|
|
| There is a story in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal today where their outdoor writer discusses one of the topics of the annual American Fisheries Society taking place this week. A big concern is the impact of climate change on species that need cooler water to thrive. Walleye and Brook trout are already feeling the impact. The Minocqua chain where there has been no harvest for five years and has had a lot of stocking is seeing no or little natural reproduction of walleye. And Wisconsin fisheries managers predict that by 2050 there will be no natural brook trout reproduction in the state. There have been other studies and stories about walleyes being impacted by warming waters but this was the first I saw that said muskies will also be impacted by climate change. I guess I thought they were more tolerant than walleyes and brook trout. Anyway, interesting and concerning to think about. Guess I should plan on teaching my grandson how to fish for bass. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 205
| The legacy media will use any excuse to hype climate change. IMO - If muskies can do OK in Kentucky they will be fine here even if the overall average summer temps are 2 to 3 degrees warmer. If any thing the prime fishery will move further north. I believe the real issue now is over fishing which is global but is readily apparent in walleye populations. Sidebar - I attribute the expanding smallmouth populations in Northern WI. to decreased competition As the adult walleyes are removed for the lakes it creates more space and forage for the smallmouth. |
|
| |
|
| This is hardly a media driven issue. The American Fisheries Society has been around for 150 years and is the largest group of fisheries scientists in the world. Includes federal and state fisheries scientists as well as university researchers.
As to over fishing, the Minocqua Chain has been closed to catch and keep for walleye for over 5 years now and there still is little or no natural reproduction according to WI DNR studies. They have stocked heavily and the fish they find are stocked.
Are the Kentucky fish natural or stocked? Many warmer water musky fisheries rely on stocking, not natural reproduction, which is the focus of the study. The stocked walleyes in Minocqua are surviving, but not reproducing.
As to bass, the biggest change is in large mouth bass, not small mouth. Lake Michigan has seen a rise in small mouth but in inland lakes in northern WI, large mouth bass have seen a big increase and they do put a hurt on walleye fry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
Location: WI | The media’s failure with climate change is the bias towards renewables. Expensive, low energy sources are not a solution to drastically reduce CO2 emissions unless we want a drastic change in quality of life and stop the progress of developing nations. Sounds great and may make you feel all warm and good inside but it costs a lot more, provides less energy, and takes up a lot more land. Nuclear is the only realistic option that would provide meaningful reductions relatively soon and there are some obvious risks with that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | There are more factors than climate change at play, in terms of Walleye natural reproduction in Wisconsin Lakes. Water levels on many lakes unrelated to climate change, but normal/historical eb/flow have made for difficult conditions for slightly over a decade. Water levels are back now, and documented reproduction of many species and reproductive habitat is back, on many waters, for now.
Shoreline/riparian destruction and unnatural spawning site degradation is a huge player and we only have ourselves to blame for that, and not just by building lake homes. Lake chains like Minoqua, Eagle River, Manitowish, Three Lakes, Waupaca, Couderay, even Winnebego to a degree, which are great places to navigate from lake to lake, are that way because they are unnatural flowages, and flowages get old. Historically those waters had creeks and small rivers connecting the lakes, which naturally cleaned inherent spawning beds, maintained cooler/adequate temps, and provided great spawning structure and habitat. It may have taken close to 100 years in some cases to happen, but these now sedentary flowages lost some of their spawning luster as a result. A prime example of what is now a flowage, and used to be a natural walleye factory, is Shawano Lake in Wisconsin. There was zero reproduction noted for several years, prior to several groups reinvesting in rockpiles, stocking the correct strain, and helping recreate what the fish need.
Lakefront propertys with their shoreline/aquatic veg/cover destruction have been covered ad nausium, yet it still occurs and contributes to reducing the size and number of already dwindling spawning sites.
At the end of the day, this isn't just about temperature. Is it related to what man has done? Yes, but on a much more direct and local account.
Edited by Reef Hawg 9/17/2020 12:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Reef Hawg - 9/17/2020 11:56 AM
There are more factors than climate change at play, in terms of Walleye natural reproduction in Wisconsin Lakes. Water levels on many lakes unrelated to climate change, but normal/historical eb/flow have made for difficult conditions for slightly over a decade. Water levels are back now, and documented reproduction of many species and reproductive habitat is back, on many waters, for now.
Shoreline/riparian destruction and unnatural spawning site degradation is a huge player and we only have ourselves to blame for that, and not just by building lake homes. Lake chains like Minoqua, Eagle River, Manitowish, Three Lakes, Waupaca, Couderay, even Winnebego to a degree, which are great places to navigate from lake to lake, are that way because they are unnatural flowages, and flowages get old. Historically those waters had creeks and small rivers connecting the lakes, which naturally cleaned inherent spawning beds, maintained cooler/adequate temps, and provided great spawning structure and habitat. It may have taken close to 100 years in some cases to happen, but these now sedentary flowages lost some of their spawning luster as a result. A prime example of what is now a flowage, and used to be a natural walleye factory, is Shawano Lake in Wisconsin. There was zero reproduction noted for several years, prior to several groups reinvesting in rockpiles, stocking the correct strain, and helping recreate what the fish need.
Lakefront propertys with their shoreline/aquatic veg/cover destruction have been covered ad nausium, yet it still occurs and contributes to reducing the size and number of already dwindling spawning sites.
At the end of the day, this isn't just about temperature. Is it related to what man has done? Yes, but on a much more direct and local account.
The riparian zone issue is one that as someone living on a lake I am aware of every day. Oneida County had pretty strict zoning to protect that area but our then state senator and now 7th district congressman, Tom Tiffany, came up with legislation that took away local control of water front development and said that what had been the minimum protection set by the state was now the law every where and stricter zoning like you saw in Oneida and Vilas counties had to be eliminated. Mr. Tiffany was well rewarded by real estate development PACs. Our lake association still tries to get the message out that leaving as much of the riparian zone in a natural state is critical to the health of the lakes and I think a lot of property owners understand, but the regulation is much laxer now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
|
|
| |
|
| esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
Have been to Alaska three times in the last 4 years and was supposed to have gone back in early summer this year to help my brother in law with set net fishing for sockeye on a river off Bristol Bay (COVID 19 travel issues nixed that). Traveling around Alaska, didn't find anyone who doesn't think there is climate change (they do disagree on cause). Some of the northern areas have seen annual temps rise by an average of 8 degrees in the last 25 years. Outside of Fairbanks in summer of 2018, they had giant fans blowing against the concrete supporting an overpass of the railroad line we were on. Conductor said it was because the rising temps were causing the perma frost to melt and the footings were starting to sink. Also, the train had to go no more than 20 miles an hour because the high temps they were experiencing were causing the rails to expand beyond the expansion joints they had built in, not anticipating the kind of summer heat they have been experiencing recently.
The Bristol Bay fishery, the largest sockeye salmon run in the world, has been impacted as far as the river set nets like I was supposed to do. The fish won't run up the rivers if they are over a certain temperature and in 2019 and again this year they had to wait for a big rain event to cool them because the salmon wouldn't run in the warm water of the rivers. My sister and her husband live off grid across the inlet from Glacier Bay national park and the mountains across the water that used to stay snow capped until mid June were almost bare in early April of 2016 when I was there. Less snow and it is melting much earlier. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 386
Location: SW Ohio | Yes, the Muskies in KY and OH are stocked because they don’t reproduce in the manmade reservoirs even though they were here prior to the impoundments. And they survive very well in the warmer water. The Muskies in NC and WV are naturally occurring but are augmented by stocking. Yet these places produce large and numerous fish every year. The fish adapt to their environment sometimes better than us.
Global warming has been debunked but there should be no argument about climate change. After all, the Earth’s climate has been changing since its birth and will continue to change long after us bipeds are gone. |
|
| |
|
Location: Neapolitan Chain Of Lakes | If the world and the heavens are to end by being dissolved in fire then perhaps global warming is just the beginning of a slow death. In my opinion humans can but will NOT stop global warming.
Edited by esox109 9/17/2020 6:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Twin Cities Metro | OH Musky - 9/17/2020 6:13 PM
Global warming has been debunked...
Riiiiight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | 14ledo81 - 9/17/2020 1:53 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not?
We have affected most of this earth hard to believe we have not had an impact non the climate. Ever seen fire tornadoes or sorms brew up from the forest fires? I am supposed to believe we have not had an impact?
I also agree with RH there are other issues with development and impoundment aging. Some believe that's the reason for lake shelbyville here in fibland for it's collapse despite the same stocking efforts.
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
Edited by ToddM 9/17/2020 8:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 489
Location: Northern Illinois | I agree with Reef Hawg on the original OP. Many factors can impact spawning and recruitment. As for climate change, some people will continue to believe that human produced CO2 levels are not accelerating climate change (warming) until Earth becomes Venus 2.0. The overwhelming evidence tells us that the RATE of climate warming without catastrophic event is unprecedented. This is not "legacy media hype." Read the research. If then you don't believe that humans are the main contributors to the rapidly increasing CO2 in our atmosphere and the resulting effects, it's because you don't want to.
Edited by RLSea 9/17/2020 9:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
| RLSea - 9/17/2020 9:20 PM
I agree with Reef Hawg on the original OP. Many factors can impact spawning and recruitment. As for climate change, some people will continue to believe that human produced CO2 levels are not accelerating climate change (warming) until Earth becomes Venus 2.0. The overwhelming evidence tells us that the RATE of climate warming without catastrophic event is unprecedented. This is not "legacy media hype." Read the research. If then you don't believe that humans are the main contributors to the rapidly increasing CO2 in our atmosphere and the resulting effects, it's because you don't want to.
For me one of the things that convinced me was the studies they have done on ice cores taken from the poles, going back tens of thousands of years, where they can measure CO2 and other elements that were in the air at different times. At times in the past where there was dramatic change in climate, it can be traced to things like a volcanic eruption.
The first time I saw the Mendenhall glacier outside Juneau was in 2010. I was surprised how far it had retreated when I was there in 2016 but even more surprised at the apparent retreat when visiting again in 2018. Truly dramatic.
Edited by North of 8 9/17/2020 10:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
Location: WI |
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
Location: WI | 14ledo81 - 9/17/2020 1:53 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
It's a media issue if the conspiracy media you listen to tells you it is. The strain of musky in Kentucky is not the same strain that is in Wisconsin. There will be winners and losers. Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
What if the conspiracy media you listen tells you it is not?
I think conspiracy media’s support of the nuclear option was for eliminating the filibuster to get a conservative judge on SCOTUS. |
|
| |
|
| raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| Its amazing to me how things quickly turn to the "political" version of climate change. Fact is the climate has been changing well since whenever the beginning was. Do we all wish it was still cold as hell and fighting off cave bears and woolly rhinos?
I watched ABC news for 5 minutes to get some updates on the Hurricane stuff before finding out every hurricane is now fueled by global warming. Seems to me there has always been hurricanes.
Fact is the climate is going to be in a continuous state of change way past our lifetimes.
Investment in renewable resources is generally a prudent thing. In the event the world runs out of oil it'd be nice to have some alternatives. Wind energy may not be feasible now...but it looks a lot better when the lights go out.
Want to reduce CO2...stop buying stuff from China and India, they are the two largest polluters in the world. Go there and have a look if you have not, you will see how they can produce cheap trade goods.
As for the fish...its been a constant evolution. All the same fish the were once swimming in Lake Agassiz are no longer with us. Think how great some of the Canadian Sheild lakes will be when they get a faster growth rate!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
Location: WI | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
Attachments
----------------
 Capture.JPG (113KB - 377 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| raftman - 9/18/2020 7:37 AM
North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.[/QUOT
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket.
Your calcualtion of energy does not take into account cost in energy to extract fossil fuels, transport them and then to deal with the residual pollution from fossil fuels. Coal in particular causes damage at the mine site, and leaves a nasty pile of waste with heavy metals in it once burned. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
Location: WI | North of 8 - 9/18/2020 7:51 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 7:37 AM
North of 8 - 9/18/2020 6:44 AM
raftman - 9/18/2020 5:48 AM
Renewable energy is more expensive. It eventually won't be and if we don't embrace it China and Europe will beat us to it.
I’m 37. I’ve been told this since grade school. I don’t claim to be an expert but the problem I see with renewables is that they have a very low energy density compared to non renewables. How do u create energy that isn’t present? If we would have focused the time and money we put into renewables into making nuclear safer we would be in a far better place. At this point I would focus on technology that uses energy more efficiently than renewables.[/QUOT
The sun does not represent energy? If you don't think wind is energy has does a gust blow a plastic chair off your patio?
Sun and wind do represent energy but at a much lower density than fossil fuels or nuclear. If I’m flipping for bass in thick cover do I use a tungsten weight or a steel weight? I would say tungsten since it’s denser material and I need a lot less of it. If I used steel I would need more of it. In comparison to non renewables, sun and wind are poor sources of energy because they just don’t have as much of it and u can’t make up for it by creating more energy out of nothing. We put our eggs in the wrong basket.
Your calcualtion of energy does not take into account cost in energy to extract fossil fuels, transport them and then to deal with the residual pollution from fossil fuels. Coal in particular causes damage at the mine site, and leaves a nasty pile of waste with heavy metals in it once burned.
So there’s no environmental impact to putting a sea of windmills and solar panels outside of large urban areas? I would argue the energy expended for extraction and transport is negligible to what we get out of it. If it wasn’t it wouldn’t be so hard to replace despite whatever lobbying occurs by big oil. And developing countries looking to better their lives with cheap energy available to them. Do we tell them they should use more expensive sources because polar bears will go extinct or there’s fewer walleyes in the Minocqua chain? Making renewables a viable alternative has been a very steep mountain to climb. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4269
Location: Ashland WI | By and large, cheap (relatively) fossil fuel energy sources have done far more good (to the average standard of living) than bad.
Many people want to ignore that for some reason. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
| 14ledo81 - 9/18/2020 7:45 AM
esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago ) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
It is important to understand that climate is not individual weather events based upon a certain number of elevated temperatures. Rather it is the increase in the average temperature over 30 year intervals. There may have been a whole lot of days in the 40's and 50's that were up in the 90s and 100s, but you need to look at the average temperature over the whole year, and how its changed over longer time spans. If every day is only 1-2 degrees warmer then that will have a much greater effect on the average yearly temperature than 11 days of super hot weather. Not only that, but Chicago is one location. To make a proper comparison you need to look at a much larger regions.
The science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is very well developed. The way those molecules are held together make them absorb more heat. If more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere they hold onto more heat for longer periods of time.
Those of us here in the United States and southern Canada may not see too much of a temperature change, but those further north (like in the story about Alaska) will definitely see a difference.
Earth's climate has had incredible climactic swings over its 4.5 billion year existence. From being much hotter (palm trees in the arctic kind of warm), to being so darn cold the Earth was literally a giant ice ball. The concerning fact about what we see in our current warming is more than just seeing the temperatures rise, but also how fast they are rising. No organism can keep up with these temperature increases. The cause of those previous climate changes have been due to variance in Earth's orbit and tilt or some kind of catastrophic, long lasting volcanic eruption. Both of these take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and we do not see any evidence of them occurring now, or in the very recent past (relevant time scales we are concerned with).
That's my 2 cents on the issue.
We are running out of economically viable fossil fuel sources as well. So from an economics standpoint nuclear should be used as an interim energy option until fully renewable resources are able to be deployed effectively at massive scale.
I guess you got 4 cents out of me in this post 
Edited by Rob C 9/18/2020 10:57 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Rob C - 9/18/2020 10:31 AM
14ledo81 - 9/18/2020 7:45 AM
esoxaddict - 9/17/2020 2:28 PM
ToddM - 9/17/2020 10:26 AM
[...]
Funny when I was a kid in fibland winter had long periods of snow on the ground and there was always a white Christmas. Not anymore.
It's hard not to believe in climate change when you've been around long enough to see it for yourself.
What if you were old enough to remember the heat waves (in Chicago ) of the 40's and 50's? Practically an ice age today...
It is important to understand that climate is not individual weather events based upon a certain number of elevated temperatures. Rather it is the increase in the average temperature over 30 year intervals. There may have been a whole lot of days in the 40's and 50's that were up in the 90s and 100s, but you need to look at the average temperature over the whole year, and how its changed over longer time spans. If every day is only 1-2 degrees warmer then that will have a much greater effect on the average yearly temperature than 11 days of super hot weather. Not only that, but Chicago is one location. To make a proper comparison you need to look at a much larger regions.
The science behind how CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is very well developed. The way those molecules are held together make them absorb more heat. If more greenhouse gases are put into the atmosphere they hold onto more heat for longer periods of time.
Those of us here in the United States and southern Canada may not see too much of a temperature change, but those further north (like in the story about Alaska ) will definitely see a difference.
Earth's climate has had incredible climactic swings over its 4.5 billion year existence. From being much hotter (palm trees in the arctic kind of warm ), to being so darn cold the Earth was literally a giant ice ball. The concerning fact about what we see in our current warming is more than just seeing the temperatures rise, but also how fast they are rising. No organism can keep up with these temperature increases. The cause of those previous climate changes have been due to variance in Earth's tilt or some kind of catastrophic, long lasting volcanic eruption. Both of these take thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, and we do not see any evidence of them occurring now, or in the very recent past (relevant time scales we are concerned with ).
That's my 2 cents on the issue.
We are running out of economically viable fossil fuel sources as well. So from an economics standpoint nuclear should be used as an interim energy option until fully renewable resources are able to be deployed effectively at massive scale.
I guess you got 4 cents out of me in this post :- )
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) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
|
"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.
Edited by Rob C 9/18/2020 11:18 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| Rob C
Thank you for your 4 cents worth because that is what I wanted to write. No where in time as the temperatures changed so quickly. What took thousands of years is taking tens of years. |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
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.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 554
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
|
|
| |
|
| 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
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 52
| 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. |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
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... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| 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? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
| 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
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1398
Location: Brighton CO. | 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
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
|
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
| Lotw in early July was 80 degrees as well. I haven't saw the water that warm before. |
|
| |
|
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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 489
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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| 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 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 267
| 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. If you look at this site:
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?). |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 489
Location: Northern Illinois | Smell_Esox - 9/29/2020 12:55 PM
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. If you look at this site:
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. |
|
| |
|
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
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 358
| 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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 489
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. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1279
| 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. |
|
| |
