Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Warmer Water Impacting Muskies |
| Message Subject: Warmer Water Impacting Muskies | |||
Rob C |
| ||
Posts: 59 | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 12:20 PM Rob C - 9/18/2020 11:06 AM "During the recession I had the opportunity to ask congressman Tom Petri about the government getting behind some sort of nuclear energy plan to focused on a basic model that could be replicated, greatly reducing the cost of nuclear. He said he liked the concept but said there was absolutely no appetite to support nuclear on either side of the aisle. (Not my idea by the way, guy that I had hired as summer help went on to get his PhD in nuclear engineering had told me that the problem in the USA was that our plants were all "snowflakes", i.e., each was unique, adding greatly to cost and complexity)" "I have heard the same thing about our nuclear plants as well. Its unfortunate that we don't have a standardized plant for this. Modern nuclear technology has advanced, and thoughtful planning (put them in geologically and meteorologicaly stable environments, away from population centers etc) will prevent disasters from occurring. Standardization would also make maintenance and monitoring much easier. I am sure if given the opportunity to demonstrate the new tech etc. more people would be willing to support nuclear. Nuclear fusion is also on the "near" horizon. Once that becomes widely available even solar and wind power will no longer be a necessary transition. The objection most have is the nuclear waste. However, they refuse to acknowledge that coal fired plants create tons of toxic waste on a daily basis. The residue left after burning coal contains heavy metals and other toxins that don't go away. One of the largest coal fired plants in the midwest was right on the shores of Lake Superior in Marquette. For decades they simply dumped the "cinders" on the ground on a large plot of land the plant owed a mile or so away. But, tests showed that the waste was leaching toxins into the Dead River and that traveled directly into Lake Superior a short distance down stream. The plant had to truck the waste to another area, lined with clay and cover it every day. That stuff will be toxic almost as long as nuclear waste. Solar is making strides in both efficiency and cost per watt on an almost monthly basis. China is leading the way on that." The argument about nuclear waste is fair, and I acknowledge I have no idea how to deal with it, other than tossing it in a mountain to degrade for the rest of eternity (which is a bad idea for various reasons). I did not know about the coal plant and dump in Marquette, but that is definitely a concerning situation. I wont comment on China, other than to say I think the US should step up and be the ones making these kinds of innovations in the green/clean tech industry. Edited by Rob C 9/18/2020 12:49 PM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Partial list of toxins that are contained in coal ash: "What's leftover is ash, and in addition to hexavalent chromium, it contains arsenic, mercury, thallium, selenium, lead and more." There are areas where none of the private wells have safe drinking water because of seepage from ash ponds. In fact some stories say you should not even bathe in the water. An example of the scale of the problem is one plant that polluted wells, their ash pond contained approx. 16 million tons of coal ash slurry, in an unlined pit. There have been numerous stories about this over the years but whatever reason it does not seem to connect with the average person. Even when I was living in Marquette and they were relocating their ash to a lined pit, people were saying "what is all that about? all those trucks?" When you told them the state EPA said it was leaching arsenic into the river, they would go, 'holy crap, I fish for coho jacks where that river empties into the bay!'. So yeah, they probably were eating fish contaminated with lead and arsenic, along with some other toxins. | |||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20181 Location: oswego, il | Raftman, I paid 2 grand for my first computer. Less than 600 for my second one. It's not about the now it's about the future. | ||
| raftman |
| ||
Posts: 519 Location: WI | ToddM - 9/18/2020 1:46 PM Raftman, I paid 2 grand for my first computer. Less than 600 for my second one. It's not about the now it's about the future. True. And 30 years ago when computers cost that much and I was being told wind and solar would stop global warming in grade school they probably accounted for close to 0% of energy production. All this time and billions of dollars later we made it to 10% and the earth is warmer and we keep pumping CO2 into the air. 10%? Is that a good return? Wouldn’t investing in a source like nuclear have made more sense? Reduced CO2 emission and greater energy potential. They were telling us then CO2 was making us hotter so why focus on the more inefficient source? Edited by raftman 9/18/2020 2:55 PM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
raftman - 9/18/2020 2:41 PM ToddM - 9/18/2020 1:46 PM Raftman, I paid 2 grand for my first computer. Less than 600 for my second one. It's not about the now it's about the future. True. And 30 years ago when computers cost that much and I was being told wind and solar would stop global warming in grade school they probably accounted for close to 0% of energy production. All this time and billions of dollars later we made it to 10% and the earth is warmer and we keep pumping CO2 into the air. 10%? Is that a good return? Wouldn’t investing in a source like nuclear have made more sense? Reduced CO2 emission and greater energy potential. They were telling us then CO2 was making us hotter so why focus on the more inefficient source? 25 years ago I was convinced the short term solution was nuclear. But, there is simply no public support for it. Not from the left, right or middle. Japan putting a nuclear power plant right where it could be clobbered by a natural disaster didn't help. But, the USA has large, inland geography that is stable and not prone to quakes, hurricanes, etc. Power companies might have pushed for it had coal been their only alternative but finding large reserves of natural gas gave them an easy, cheap alternative. Edited by North of 8 9/18/2020 5:06 PM | |||
| ARmuskyaddict |
| ||
Posts: 2011 | Hi, I'm a musky fisherman and I won't stick to the topic posted and spew out my own nonsensical thoughts. Go ask a polar bear rather than your news. | ||
| Ernie |
| ||
Posts: 51 | I find it funny that those most worried about climate change are those who for hours drag their big gas-guzzling Ranger behind their gas-guzzling full-size truck four times a year to LOW. Let us know when you trade it all in for a fuel efficient four banger CUV with a kayak on the top. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
Ernie - 9/18/2020 10:04 PM I find it funny that those most worried about climate change are those who for hours drag their big gas-guzzling Ranger behind their gas-guzzling full-size truck four times a year to LOW. Let us know when you trade it all in for a fuel efficient four banger CUV with a kayak on the top. Really? Got any data to support that statement? I have three kayaks, a canoe and a CRV, no Ranger. Poof. | |||
| Rob C |
| ||
Posts: 59 | Ernie - 9/18/2020 10:04 PM I find it funny that those most worried about climate change are those who for hours drag their big gas-guzzling Ranger behind their gas-guzzling full-size truck four times a year to LOW. Let us know when you trade it all in for a fuel efficient four banger CUV with a kayak on the top. I don't own a truck, nor a boat so I also don't fit your stereotype. However, I will admit that I fit into the group of outdoorsman who do not use sustainable gear (petroleum based clothing, lightweight low durability hiking gear etc). I feel this is a systemic issue in our culture though, and it is something that individuals and companies should strive to change since so many outdoor companies are ironically unconcerned with waste (Patagonia is the only retailer I know of who fits "sustainable" practices in the industry). Unfortunately the costs associated with using sustainable gear make it a barrier to entry for most. This makes one choose to either be wasteful, spend more than they can afford, or unable to get into some types of outdoor activities. Now that I have completely gotten off topic, I would just like to say muskies are cool, and I wish I caught more than I have so far this season. Edited by Rob C 9/19/2020 12:18 AM | ||
| jb51 |
| ||
Posts: 28 | We all enjoy fishing for Muskies in area’s where a little more than ten thousand years ago there was an ice sheet over a mile thick. That’s not even a drop in the bucket of a geologically significant time scale. I’m not going to lose any sleep over a short term warming trend. Except the one coming next week that could screw up my fishing... | ||
| ARmuskyaddict |
| ||
Posts: 2011 | Cave Run muskies are almost all stocked. And they do a great job. It's also a reservoir in the KY hills, not remotely similar to WI flowages nor MN lakes. Steve Worrall gave me some cliff notes about some of the species and how they are affected by water temp changes. Anyone notice more bucket mouths in their lakes? | ||
| Conservation Guy |
| ||
Posts: 107 | raftman - 9/18/2020 2:41 PM ToddM - 9/18/2020 1:46 PM Raftman, I paid 2 grand for my first computer. Less than 600 for my second one. It's not about the now it's about the future. True. And 30 years ago when computers cost that much and I was being told wind and solar would stop global warming in grade school they probably accounted for close to 0% of energy production. All this time and billions of dollars later we made it to 10% and the earth is warmer and we keep pumping CO2 into the air. 10%? Is that a good return? Wouldn’t investing in a source like nuclear have made more sense? Reduced CO2 emission and greater energy potential. They were telling us then CO2 was making us hotter so why focus on the more inefficient source? I am not sure why everyone acts like fossil fuels only cost what the consumer pays. Fossil fuels are the most subsidized industry on earth. In 2015 the IMF put the U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at $649 billion, which exceeded defense spending that year. I do think we need to have a mixed strategy, including nuclear, but let's not pretend that fossil fuels are affordable because of the free market. Edited by Conservation Guy 9/19/2020 5:10 PM | ||
| RJ_692 |
| ||
Posts: 357 | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 5:05 PM raftman - 9/18/2020 2:41 PM ToddM - 9/18/2020 1:46 PM Raftman, I paid 2 grand for my first computer. Less than 600 for my second one. It's not about the now it's about the future. True. And 30 years ago when computers cost that much and I was being told wind and solar would stop global warming in grade school they probably accounted for close to 0% of energy production. All this time and billions of dollars later we made it to 10% and the earth is warmer and we keep pumping CO2 into the air. 10%? Is that a good return? Wouldn’t investing in a source like nuclear have made more sense? Reduced CO2 emission and greater energy potential. They were telling us then CO2 was making us hotter so why focus on the more inefficient source? 25 years ago I was convinced the short term solution was nuclear. But, there is simply no public support for it. Not from the left, right or middle. Japan putting a nuclear power plant right where it could be clobbered by a natural disaster didn't help. But, the USA has large, inland geography that is stable and not prone to quakes, hurricanes, etc. Power companies might have pushed for it had coal been their only alternative but finding large reserves of natural gas gave them an easy, cheap alternative. Public support is only part of this. Its the USA...follow the money. Who owns the rail roads, the trucking, the shipping of fossil fuels...people with a lot of political power is who. Until they figure out how to get paid, alternative anything is going no where. You are talking old school deep state money here. Its the same fight that pipelines have. Nobody actually cares about a pipeline in the ground...its all about who is getting paid. | ||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1214 | I did not get back to fish this year (Wi/Min) but I read that water temps were in the 80's not long after 4th of July. I've never seen this happening so soon in the summer. I live on the front range of Colorado we set a record for 90 Degree days 70+ and in the upper 80's all this week with a chance for another 90 . Up till two years ago the latest 100 degree day in Denver was 16th of Aug. last two years we get them in sept. Between the fires in California and the 4 we have burning here I have not seen the mountains from my home in over a month let lone do any outdoor work in my yard besides mowing my lawn. My sister lives with us part time and they have cabin in the mountains here in Colorado and a home in the foot hills in California they may both burn! I used to smoke the fish when on my trips north in Sept/Oct now lots of times the water temps are going up not down in this time frame. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32798 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Water temp on Minocqua/Tomahawk yesterday and all of last week was 62. With the couple warm days coming (not unusual, used to call it Indian Summer) it should go up maybe a degree, then take a dive into the 50's by end of month, also normal. Last year and the year before we had our wood boiler going in early to middle October, about 10 days early from a near 20 year normal. We had walk-able ice 2 to 3 weeks early here last year. I ran my air conditioner fewer days this year than last. The weather patterns here have a ton do do with the jet stream, as we are right on the line many times as a result of Pacific water temps. Right now we are forecast for a small chance for La Nina for the much of the Winter which is cooler and wetter, but it's more likely we'll be average, or EC. 'A strong El Niño or La Niña (which refers to ocean water temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean) can help us predict snowfall patterns during the winter. For the upcoming 2020-2021 winter season, there's a ~50% chance that water temperatures will reach below-average (blue bar = La Niña), a less than 10% chance that water temperatures will be above-average (red bar = El Niño), and a ~40% chance that water temperatures will be near-average (grey bar = Neutral). These model forecasts provide us with a signal for a La Niña event during the 2020-2021 winter season. The official Climate Prediction Center outlook is similar to these model forecasts, calling for a 60% chance of La Niña for fall and a 55% chance for La Niña to continue through the 2020-2021 winter season.' ------------------- Since I have been aware of the problem 80 degree range, it's been an on and off deal up here with no real consistency. Is the climate warming? Sure, but that means different things in different places. The trend is up across the globe and 2019 was I believe second warmest ever world wide yet we went though almost 30 cord of wood heating here during the 2019/2020 heating season. The boiler averages 1 cord per week consumption. It will be, if the long term forecast is accurate, warmer in Alaska by a 50% chance this Winter than it will be in Rhinelander. No surprise to anyone here, it looks like higher than average snowfall too. ----------------------- As much a concern (if not more) is the aging of our lakes due to human influence including littoral zone damage/degradation and water pollution from lawns, farms, and septics, which most assuredly will age a lake beyond it's years and trend it from wherever it may be now on the scale between oligotrophic to eutrophic. This is a largemouth bass friendly and walleye unfriendly deal. Muskies somewhere in the middle there. wikipedia: Oligotrophic lakes generally host very little or no aquatic vegetation and are relatively clear, while eutrophic lakes tend to host large quantities of organisms, including algal blooms. Each trophic class supports different types of fish and other organisms, as well. The equation for lake aging is all tied together, but as supposed-to-be-conservationists, we have more control over pollution and mismanagement of the land around the water than the weather for certain. For me this year, wake board and giant pontoons (30' models with as much as 400 horse strapped to the back) made the lakes far less fish-able than weather OR other conditions. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20181 Location: oswego, il | Chuckski, I seen 81 degrees July 6th in northern Wisconsin. I have spent the summer out here in NE Colorado working on my oldest son's ranch. One more 90 degree day and it ties a record. Been outside working in every one of them. The sun is unrelenting and the impoundments are running dry. I don't enjoy this weather here. My youngest is in Greeley and make it over there often. My favorite lake so far is Jackson fished it twice the striper fishing was stupid. Edited by ToddM 9/21/2020 9:51 PM | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Steve's comment about Alaska and warming is what I hear from my sister there. She lives off grid year round. She and her husband have a number of seasonal neighbors in a couple square mile area and most depend on snow melt for a lot of their water needs. She has a metal roof with gutter connected to a holding tank and gets some of her water that way (filtering and UV light system) but a lot of others get water from small streams that bring snow melt down the mountain to the ocean. Each year there is les and less snow and it is gone earlier. When I went up in mid April of 2016, the mountains across the inlet, which are the southern boundary of Glacier Bay National Park, had almost no snow left. My brother in law is a commercial fisherman and has supplied the nearby canning factory with salmon for almost 50 years. He said the amount of snow left in mid - April was what they would have had in mid- July 40 years ago. Starting to impact the salmon runs because salmon won't run up the rivers if he water is too warm. | |||
| KingT |
| ||
Posts: 59 | Lotw in early July was 80 degrees as well. I haven't saw the water that warm before. | ||
| Smell_Esox |
| ||
Posts: 267 | The climate is changing, no question. Whether it's because of my Chevy Suburban or natural, that is the question. I'm pretty sure man has something to do with it. I'm not convinced it's leading to catastrophic change. I've studied MN temperatures quite a bit. Data is readily available. There's an interactive site from the office of climatology. It's fun to play around with. https://arcgis.dnr.state.mn.us/ewr/climatetrends/ There's another site where you can look at past data from actual temperature stations. https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/index.htm Funny, in MN, for the last 100 years average maximum summer temperatures have been declining. Average minimums increasing, average daily temperatures have shown negative changes in some areas of the state and increases in the northern part of the state. Winters have generally warmed and we are wetter in summer with more large rain events. The fact that summer temps haven't changed much suggests muskies will probably do just fine here for a long time. I believe cultural eutrophication will probably have more of an impact. In other words, we will love our lakes to death and fill them with excess nutrients and degrade important habitats over time before the temperature regime will be critical. Just my humble opinion. Interestingly, when I compare raw data to data on the Climate Trends site, it appears the data has been modified. Past data has been cooled and recent data warmed. Seems some temperature adjustments have been made. Makes me suspicious. | ||
| RLSea |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: Northern Illinois | Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. | ||
| RJ_692 |
| ||
Posts: 357 | RLSea - 9/28/2020 9:08 PM Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. Glaciers have been melting for a long time. The climate has been changing forever. And only glaciers can impact sea levels not polar ice packs. There is a scientific debate on whether humans have accelerated the rate of change. There is not factual temperature data much past recent history, only modeling, so because there is not factual temperature data far enough back, it is a little tougher to make steadfast decisions on this. I personally am not on one side or the other of the climate change debate. I think it is quite prudent to do anything as efficiently as possible. But the world is driven by money at this time, as long as this is the case nothing is changing. Humans as a species are greedy and have pretty much raped and destroyed every resource ever available. This innate desire however has allowed us to advance at a much higher pace than any other species. But we haven't really been around that long...so yeah time will tell | ||
| Smell_Esox |
| ||
Posts: 267 | RLSea - 9/28/2020 9:08 PM If you look at this site: Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-grap... You'll see that, indeed, this year the arctic is at the second lowest ice level in the satellite era which goes back to 1979......or so. Also notice Antarctic ice is at a top ten ice amount since 1979. But anecdotal information and even old maps from National Geographic Magazine show Arctic ice levels similar to today. In fact, in the earlier 1970s, there are initial satellite aerial photos of ice levels not to much higher than today. The media (or climate alarmists) just never tell or show you that. They start where it better fits their narrative, which was when ice was at it's max in the late 1970s (remember the global cooling scare?). | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
RJ_692 - 9/29/2020 7:36 AM RLSea - 9/28/2020 9:08 PM Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. Glaciers have been melting for a long time. The climate has been changing forever. And only glaciers can impact sea levels not polar ice packs. There is a scientific debate on whether humans have accelerated the rate of change. There is not factual temperature data much past recent history, only modeling, so because there is not factual temperature data far enough back, it is a little tougher to make steadfast decisions on this. I personally am not on one side or the other of the climate change debate. I think it is quite prudent to do anything as efficiently as possible. But the world is driven by money at this time, as long as this is the case nothing is changing. Humans as a species are greedy and have pretty much raped and destroyed every resource ever available. This innate desire however has allowed us to advance at a much higher pace than any other species. But we haven't really been around that long...so yeah time will tell Have to disagree. My understanding is there is far more ice in polar ice pack, than in glaciers. Glaciers come and go with not just temp change but snow fall. Extremely cold weather won't add to glaciers unless there is accompanying snow fall. | |||
| RLSea |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: Northern Illinois | Smell_Esox - 9/29/2020 12:55 PM RLSea - 9/28/2020 9:08 PM If you look at this site: Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-grap... You'll see that, indeed, this year the arctic is at the second lowest ice level in the satellite era which goes back to 1979......or so. Also notice Antarctic ice is at a top ten ice amount since 1979. But anecdotal information and even old maps from National Geographic Magazine show Arctic ice levels similar to today. In fact, in the earlier 1970s, there are initial satellite aerial photos of ice levels not to much higher than today. The media (or climate alarmists) just never tell or show you that. They start where it better fits their narrative, which was when ice was at it's max in the late 1970s (remember the global cooling scare?). The graph that you linked doesn't tell the whole story. You're looking at a snapshot of highs and lows. In the 40-year cycle from 1978 to 2018 antarctic sea ice increased gradually to a peak in 2014. "Since then, the decreases have been so great that the yearly averages for 2017 and 2018 are the lowest in the 1979-2018 record, essentially wiping out the 35 y of overall ice extent increases in just a few years." (Forbes, July 16, 2019) In fact a 40 year cycle is not even a blink of an eye in our present geologic period, but that is all the satellite data that we have. However you want to interpret the data, dismissing respected scientific publications as climate alarmists with a political agenda seems to be a disturbing, growing movement. | ||
| Rob C |
| ||
Posts: 59 | I am working on my PhD in geology (with some significant emphasis on glaciology, quaternary science and climate change) and have personally done research on the geochemical methods and modeling of climate change analysis. I also work with leading experts in these fields. Saying this, I want to clarify some things (without bogging people down with unnecessary details). By looking at the ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes it is possible to figure out how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the past, and what climate conditions were like at those points in time. We know our current ratio of those isotopes, so by comparing past ratios with current ratios we can see how our climate compares to past situations. What we see now is a larger ratio of carbon in the atmosphere compared to previous climates. During periods with atmospheres with compositions similar to our current one, there was far less ice on Earth's surface. What complicates this understanding in the public's eye is the 10-40 year lag time between the atmospheric carbon levels and the climate changes. With this said, it is perfectly possible that we are only now seeing changes in ice in the past decade or two. Its possible that the carbon we put into the atmosphere was inconsequential for global ice masses until the 1960s or 1970s. In the geosciences we call this a threshold. While the temperatures may have increased all through the 1900s, it wouldn't be until "recently" that the temperatures reached a threshold level that would cause glacial melting. After those temperatures have been reached, the climate lag time will still occur, ultimately making the climate data seem all out of whack. Concerningly, this also means that we won't see the effects of our current emissions for another couple decades. 40 years may be a geologic blink of an eye, but we certainly have enough data to make conclusions about our climates future. Edited by Rob C 9/29/2020 11:29 PM | ||
| RJ_692 |
| ||
Posts: 357 | North of 8 - 9/29/2020 1:45 PM RJ_692 - 9/29/2020 7:36 AM RLSea - 9/28/2020 9:08 PM Let's not confuse local (even continental) weather with climate change. For me the most convincing evidence for the warming of the earth is melting of the glaciers and polar ice packs. This and the related sea level rise cannot be denied. Glaciers have been melting for a long time. The climate has been changing forever. And only glaciers can impact sea levels not polar ice packs. There is a scientific debate on whether humans have accelerated the rate of change. There is not factual temperature data much past recent history, only modeling, so because there is not factual temperature data far enough back, it is a little tougher to make steadfast decisions on this. I personally am not on one side or the other of the climate change debate. I think it is quite prudent to do anything as efficiently as possible. But the world is driven by money at this time, as long as this is the case nothing is changing. Humans as a species are greedy and have pretty much raped and destroyed every resource ever available. This innate desire however has allowed us to advance at a much higher pace than any other species. But we haven't really been around that long...so yeah time will tell Have to disagree. My understanding is there is far more ice in polar ice pack, than in glaciers. Glaciers come and go with not just temp change but snow fall. Extremely cold weather won't add to glaciers unless there is accompanying snow fall. Most of the polar ice packs are already in the water, so it cannot impact sea levels. Just how science works. There are several experiments you can do like fill a glass if water with ice so that the ice is above the water, when it melts the glass does not overflow. Or google some others. The North Pole is all frozen sea ice, so will have no impact on sea levels. Antarctica has significant glaciers and ice pack so you will get some rise out of that. We don't gain or lose water, we only have so much. During the ice age the sea levels were much much lower as it was all glaciers and its just going back. So yes there is global warming and has been for a long time. Well since the ice age anyway. You don't think Obama would have bought a sea side home if he was worried about sea levels do you lol. Earliest temperature data from Antarctica starts in 1957. I believe that sample size is still too small. Some others do not. That's ok. I rather wish we would focus on technology to meet increasing power demands, and hosts of other things. Currently a lot of "green" technologies use more fossil fuels being created than they actually save. We need more efficient methods. Want to do something simple...write legislators to give bigger tax credits to people who build net zero housing. that technology is there but nobody can afford to build a home that costs 2-3X as much. | ||
| RLSea |
| ||
Posts: 483 Location: Northern Illinois | Rob C - 9/29/2020 11:23 PM I am working on my PhD in geology (with some significant emphasis on glaciology, quaternary science and climate change) and have personally done research on the geochemical methods and modeling of climate change analysis. I also work with leading experts in these fields. Saying this, I want to clarify some things (without bogging people down with unnecessary details). By looking at the ratio of carbon and oxygen isotopes it is possible to figure out how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the past, and what climate conditions were like at those points in time. We know our current ratio of those isotopes, so by comparing past ratios with current ratios we can see how our climate compares to past situations. What we see now is a larger ratio of carbon in the atmosphere compared to previous climates. During periods with atmospheres with compositions similar to our current one, there was far less ice on Earth's surface. What complicates this understanding in the public's eye is the 10-40 year lag time between the atmospheric carbon levels and the climate changes. With this said, it is perfectly possible that we are only now seeing changes in ice in the past decade or two. Its possible that the carbon we put into the atmosphere was inconsequential for global ice masses until the 1960s or 1970s. In the geosciences we call this a threshold. While the temperatures may have increased all through the 1900s, it wouldn't be until "recently" that the temperatures reached a threshold level that would cause glacial melting. After those temperatures have been reached, the climate lag time will still occur, ultimately making the climate data seem all out of whack. Concerningly, this also means that we won't see the effects of our current emissions for another couple decades. 40 years may be a geologic blink of an eye, but we certainly have enough data to make conclusions about our climates future. Thanks for adding some clarity. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1191 | I'm no expert on the glacial ice, but it seems that 99% of the earth's fresh water is in glacial ice in Antarctica and Greenland. Regarding Greenland, this study indicates that this century Greenland will lose ice faster than in any century in the last 12,000 years. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2742-6 Regarding Antarctica, it doesn't seem much better according to this study. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/09/08/1912890117 No value judgement here. Just recent data sure indicates that there is a lot of change going on in a pretty condensed time frame. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |