warm winter and early spring thoughts

[rmarentette]

Being from southwestern Ontario and having just experienced a shorter and warmer winter than usual, I wonder what effect this could have on fish populations. The Detroit River is in my backyard. Each spring there are so many boats with anglers taking advantage of the tremendous resource virtually at our front door step, it looks like a floating city. Having lived in this area for over 60 years and with memories of seeing Lake St. Clair freezing over and also occasionally the Detroit River, I find it more than a little unsettling to see the way our winters have changed in the last twenty years. One thought runs through my mind! Is this year a one time event or will we see this on a regular basis and what could be the long term impact on the fish species? I just read an article from Gord Pyzer that I think raises some credible concerns. I'll include the link. Any thoughts?

 

http://www.worldfishingnetwork.com/users/gord-pyzer/blog/walleye-wanderings-227161.aspx

[Dave Bailey]

I accept the scientific evidence for global warming, and that it's probably man-made. But it's hard to say if this year is a result of it. As far as I know it's also an El Niño year, which is a semi-regular occurrence.

[Grimace]

This year is actually a La Nina (El Nino's counterpart) year. La Nina is an upwelling of cold water to the surface in the Eastern and Central Pacific Ocean. It usually makes for a very cold winter in Alaska and the Praries but for warmer than usual weather in our neck of the woods.

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=98231106-1

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=en&n=98231106-1#atmospheric

[OhioFisherman]

It was the warmest winter I can recall here, I will try to wait until we stick another few billion people on the planet to decide if people are the cause! LOL.

 

On a similar note, they are er... harvesting the woods behind me to one side. Some can`t see the beauty of the trees and forests? all they see is cash?

[Rod Caster]

Did you know that El Nino means "The Nino" in English? Just figured I'd clarify that for everyone. (Courtesy of an old SNL skit).

[Bob]

I wouldn't be trying to convince folks in northern Europe and Asia that global warming was even happening. This past winter over there was record cold and killing hundreds of people with hypothermia.

In around 1910, it was global cooling that was going to kill us. !930s, global warming, the Arctic was melting, seals disappearing and the Innuit and polar bears were going to starve. 1970, we were going to be under a mile of ice by 2000. I remember that flap. Now we're back to global warming and the only thing that'll save us is to tax CO2 output. Anyone see a pattern here? I don't believe for a minute that we have the capacity to control or even affect climate, especially not with a trace gas that's less than four one hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere and absolutely essential to all life on this little ball of mud. What arrogance! It was a nice winter and I enjoyed it. Now that temps are back to normal here and it's been windy lately, it's cramping my fishing. Bring back the warm.

[Joeytier]

The hype machine has forever blown scientific findings out of proportion, in order to make it marketable, and global warming is probably the best example I can think of. Whether or not I believe we are affecting our climate [read: I do] is irrelevant to the fact that we are severely disrupting the carbon cycle by burning huge amounts of carbon locked up in the ground and depositing it into the atmosphere. It makes sense to me that this would lock in heat, but I really don't know enough about the science to say one way or another.

 

I guess if the damage isn't immediate and shocking, people really don't care?

[Big Cliff]

OK, How is this for scientific information.

 

I'm 66, In the last 40 years I have seen huge changes.

 

I can remember having to break ice to go duck hunting in Sept. Not once but most of the time. Heck, I can remember walking out to my duck blind on the ice and the only open water was just beyond the blind.

I can remember snow banks so high that you threw the snow toward the top and hoped some of it didn't come back down.

I can remember snow banks so high that when you walked on top of them the hydro wires were even with your waist.

I can remember never planting anything before the May 24 weekend (even then that was pushing it)

I can remember having to battle ice just to get our boat in the river on the May 24 weekend.

I can remember the first diesle engine coming into our town, everyone was at the station to see it!

Hell, I almost bought a Studibaker LOL.

My first car was a 1948 Plymoth, thing was built like a tank, paid $200.00 LOL.

 

Global warming is happening, I wouldn't be upset if I had coconut trees growing here someday (I'd like to see it in fact).

 

The fishing will change, we will adapt, life is good!

[Old Man]

The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. The current method of recording average yearly global temperature has been in place since 1950 (62 years). Prior to this, several other methods of recording average global temperature were used. Approach any statistician and ask them if a sample size of 62 of a population of 4.5 billion possible data points holds any significance and whether it's possible to base any sound conclusions from it. The global climate and what effects it is far more complicated then what is being portrayed in the media. Many things have been shown to possibly effect global temperatures over short term periods, such as solar flare activity and agricultural practices. These short term factors coupled with a very small data set make it impossible to say one way or another what is going on and what is the cause, but it doesn't stop scientist chasing grant money from saying it is possible.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Old Man

[crossover]

The earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old. The current method of recording average yearly global temperature has been in place since 1950 (62 years). Prior to this, several other methods of recording average global temperature were used. Approach any statistician and ask them if a sample size of 62 of a population of 4.5 billion possible data points holds any significance and whether it's possible to base any sound conclusions from it. The global climate and what effects it is far more complicated then what is being portrayed in the media. Many things have been shown to possibly effect global temperatures over short term periods, such as solar flare activity and agricultural practices. These short term factors coupled with a very small data set make it impossible to say one way or another what is going on and what is the cause, but it doesn't stop scientist chasing grant money from saying it is possible.

 

Yeah, because who has more to gain, a scientist after grant money or the billionaires in oil companies?

[Old Man]

Yeah, because who has more to gain, a scientist after grant money or the billionaires in oil companies?

 

So I guess following your logic, oil company profits are conclusive evidence that global warming exists.

 

Global warming is a hypothesis, and in all science, hypothesis only become fact if backed up by a valid data set. In this case, the valid, statistically sound data set doesn't exist, therefore it's still just a hypothesis.

[GregF2]

Yes - it was a very warm weather, but the last two before this one were very cold and snowy (at least in Northern Ohio) with lots of ice. Weather always has extremes and it is funny when I hear scientists talk about Global warming, but yet a lot of record warm records are still from the late 1800's or early 1930s. So, I wonder if that was Global Warming happening then too. I think it is way overblown, just like everything else the media and internet portrays in todays world. This summer a weak El Nino could come and if so, then next winter in our area should be slightly colder than normal.

[Rod Caster]

So I guess following your logic, oil company profits are conclusive evidence that global warming exists.

 

Global warming is a hypothesis, and in all science, hypothesis only become fact if backed up by a valid data set. In this case, the valid, statistically sound data set doesn't exist, therefore it's still just a hypothesis.

 

 

By your logic, because you can refuse to believe something it means it doesn't exist?

 

Also, much of the scientific data behind global warming is based on ice cores or other representative methods...not just the 50 years of air quality data of which you probably speak.

 

I have no idea what global warming ultimately looks like but we all know that humans are very capable of changing some of earths processes and disrupting natural balances. I wouldn't call it Global Warming, but atmospheric disruptions caused by human activities are already happening.

[Old Man]

I have no idea what global warming ultimately looks like

 

That's exactly my point. No one does, nor do we currently have the data set available to say one way or the other if it's happening or what the cause is if it is. Mankind's existence is only a small point in the earths 4.5 billion year history. There is evidence of several climatic changes that pre-date the dawn of man, so for us to assume that we know what's going on and that there is a direct cause borders on arrogance and foolishness.

[Rod Caster]

yeah, we definitly can't accurately figure out what exactly will happen. Even if someone ever figured it out, I doubt we'd listen. Or opposition would just lobby the crap out of it until no one cares.

Still I wouldn't wait for the ultimate set of data to understand that the things we are adding to the atmosphere contribute to the greenhouse effect.

 

 

btw,I live on the third floor of a building just incase the ice caps start melting. haha

[crossover]

So I guess following your logic, oil company profits are conclusive evidence that global warming exists.

 

 

Erm no, just that I always hear the "they're doing it for the grant money!" so if that's what you got from my statement, then it seems from your logic that scientist getting grant money = conclusive proof that it doesn't.

 

But anyways, there is lots of evidence linking the Eocene Thermal Maximum, the warmest point in time ever, with one of the highest atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It was over a relatively short period of time, ~1,000 years, which lead to a mass extinction, but the problem is that at current rates human beings will reach that threshold much sooner, having obvious implications on the biosphere as well as climate, weather, etc. And whenever people bash ice core samples, they should back it up on why they're not dependable, as it is based on oxygen isotope proportions (similar to how we dependably use radiocarbon dating), and there are other techniques used. Also, there is the fact that there is an international consensus in the scientific community the global warming is real (global climate change for those of you who randomly point out how cold it is in other regions), based on collection objective data, and I hardly doubt that ALL of them are in it for the grant money.

 

EDIT: Also wanted to point out that 4.5 billion years is a moot point when considering how dynamic it has been over the course of the earth's age.

Edited April 19, 2012 by crossover

[Old Man]

Erm no, just that I always hear the "they're doing it for the grant money!" so if that's what you got from my statement, then it seems from your logic that scientist getting grant money = conclusive proof that it doesn't.

 

But anyways, there is lots of evidence linking the Eocene Thermal Maximum, the warmest point in time ever, with one of the highest atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. It was over a relatively short period of time, ~1,000 years, which lead to a mass extinction, but the problem is that at current rates human beings will reach that threshold much sooner, having obvious implications on the biosphere as well as climate, weather, etc. And whenever people bash ice core samples, they should back it up on why they're not dependable, as it is based on oxygen isotope proportions (similar to how we dependably use radiocarbon dating), and there are other techniques used. Also, there is the fact that there is an international consensus in the scientific community the global warming is real (global climate change for those of you who randomly point out how cold it is in other regions), based on collection objective data, and I hardly doubt that ALL of them are in it for the grant money.

 

No, I said the data set doesn't exist to prove it's happening or, if it is, what the cause is. As for "an international consensus in the scientific community" , you must be selective in the papers you read, because there is such wide range of views being express with in the community, that to use the word consensus is being generous to say the least.

[JCRG]

climate warming is just one of the many things that are being investigated as part of a broader category, which is global change. For example, a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere means more CO2 will be absorbed into the oceans, which means water will become more acidic. Some projections say that as early as 2030 most coral reefs could be dead. The problem is not change itself but rather the rate of this change, the argument is that most organisms will not be able to adapt in such short period of time.

[Jigger]

In response to the OP, Ive seen our traditionally oligatrophic lake undertake the change toward mesotrophic. The perch have exploded and warmwater predators are on the rise. The downfall is that the lake trout and whitefish catch numbers, from what i gather talking to other anglers, are down. Being more of a bass guy than a laker guy, this doesnt bother me. On the surface anyways. The true litmus test should really come from waters that have limited urban exposure. Cottage lakes seem to be getting more and more "urbanized" all the time. Fertilizers for the manicured lawn, pesticides for the ornamental gardens... Im sure you know where this all goes. So to judge how the overall reaction to changing weather patterns go, heavily travelled areas arent really the bees knees when looking for pure results. There are just too many things that are also picking away at the ecosystem.

 

As far as climate change and Global warming go, im just going to listen and observe before i can say for certain where i lay my hat...

 

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/business-insider/blog.html?b=business.financialpost.com/2012/04/11/49-former-nasa-scientists-go-ballistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change

[crossover]

then you're not equipped to discuss the topic.

 

Lol, I hope this wasn't directed at me, because that's what I was pointing out.

[chris.brock]

the planet has existed for millions of years, in the last 200 years, we as smart people, have cut down and paved everything we can, we burn everything we can for heat, transportation and recreation, and we continue to exhaust any resource available, breed like rabbits and urbanize the planet

 

something has to give

 

the planet and the environment is a "common property resource" which means it belongs to everyone on it, it's like owning a cottage on a lake, why should I practise sustainable harvest and catch and release on my lake if all my neighbors on the lake are keeping every fish they catch

[Moosebunk]

Well... it sure ain't Global Cooling that's going on out there. lol.

[blarg]

Having been a bit below normal since that warm spell in march, and now about 10 degrees below the next couple days and with a snowfall warning tonight it doesn't seem that North bay is getting the global warming this month. Seriously people, weather is not climate, one winter is not evidence, 10 winters is not evidence, and the snowstorm were getting tonight and tomorrow will not make up my mind for me either way. Imagine for a moment the the planet was moving into an ice age, which it will at some point, that will be disastrous for us, it will make the threat of global warming look like a picnic, what re we to do about it?

 

Not a damn thing, because we cant, and maybe, just maybe, the planet really is warming because of our activities, look around you, just what chance do you think we have of forcing ourselves or anyone else to stop pollution? None, we will have to do what we do best, adapt, there will be far worse calamities to come. The planet has been warmer in the past, we survived it, and so did it.

[blarg]

Here's the thing - to say that global warming isn't happening is ignorant. It's happening. We have better instruments than ever to measure.

 

Of course the world has warmed and cooled many times going back millions of years. What IS up for debate is our role in the warming.

 

And, I love the "but it's colder in xyz" arguments. If you can't understand how global warming can cause colder patterns in places, then you're not equipped to discuss the topic.

 

Yea, because asking about global warming and pointing out a specifically warm winter in one general area isnt doing the exact same thing...o the irony. Fyi, the whole arctic was colder than normal this year, i suppose that was global warming at work, sigh.