully this doesn't have a huge negative impact on future salmon stocks with mass die off of already button up fry searching for food when NORMALLY they would still be in eggs.

And yes, it is linear. It is based on egg size. This is why steelhead can lay their eggs now and have them hatch quickly vs a chinook that lays its eggs in September which have their eggs hatch around the same time the steelhead eggs do.

My main concern is we are already seeing species like coho and sockeye up island buttoning up, when it's very possible for the weather to quickly become cold. I'd love to find out what a large change in water temp would do to these young fish (or small stagnant pools where coho like to sit at this stage will probably die due to freezing solid at a cold enough temp). What about food supply (insects can go from being active during warm to completely dormant quickly)? According to one of my friends north island there were pinks heading for the ocean over Christmas in the Port McNeill area. What consequences will that have for those fish that are hitting an ocean with no algae blooms, pretty much devoid of what they would normally eat? Lots of what if's, it will be interesting to see what happens down the road in a few cycles...

And sorry for the whole climate change debate. I wasn't trying to get onto that. I am more so trying to figure out what other people have seen this year that is abnormal. The robin thing that someone posted earlier is helpful. It's not just fish apparently that are messed up. It will be interesting to see future trends and see if indeed winter run steelhead will change run timing along with other anadromous fish (I know coho on the island peaked mid November this year, a month late - most likely due to low water though).

[banx]

On some northern flows I have seen an increase in parasites on salmon I've caught and a decrease in size.

particularly what people call 'zits' on coho. growing exponentially in the last 3 to 4 years..................  and the springs I caught got smaller and smaller.
pinks run every year as well. and there was an increase in my eyes with sea lice.... that started about 10 years ago.


TNA, hate to burst your bubble man, but corporations trump government. If that wasn't the case, all resources would be nationalized, education would be free and a country would own it's own currency.   Yes politicians are morally obligated to act in the people's best interest. However, they are not the ones in power. The changes necessary will not take place when the ones with power will lose money.

[RalphH]

The North pole might not be growing, the South pole hit a new record.  Oh, wait, oh no, does that mean the world is going to get bottom heavy or something?

All of these scientists that are telling you things are warming/changing and it is man's fault, who pays them?  They aren't doing it out of the goodness of their heart.  So who is paying them?  A vast majority of them are funded by the government.

the Arctic Ice Cap and the Antarctic cap are different in that one is sea ice the other is continental ice. Also in what hemisphere are the  highest amount of GW gases emitted?


for those who wish to know more your can look at:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-growing.html

You're 2nd sentence comes close to paranoia. Do you really think Government's want to create a myth of global warming? What do you suppose they want to accomplish? That scientists are so easy to manipulate with money explains why the Harper government is so keen to control what they say in public.  You do realize most of these scientists are tenured university professors and so fairly removed from political influence. Governments also do not directly dole out money to scientists there are usually various funds boards and so on that control such funds not all of which, perhaps not even more than 50% that come from government.

You should also provide full disclosure on your involvement in modeling just to be sure you are not misrepresenting something you do at home  with your stock portfolio as a professional expertise,