Home Register Today's Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Smoky Mountain Fishing

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-10-2008, 01:04 PM
mtnman2888's Avatar
mtnman2888 mtnman2888 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 705
Default Interesting article on global warming/anglers

Saw this article and found it interesting. Don't know if anyone else has run across this but hopefully you will find it a good read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24048029/

Craig
__________________
Craig Lancaster
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-10-2008, 01:59 PM
PeteCz's Avatar
PeteCz PeteCz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Maryville, TN
Posts: 800
Default Interesting Article...but....

The final quote I find interesting:
"We know now that climate change has the very real potential to affect fish and wildlife resources and activities that hunters and angers hold dear ... and on a landscape level scale that is incomparable in modern times," warned Matt Hogan, executive director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

On a broad scale that may be true, but the tree blights and logging operations of 100 years ago were much more dramatic and impactful on our trout populations in the Smokies than our current change in climate patterns.

I am a firm believer in cleaning up our act with respect to the environment and particularly trying to limit the amount of new damage we do. Likewise it would be nice to try to fix many of the errors of the past. But (despite what Al Gore says) there is not complete agreement among the science community that,
1) This may not be part of a much larger weather pattern and that we don't have enough data to fully understand the pattern (in fact, during the 70s there was quite a bit of talk about us heading into a new ice age), and
2) even if we are headed into a true warming period we may have little (or no) ability to change the direction we are headed in (many of the greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere have been there since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution...)

My opinion is that the destruction of habitats is much more important than global warming to our hunting and fishing resources...

Let me hop back off my soapbox...

man, I need to go fishing. Its almost been 3 weeks (excepts for two miserable hours in the pouring rain last Saturday...).
__________________

"Even a fish wouldn't get into trouble if he kept his mouth shut."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-10-2008, 02:20 PM
Brian Griffing's Avatar
Brian Griffing Brian Griffing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coastal Norf Cack-a-lacky
Posts: 152
Default

Mntman,
Interesting. Now I am going to ruffle a few feathers with this I'm sure, but here goes. I am still not so sure about global warming, and even less sure than I was just a few months ago. When I started looking into it more seriously I found some pieces if information that rarely make the front page. Now I am certainly no scientist, but here is what I have gathered from some slightly less eye-popping headlines.
-According to the United Nation's chief meteorologist Michelle Jarraud, global temperatures have not risen for a decade and Jarraud says the data cast further doubt on some global warming theories.
-The weather phenomenon known as La Nina will continue into this summer, causing temperatures across the globe to drop by a fraction of a degree. La Nina has contributed significantly to this year's torrential rains in Australia and some of the coldest temperatures on record across China.
-California meteorologist Anthony Watts says that the Earth has cooled over the last year and that the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree. That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down. Some scientists contend the cooling is the result of reduced solar activity, which they say is a larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases.

I am not sure how accurate these scientists' data are, or how well-founded their theories are that are based on that data. But neither am I convinced by the other guys findings, as I have to way no personally verify either. I think the most accurate answer for now is that there are processes taking place on this planet that we don't as of yet understand. This is not to say that I am against protecting the environment. As anglers, I think everyone on this board has an interest in protecting at least some portion of the environment, and that is a good thing. But many of the solutions that have been proposed so far are either impracticable, impossible, ineffective, or down-right snake-oil. Take ethanol as an example. It takes one gallon of gasoline to produce 1.2 gallons of ethanol. And even if every kernel of corn grown in the U.S. was used in the production of ethanol (bringing about inflation, outrageous food prices, and the destuction of native grasses and un-developed lands) it would only meet 10% of the country's fuel needs.
I am not convinced that the sky is falling. When East Africa was stricken with a horrible drought we thought, "Hmmm. East Africa has it pretty bad. Poor guys." When we experience a comparatively minor drought, we think "My God! Global Warming has doomed us all!"
Sorry for the long-winded posting, but this has been a long-standing argument between me and my brother and sister. They think I'm an idiot. I now invite those of you that share their opinion to weigh in.
__________________
Life is hard. But it's a lot harder if you're stupid.

Last edited by Brian Griffing; 04-10-2008 at 05:03 PM.. Reason: short stubby fingers are bad for typing
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-10-2008, 02:24 PM
Brian Griffing's Avatar
Brian Griffing Brian Griffing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Coastal Norf Cack-a-lacky
Posts: 152
Default

PeteCZ,
You are the man! I read your post after I posted mine. I am very happy to see someone who agrees with me. It's usually very lonely being right all the time.
__________________
Life is hard. But it's a lot harder if you're stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-10-2008, 03:53 PM
18inchbrown 18inchbrown is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 39
Default

Brother,

I think you opened up a can of worms with this post. The #### will start flying over this. Some interesting facts. My wife just paid our gas bill for March 08. The average temperature for March 08 in SW Ohio was 7 degrees colder this year then 07. Another interesting fact, the natural gas usage in the US for a particular week in January of 08 was the most ever for that time of year compared to previous years.

The common belief is that CO2 is the cause of global warming and we must stop CO2 emissions to save the Planet! The reality is the CO2 levels of today are not that far out of line with the CO2 levels at the beginning of the 20th century. Pray tell how can you put forth a lie like that . Well before 1957 there were reams of data on CO2 levels in the atmosphere that were obtained based on a wet chemical method. After 1957 the accepted method for CO2 analysis was an IR method, so all the global warming priests simply declared that all CO2 atmospheric data before 1957 were invalid. So how do we know the CO2 levels in the atmosphere before 1957. Well we use ice core sampling. Ice core sampling for CO2 levels is plagued with errors and false assumptions. This whole CO2 causes global warming is the biggest false truth that has been put forth by so-called science since bloodletting was in vogue. It is no more accurate to say that CO2 cause global warming than it is to say that umbrellas cause rain because we sure see a lot of them when it rains.

Our country has gone mad over CO2 emissions. We have more coal in the ground in the US than any other country. We could be turning this coal into gasoline and into chemicals. We could be self sufficient in terms of chemical feed stocks and gasoline. We would re-industrialize our nation but we have all these carbon neutral prophets running around talking carbon sequestration and wind power. The sad fact is we have 3 carbon neutral prophets running for president. I don't mean to go on but there is a lot of information out there about the truth concerning global warming and the scientific fact is that CO2 is not going to end life on this planet as we know it.

Enjoy the mountains, catch some fish and don't worry, the Smokies will be there 50 years from now, just as we know them today.

John B

Last edited by 18inchbrown; 04-11-2008 at 08:30 AM.. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-10-2008, 04:36 PM
Jswitow Jswitow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 633
Default Keep it up guys!

GW is a hoax and money grab. We are so much more responsible than we were 20, 30 or 40 years ago it isn't even up for a vote! The sky is not falling!
Glad to hear others with this opinion. So who is going to talk to Dingell, probably C Gauvin among others?
Best,
John
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-10-2008, 05:29 PM
JimmyC's Avatar
JimmyC JimmyC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sevier Co., TN
Posts: 139
Send a message via AIM to JimmyC
Default

My eyes were pried open while I was an undergrad in ecology and evolutionary biology. And brother, Jswitow is right. Money grab. It's scary how many divergent opinions are hushed and lecturers booed when presenting their work, work, that is, that does not agree with tenured professors. Or, more importantly, seek to reach coveted government grants from the National Science Foundation, US Geological Survey, Department of Energy, or Department of Defense, of which many range from a few hundred thousand upwards to a few million.

I'm not an apologist for agressive environmental destruction, quite the opposite. But when facing important issues, our trusted universities (which tout themselves as being institutions for the free-flow exchange of ideas and sciences), they fall flat on their hind quarters and support one theory over many that exist. It's kind of like when Einstein was laughed at when no other scientist believed in the existence or efficacy of his theory of relativity.

Just my two cents, I could go on, by why raise the blood pressure? heh.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-10-2008, 06:07 PM
ttas67's Avatar
ttas67 ttas67 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 764
Default

whew, I thought I was one of the only people left that didn't believe it. The founder of the weather channel has come out and said global warming is "The greatest scam in history". Even NASA has come out with a press release stating that changes in the arctic climate have nothing to do with global warming.
__________________
Trevor
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-10-2008, 07:31 PM
mtnman2888's Avatar
mtnman2888 mtnman2888 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hendersonville, NC
Posts: 705
Default

Haha seems that everyone is in agreeance here in that gw is a bunch of hogwash. Could the earth have been on a warming trend? Sure, but it is a fact that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. Now i'm sure that these harmful emmisions are not good for the environment, but i hardly believe that they are causing polar icecaps to melt.

Like others, i believe that the destruction of habitat is more to blame and a more important issue. However, money talks and right now gw is where it's at.

Craig
__________________
Craig Lancaster
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-10-2008, 07:49 PM
BlueRaiderFan's Avatar
BlueRaiderFan BlueRaiderFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,512
Default

Loss of habitat due to deforrestation is a much bigger problem than "climate change" ("climate change" covers both cooling and heating). We do need to cut carbon emissions, if for nothing else than to decrease our dependency on OPEC and for the health of our lungs, but I agree, the sky is not falling. I tell you what is scary: Using our food to put fuel in our cars. It takes about 90 years for nitrogen to process through the planets natural processes and back into the soil. Nitrogen replacing pods and legumes will not replace it quickly enough at the rate we are burning it. Hybrid and electric cars are the way to go. Burning corn only increases the cost of food around the planet and will cause us to eventually run out of nitrogen. We can use nitrogen taken from the atmosphere, but this will on serve to screw up the oceans ecosystem by adding too many nutrients too quickly. We have the ability to power our country with solar farms, wind farms, tidal harnesses and nuclear. There is no reason to be in the back pockey of OPEC and the Saudi's...JMO.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 PM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.