Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?
 
Message Subject: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?
Kirby Budrow
Posted 5/9/2023 11:40 AM (#1020586 - in reply to #1020585)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 2255


Location: Chisholm, MN
North of 8 - 5/9/2023 9:52 AM

In the USA, we are seeing a decline in the average life expectancy. Short term, COVID had an impact but the life style of the average citizen has more impact long term. About 20 years ago I attended a Wellness seminar where the featured speaker said the nation was looking at an epidemic of Type II diabetes if we did not change our diet and exercise habits. He was right. For over 30 years I bought health insurance for my employer, along with senior management. Starting a little over 10 years ago, the number one drug being paid for was for diabetes. The agent said that was common among his many clients. The insurance provider said the same thing and offered a number of different incentives to participants if they would just get a wellness check, complete a health screen, etc. Didn't have much of an impact.
As a nation, our life choices are costing a fortune in medical costs and shorter life spans. Instead of the plague or some other health catastrophe, we will thin the herd
with sugar, greasy food and sitting on the couch.


Definitely true! Fortunately gym memberships and organic eating is on the rise but probably not enough yet.
esoxaddict
Posted 5/9/2023 11:51 AM (#1020587 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 8703


I was kind of shocked to find out that the military has fat camps for recruits... There were a handful of guys I knew when I was young enough to enlist who might have qualified for fat camp, maybe 2 or three. Today? Wow.
CincySkeez
Posted 5/9/2023 12:48 PM (#1020588 - in reply to #1020587)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 584


Location: Duluth
the 15 years I've been musky fishing it has changed so dang much. As long as the type of people I meet in this sport doesn't change then I don't care where it heads honestly. I like catching trout more, certainly like the places trout fishing brings me more, but nothing compares to the people I have met musky fishing.
gimruis
Posted 5/9/2023 3:33 PM (#1020590 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 100


In 100 years I think muskie (and walleye and trout) populations will have shifted significantly further north than they are now.
North of 8
Posted 5/9/2023 3:48 PM (#1020591 - in reply to #1020587)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




esoxaddict - 5/9/2023 11:51 AM

I was kind of shocked to find out that the military has fat camps for recruits... There were a handful of guys I knew when I was young enough to enlist who might have qualified for fat camp, maybe 2 or three. Today? Wow.


Back when I was in the Army and the draft was still in place, there were folks that deliberately ate their way out of the draft. It was rumored that the reason the GOP passed on former Mich. Governor John Engler for George W.'s VP was that he had a large, sudden weight gain when he graduated from college and lost his student deferment. We had a guy in my basic training company from the hills of Kentucky that tried to eat his way out of the draft but fell a couple pounds short. Basic was a living h*** for him. Then he tried to go AWOL and failed at that. His whole platoon was punished for not stopping him and his life got even worse. Then, because he couldn't pass the preliminary PT tests, he got rolled back three weeks. Another three weeks of basic. One of the guys in my platoon, also from Kentucky, worried that the guy might kill himself at the rifle range.
7.62xJay
Posted 5/9/2023 6:40 PM (#1020593 - in reply to #1020591)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 466


Location: NW WI
North of 8 - 5/9/2023 3:48 PM

esoxaddict - 5/9/2023 11:51 AM

I was kind of shocked to find out that the military has fat camps for recruits... There were a handful of guys I knew when I was young enough to enlist who might have qualified for fat camp, maybe 2 or three. Today? Wow.


Back when I was in the Army and the draft was still in place, there were folks that deliberately ate their way out of the draft. It was rumored that the reason the GOP passed on former Mich. Governor John Engler for George W.'s VP was that he had a large, sudden weight gain when he graduated from college and lost his student deferment. We had a guy in my basic training company from the hills of Kentucky that tried to eat his way out of the draft but fell a couple pounds short. Basic was a living h*** for him. Then he tried to go AWOL and failed at that. His whole platoon was punished for not stopping him and his life got even worse. Then, because he couldn't pass the preliminary PT tests, he got rolled back three weeks. Another three weeks of basic. One of the guys in my platoon, also from Kentucky, worried that the guy might kill himself at the rifle range.


Was the Gentleman's name "Gomer Pyle"?
North of 8
Posted 5/9/2023 7:49 PM (#1020597 - in reply to #1020593)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




7.62xJay - 5/9/2023 6:40 PM

North of 8 - 5/9/2023 3:48 PM

esoxaddict - 5/9/2023 11:51 AM

I was kind of shocked to find out that the military has fat camps for recruits... There were a handful of guys I knew when I was young enough to enlist who might have qualified for fat camp, maybe 2 or three. Today? Wow.


Back when I was in the Army and the draft was still in place, there were folks that deliberately ate their way out of the draft. It was rumored that the reason the GOP passed on former Mich. Governor John Engler for George W.'s VP was that he had a large, sudden weight gain when he graduated from college and lost his student deferment. We had a guy in my basic training company from the hills of Kentucky that tried to eat his way out of the draft but fell a couple pounds short. Basic was a living h*** for him. Then he tried to go AWOL and failed at that. His whole platoon was punished for not stopping him and his life got even worse. Then, because he couldn't pass the preliminary PT tests, he got rolled back three weeks. Another three weeks of basic. One of the guys in my platoon, also from Kentucky, worried that the guy might kill himself at the rifle range.


Was the Gentleman's name "Gomer Pyle"?

No, Gomer was a brilliant athlete compared to this sad case.
RobertK
Posted 5/10/2023 3:14 PM (#1020618 - in reply to #1020580)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 119


Location: Twin Cities Metro
TCESOX - 5/8/2023 3:42 PM

All of our social shortcomings are secondary, or tertiary, The crux of the biscuit, as they say, is that their are way, way, way, too many people on the planet. We are outstripping our environment. We can't possibly maintain the current population, based on the current consumption of our resources. Add to that, the population is growing exponentially. If you know anything about zoology, whenever a species overpopulates their environment, and there is nothing to keep the population in check, there will be a major crash, in that population. There can be many ways that crash can manifest, but it will happen. The best we can do, with cooperation, is put off the inevitable. Could happen in less than a hundred years. Probably between a hundred and 500. In 500 years, if anyone is catching muskie, they are doing it for food.


What resources do you think we're short of? Let's consider...

Food. We've got enough for everyone. Farmers are extremely efficient. The issue is the distribution system, but that's a problem that can be solved with sufficient will.

Water. Plenty of water overall. If freshwater is problematic, there's always desalinization of the oceans. Right now it would be very expensive because it takes a lot of resources to accomplish it compared to just pumping clear water out of the ground.

Energy. Every square meter of the Earth is receiving about 1.44 kW of power from the sun (a bed sheet is about two square meters of area). In fact, all fossil fuels are essentially stored solar energy (the ancient plants that make up most of the fossil fuels we drill/mine used energy from the sun to grow in the first place, after all). Wind is also solar in origin (what drives the motion of the atmosphere?). Nuclear and geothermal (which is also nuclear in origin since the Earth's internal temperature is maintained from radioactivity) are the few sources that are actually terrestrial in origin. Energy may be more expensive to produce in the future, but that is no lack of energy on or in our planet.

Technology and innovation tend to overcome limited resources. I'm sure the city managers of the 1890's were very concerned about how to deal with the horse poop that was piling up in urban areas from people traveling around in buggies drawn by horses. Then the automobile arrived along with mass transit (the London Underground was opened in the 1860's and was electrified by the 1890's) and the horse poop problem disappeared overnight. Very quickly, the need for resources like horse forage and people to sweep streets clean of horse poop were replaced by the need for smooth roads and petroleum to fuel the automobiles.

We see the same thing happening now. The power plants of more advanced automobiles require things like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese rather than gasoline. And once those resources become more scarce, a market will be created for recycling those resources (which don't just burn up with the remnants ending up in the atmosphere like petroleum products). And we'll likely be on to something better soon after.

So in the end, it is our ability to innovate that will make these more basic resources needs secondary (or even tertiary). Since innovation tends to arise and thrive where societies are free/open and educational systems are good, I think our basic social shortcomings are front and center. Not least because it is really hard to turn the ship once a society gets off track; trust can take generations to build while taking only a few years to wreck. We really are all in this together, and I think we ought to act like it.

Cheers!


Edited by RobertK 5/10/2023 3:19 PM
TCESOX
Posted 5/10/2023 4:23 PM (#1020622 - in reply to #1020618)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 1168


RobertK - 5/10/2023 3:14 PM

TCESOX - 5/8/2023 3:42 PM

All of our social shortcomings are secondary, or tertiary, The crux of the biscuit, as they say, is that their are way, way, way, too many people on the planet. We are outstripping our environment. We can't possibly maintain the current population, based on the current consumption of our resources. Add to that, the population is growing exponentially. If you know anything about zoology, whenever a species overpopulates their environment, and there is nothing to keep the population in check, there will be a major crash, in that population. There can be many ways that crash can manifest, but it will happen. The best we can do, with cooperation, is put off the inevitable. Could happen in less than a hundred years. Probably between a hundred and 500. In 500 years, if anyone is catching muskie, they are doing it for food.


What resources do you think we're short of? Let's consider...

Food. We've got enough for everyone. Farmers are extremely efficient. The issue is the distribution system, but that's a problem that can be solved with sufficient will.

Water. Plenty of water overall. If freshwater is problematic, there's always desalinization of the oceans. Right now it would be very expensive because it takes a lot of resources to accomplish it compared to just pumping clear water out of the ground.

Energy. Every square meter of the Earth is receiving about 1.44 kW of power from the sun (a bed sheet is about two square meters of area). In fact, all fossil fuels are essentially stored solar energy (the ancient plants that make up most of the fossil fuels we drill/mine used energy from the sun to grow in the first place, after all). Wind is also solar in origin (what drives the motion of the atmosphere?). Nuclear and geothermal (which is also nuclear in origin since the Earth's internal temperature is maintained from radioactivity) are the few sources that are actually terrestrial in origin. Energy may be more expensive to produce in the future, but that is no lack of energy on or in our planet.

Technology and innovation tend to overcome limited resources. I'm sure the city managers of the 1890's were very concerned about how to deal with the horse poop that was piling up in urban areas from people traveling around in buggies drawn by horses. Then the automobile arrived along with mass transit (the London Underground was opened in the 1860's and was electrified by the 1890's) and the horse poop problem disappeared overnight. Very quickly, the need for resources like horse forage and people to sweep streets clean of horse poop were replaced by the need for smooth roads and petroleum to fuel the automobiles.

We see the same thing happening now. The power plants of more advanced automobiles require things like lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese rather than gasoline. And once those resources become more scarce, a market will be created for recycling those resources (which don't just burn up with the remnants ending up in the atmosphere like petroleum products). And we'll likely be on to something better soon after.

So in the end, it is our ability to innovate that will make these more basic resources needs secondary (or even tertiary). Since innovation tends to arise and thrive where societies are free/open and educational systems are good, I think our basic social shortcomings are front and center. Not least because it is really hard to turn the ship once a society gets off track; trust can take generations to build while taking only a few years to wreck. We really are all in this together, and I think we ought to act like it.

Cheers!


Personally, I am taking your approach. I want to live positively. Why be miserable about something you have very little control over. The good won't come, if we don't live like we expect it. However, if I were a betting man, I would put my money the other way, due to our inability to cooperate, thus hindering the much needed technological advancements, without which, we will outstrip our resources, and ruin our own environment.
kdawg
Posted 5/10/2023 4:59 PM (#1020623 - in reply to #1020597)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 727


North of 8, have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket? Stanley Kubrik classic. Jelly donut, that's your guy from Kentucky. Kdawg
North of 8
Posted 5/10/2023 6:10 PM (#1020624 - in reply to #1020623)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




kdawg - 5/10/2023 4:59 PM

North of 8, have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket? Stanley Kubrik classic. Jelly donut, that's your guy from Kentucky. Kdawg


Yes, I have seen the movie and this guy was in far worse shape and dumber than a box of rocks besides. He could not do one good form push up and when he tried to do pushups in front of the company, the Senior DI said it looked like he was humping a pumpkin and by gosh, it did.
Ranger
Posted 5/10/2023 7:10 PM (#1020625 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 3765


"So in the end, it is our ability to innovate that will make these more basic resources needs secondary (or even tertiary). Since innovation tends to arise and thrive where societies are free/open and educational systems are good, I think our basic social shortcomings are front and center. Not least because it is really hard to turn the ship once a society gets off track; trust can take generations to build while taking only a few years to wreck. We really are all in this together, and I think we ought to act like it."

And the politicians throwing stones
So the kids, they dance, they shake their bones
'Cause it's all too clear we're on our own
Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down
Ashes, ashes all fall down*

A Bobby Song


*a reference to the firebombing and resulting firestorm, by allied forces, of Dresden Germany, 2/13-15/1945, that killed 25,000, mostly civilians including POWs.
miket55
Posted 5/10/2023 9:32 PM (#1020626 - in reply to #1020624)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 1191


Location: E. Tenn
North of 8 - 5/10/2023 7:10 PM

kdawg - 5/10/2023 4:59 PM

North of 8, have you seen the movie Full Metal Jacket? Stanley Kubrik classic. Jelly donut, that's your guy from Kentucky. Kdawg


Yes, I have seen the movie and this guy was in far worse shape and dumber than a box of rocks besides. He could not do one good form push up and when he tried to do pushups in front of the company, the Senior DI said it looked like he was humping a pumpkin and by gosh, it did.


That guy was given the nickname "Private Pyle", by Gny. Sgt. Hartman..
chuckski
Posted 5/11/2023 10:22 AM (#1020636 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 1152


A few things here
1.There are people who think global is a hoax.
We have to see the problem then take the steps to fix it. (just a few short years ago if we brought up "global warming" we would be friendless, tared and feathered and banned for life.
2. This is a complexed problem with no easy fix. And I hate to say it but by the time we have a solution it may be too late.
We going to this and that by 2050, The Cow out of the barn and little late to shut the door.
We owe it to the next generations of people to keep trying but too little too late. I hope I'm wrong!
walleyejoe
Posted 5/11/2023 9:04 PM (#1020662 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 42


There seems to be a lot of belief in global warming, now I'm sure everyone here is well intentioned, but what is being pushed is a hoax. The hoax is that we are responsible for the planet heating up. I will admit the planet has warmed a little recently, but its part of the natural cycle, holocene temperatures have been far higher in the past than they are now, and muskies are still around, and regardless of what the "experts" say, they have no real idea what is going to happen in the future.

Tim
Rob C
Posted 5/11/2023 11:01 PM (#1020663 - in reply to #1020662)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 59


walleyejoe - 5/11/2023 9:04 PM

There seems to be a lot of belief in global warming, now I'm sure everyone here is well intentioned, but what is being pushed is a hoax. The hoax is that we are responsible for the planet heating up. I will admit the planet has warmed a little recently, but its part of the natural cycle, holocene temperatures have been far higher in the past than they are now, and muskies are still around, and regardless of what the "experts" say, they have no real idea what is going to happen in the future.

Tim


While muskies have been around, and will stay around despite increasing temperatures its important to get the facts straight regarding the climate. We can use geology with some math, chemistry,, and physics to understand how the climate has changed, and how it will change in the future:

1. Yes, temperatures during the holocene have been higher, and part of a cycle. The holocene climactic optimum was most likely a result of a feedback between glacial ice loss and milankovich cycles (orbital cycle involving Earth's tilt amongst other things). However, the Earth's current position in the milankovich cycle should be bringing us toward colder global temperatures, yet we are consistently recording the opposite case (annual temperatures increasing).

2. The only time in Earth's history that has seen a climate change like the current climate change was the Paleocene - Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). During the PETM global temperatures increased 5 - 8 degrees celcius, and this change occurred over a minimum of 20,000 years likely as a result of massive volcanic eruptions and positive feedback loops. Our current climate change is expected to reach 8 degrees celcius within 200 years under a business as usual emissions scenario, with no volcanic eruptions at a scale necessary for this rapid warming (see point 3).

3. If you look at all possible environmental inputs for global temperatures the only leading cause of the current temperature anomalies are anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Historical solar irradiance variations are not large to impact temperatures nor are recent historic changes in volcanic gas emissions. Simply, the massive amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by human causes and the physics of how these greenhouse gasses trap heat are to blame.

4. Climate modeling is not weather modeling. Climate models are very robust, and while they cannot account for every physical phenomena in the atmosphere they do a good enough job to pick out general climate patterns to make conclusions. These climate models don't look at atmospheric conditions at a daily or even monthly resolution, rather, these models look at seasonal conditions. These climate models are verified by inputting data from decades ago and running them into the future to see what the model output is (ie. Data from 1950 used to predict 2023). The verification process finds that while models differ in exact solutions, they usually converge on a general solution. These models universally agree that the future of our climate is warmer conditions.

5. We can look at oxygen isotope excursions to understand the temperatures of regions on Earth in the past under different known atmospheric conditions (pretty cool ice core stuff with ancient air bubbles from Greenland, Antarctica, and other places). We can conpare this information against our current atmosphere to see how temperatures will change in the future under changing ammounts of greenhouse gasses.

6. Lots more evidence. I can send you articles (not created by a generative AI bot) if you wish.

Really, pretty much all the evidence for human caused climate change is the result from some basic science and applying common sense to the results. Most of the small percentage of scientists that don't agree with the climate change consensus have been found time and again to be funded by special interests groups whose continued existence relies on a false narrative that climate change is a hoax, or not a problem. To these groups, the actions necessary to halt climate change would put an existential threat on their bottom line. These groups often use the same marketing and litigation tactics employed by the tobacco companies back in the day when that industry was threatened (don't disprove the expert, just cause the public to doubt the expert). Unfortunately, this tactic has proven to work so well that climate change has become a heated political topic. While the solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change may very well be political, the existence and cause of climate change should be no more political than the mosquitos at the boat ramp.

- Quaternary geologist and one of the "experts"

Edited for clarity

Edited by Rob C 5/12/2023 12:07 AM
North of 8
Posted 5/12/2023 7:03 AM (#1020666 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




"Scientists working for Exxon between 1977 and 2003 accurately forecasted the rate at which global average temperatures would rise as a result of carbon emissions, correctly predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable by around 2000 and reasonably estimated how much carbon dioxide would lead to dangerous warming, according to the study."

Exxon disagrees with you Walleyejoe.
walleyejoe
Posted 5/13/2023 12:02 PM (#1020699 - in reply to #1020663)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 42


Well, maybe you can answer some questions.

1) CO2 levels are supposed to have risen from around 300 PPM to 420PPM in the last 170 or so years. According to the IPCC (definitely not interest group funded) CO2 in the atmosphere comes from 3 sources - the oceans, continental land masses, and humanity. Humanities contribution to atmospheric CO2 is between 3 and 5 percent of the total. Removing our 6 PPM contribution to the 120PPM increase would drop the current CO2 level to 414 PPM. How is that even meaningful? 95% of the increase is happening without us, and is going to continue, even if our contribution drops to zero.

2) You mentioned Greenland ice cores, I've included a graph of holocene temperature records from those ice cores, the idea that what we're seeing now is unprecedented, well, does it look unprecedented?

3) Looking at possible causes for today's temp rise, you say that greenhouse gases are the only viable reason. I've included a graph of holocene greenhouse gases and temperatures, the history doesn't back that up. Is today's convergence truly cause and effect or a coincidence?

4) Is the current temp rise truly legitimate? For example, a lot of US weather recording stations do not appear to be code. Another problem is NOAA "adjusting" historical temperatures down, and how many recent US Climatology Network station reportings are missing and just filled in with estimated (always higher) readings? There's also the University of Alabama Huntsville, which tracks global weather using satellites, no adjustments or estimates, no iffy weather stations. They have been tracking temps since 1978, and if I've got it right, they show a warming trend less than half what the IPCC claims, also their latest report shows that there has been no warming for the the past 8 years and 11 months.

5) We just came out of the Little Ice Age, how did CO2 cause that? And if you ignored that anomoly, what would our current rate of temp rise look like?


Is the planet truly warming? Maybe, but it's not like it hasn't happened before, and it's a little too convenient to say it's all our fault and we can fix it, but, we'll have to destroy western civilization in the process, sorry. You're skeptical of the deniers, OK, maybe some of that is legitimate, but do you think maybe I'm justified in skepticism of the promoters? Climategate? Michael Mann refusing to share the date used in the creation of his "hockey stick"? I'm sorry, I think too many people are pretending to have solutions to problems they have made up.

Tim


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(co2 data.png)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(holocene temp.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(holocene co2.png)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments co2 data.png (52KB - 30 downloads)
Attachments holocene temp.jpg (41KB - 21 downloads)
Attachments holocene co2.png (68KB - 22 downloads)
Angling Oracle
Posted 5/13/2023 3:45 PM (#1020702 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 284


Location: Selkirk, Manitoba
**

Edited by Angling Oracle 5/13/2023 3:50 PM
Angling Oracle
Posted 5/13/2023 3:48 PM (#1020703 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 284


Location: Selkirk, Manitoba
Hoax - says the frog as it sits in a pot of water rising to a boil.

The healthy "living' earth itself DID have an ability to recover some of the gases with forests (esp rain forests), deep-rooted tall grass prairies, savannahs, healthy oceans, lakes, marshes, deltas and rivers with normal ecosystems, and of particular significance peat moss bogs, muskegs and permafrost tundra. We have f-d up a lot of that by draining, channeling, damming, dredging, harvesting, cutting and cultivating. A few more degrees and the muskegs and peat moss will dry up, and permafrost will melt and drain - then a lot of those carbon and nitrogen sinks that were fireproof, fire retardant or locked up in ice will be released into the atmosphere or go up in smoke - when they do, life will go on, but civilization that we are accustomed to won't after that.

Won't be 500 years before this happens, may even be less than 100 years. Up here every year we have massive unprecedented fires. Right now Alberta (again). A lot to do with the mountain pine beetle killing trees and creating fuel for these massive fires - was too cold for it up here at one time with the length of winter - not anymore.

Muskies can pretty well go where they want north or west now - if not for pike being in their way.

Edited by Angling Oracle 5/13/2023 4:16 PM
Ranger
Posted 5/13/2023 4:17 PM (#1020704 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 3765


"..... it's a little too convenient to say it's all our fault and we can fix it, but, we'll have to destroy western civilization in the process, sorry."

Nobody is saying "its all our fault". Nobody is saying "we can fix it". And no****ingbody except far-right idiots are saying (mostly to each other) that we'll "destroy western civilization in the process" of trying to reduce pollution to slow the rate of increase in global temperatures.

In cosmic time people have been on this planet for half-way thru a wink. Our species will be extinct by the time the wink is complete. The thousands of various religions offer no solution, yours included. Those are just myths, good stories that offer some hope and terrific opportunities to fleece ignorant people of their wealth.

People have an opportunity to use our smarts/technology to base decisions on the value of being a steward of the environment within which we live. But too many people are "willfully ignorant"; they've been convinced to ignore truth and support "alternative facts". Many far extreme Trumpers believe subterrain reptile aliens travel the globe in tunnels and Joe Biden is an alien who eats babies. Who is selling these ideas to these stupid people and why?
walleyejoe
Posted 5/13/2023 7:12 PM (#1020707 - in reply to #1020704)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 42


Sooooo, no reply to any of my questions, just a rant about "far right idiots", the obligatory MAGA/Trump reference and a shot at religion. That's quite the convincing argument, lefties really know how to engage people.

Well, I suppose I should have known better than to expect an intelligent discussion, so we'll just leave it at that.

Tim
Ranger
Posted 5/13/2023 7:34 PM (#1020708 - in reply to #1020707)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 3765


"Far right idiots" IS the answer to your questions. And I'm no "leftie"; I'm a responsible citizen of the universe and I behave accordingly. It's just fine that you don't understand.

Edited by Ranger 5/13/2023 7:36 PM
Rob C
Posted 5/13/2023 11:32 PM (#1020711 - in reply to #1020699)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 59


walleyejoe - 5/13/2023 12:02 PM

Well, maybe you can answer some questions.

...

Tim


My attempt at an intelligent discussion:

1. I can't seem to find the IPCC source for this figure, so if you could please provide this to me I would appreciate it. My first thought on this is that natural carbon sinks can remove approximately the same amount of carbon that is released into the atmosphere. If humans are emitting more carbon than these sinks can remove then that is how the greenhouse gas concentration is increasing at an unsustainable rate.

2. The graph is not clear what unit temperature is measured in. This is a small nit-picky thing, but anyone can make a graph to say anything. The graph is "professional" looking on the surface, it looks like this graph was completed hastily and intentionally made misleading making it not trustworthy. If you can send me the original article this graph was created for I will take a look at it. If I see that I am mistaken with my comment here then I will let you know.

3. The holocene temperature conundrum was solved in 2021. The paper authored by Bova et al and published in the Journal Nature titled "Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial" describes their finding in the abstract. You can look this up if you choose.

4. Only the last 50 - 60 years of temperature data followed along with geochemical data is needed to find that the climate is warming. Even without raw temperature data we can just use geochemistry to calculate temperatures. You can also use pollen analysis amongst other things to see how vegetation changes are occurring due to warming. As for the IPCC vs. UA Huntsville part I don't see the data you cite. Rather, the temperature data published by UA Huntsville shows that temperatures have increased every year since 2015. It gets a bit more complicated when you look further back in the data, and I don't have a clear cut answer for you as to why their data shows this.

5. Plenty of plausible reasons for coming out of the Little Ice Age. A simple wikipedia search on this ice age gives you plenty of these reasons. Some of these things are due to climate variation, but other things are anthropogenic.

The planet is warming, and yes it has happened before. Unfortunately, we may not be able to fix climate change depending upon if any unseen climate feedback loops have been initiated. We don't need to destroy western civilization to combat climate change, and in fact, I see it as a major opportunity for economic expansion; and no, petroleum products won't disappear since there are uses for it besides energy production. Climategate has been beaten to death, and many independent investigations of it have found there was no scientific misconduct or fraud. A few of these independent investigations have a serious interest in getting to the bottom of problems like climategate since they give out big money to researchers. If a researcher has been found to fake their results then it is in the interest of the investigators to get that money back since they are publicly funded. Michael Mann should follow open science initiatives and release all information about his graph if he has not done so. However, many scientists have replicated his results and published their data openly online for everyone to check out.

I think that yes, you should be skeptical of some of the promoters. One of my personal pet peeves is when researchers use the RCP 8.5 results for climate forecasts when communicating with the public. The RCP 8.5 is the climate model that uses the worst case greenhouse gas emissions scenario. The reality of climate change is that we will most likely see intermediate or "low level" climate change. Many of these same people exaggerate the effects of climate change, with some of these people even saying "We are destroying the Earth". The Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years and will be around for billions more. Pretty much anything humans have done so far and will be able to do in the near future are but a mere annoyance to the Earth, but I doubt the Earth can actually feel an annoyance or anything at all for that matter.

One last thing to add: Just because one person/group publishes some data and research results does not make the data and results correct. The data needs to be verified and the results replicated before any big conclusions are made. This goes for people both pushing climate change and those that deny its existence. I have seen claims from both groups that make me skeptical.

Edited by Rob C 5/13/2023 11:40 PM
esoxaddict
Posted 5/14/2023 12:03 PM (#1020715 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 8703


The bottom line with all of it is that we don't know how much CO2 and methane we can pump into the atmosphere before we reach the point of no return. We can move, we can adapt to warmer temperatures, rising seas, whatever you can think of. What we can't do is predict how a changing climate or pollution might cause the extinction of some microscopic organism that forms the basis of the food chain. We can't predict what man made changes in nature might offset the balance of what eats what that eats the things that eat what we feed our food. Yes, there is plenty of water, and we have ways to treat it to make it potable and (relatively) safe. But you're drinking birth control pills and eating plastic and PCBs and mercury and a host of other crap every day. One thing we've learned from history is that humans do have the power to wreck the environment, and to try to repair the damage. Best bet is to try not to wreck it in the first place so you don't have to clean it up after the river catches on fire. AGAIN.
walleyejoe
Posted 5/14/2023 4:55 PM (#1020721 - in reply to #1020711)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 42


Thanks for your reply. In response to the IPCC, I was unable to find their CO2 emission estimates, but I know it was buried in a 2019 report they published. The graph from UAH I inserted at the bottom of the page.

Now, you seem to be a smart guy, probably smarter than me. You know how this works, you respond to my questions with papers and graphs that support your point, and then I do the same, back and forth to no end. And honestly, long drawn out discussions are hard for me. But I will respond to one point you made.

You said the "holocene temp conundrum" was solved. Maybe I wasn't clear, my contention was that CO2 wasn't controlling the temp during the holocene the way the promoters say it does. The graph shows high temps and very low CO2 levels. Their point is that the warm periods in the graph below didn't exist, that it was actually colder then than it is now.

Like I said, you seem pretty intelligent, and you said you have skepticism of both sides, but you're not even a little skeptical of that paper?

1) You're not even a little curious why they ignored all available holocene temp proxies and traveled to Papua to dig up a core sample that showed no warming?
How many ice core samples showing warming did they disregard? Is that good science?

2) You don't find it suspicious that their sample came from an area right next to the equator, an area free from seasonal temp swings, remaining tropical even during glaciations?

I included some pictures below, I don't know how to post links, but if you'd like, I can give you addresses, though they should be easy to google up. The beetles were found in a bog in the UK, they are oak capricorn beetles, currently extinct in the UK because it is too cold for them. They were dated to 3750 years old, when it was colder, Live Science 2021. The other picture is self explanatory, Vikings growning barley, 1000 years ago, where it's too cold to grow barley today. No picture, but Independent.co.uk, a planet saving website, had an article 9/29/20 about a penguin graveyard. Adelie penguins, which can't currently live in the antarctic due to the climate being too cold, apparently had a colony on the Scott coast, between 800 and 5000 years ago. When it was supposed to be colder. Since the glaciers have retreated lately, lots of things have been uncovered that have been dated to the "cold holocene" period, stumps of trees, evidence of mining and agriculture, none of which could have happened if the climate was as cold as Bova and Rosenthal say.
And then you have all the temperature proxies showing a very warm early holocene.

So, if temperatures were really that warm, and CO2 levels were that low, where does that leave the theory that CO2 is the climate thermostat? Can you ignore all the contrary temperature proxies, and physical evidence above, in favor of one dubious sediment core sample?

One other thing, whenever a scientist questions the climate narrative, they're always on the fossil fuel payroll. How many truckloads of money have the US and Europe dumped, and plan on dumping, into green initiatives and industries, and the scientists that produce research supporting it? Remember Solyndra?

I hope the day finds you well and this gives you something to think about.

Tim

Some of the pictures I added aren't showing, I don't know what the problem is.

Edited by walleyejoe 5/14/2023 5:06 PM



Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(ax_beetles_for_upload.jpg.thumb.1160.1160.jpg)


Zoom - | Zoom 100% | Zoom + | Expand / Contract | Open New window
Click to expand / contract the width of this image
(c3headlines_Greenland_GISP2_ice_core_last_5K_years_Alley2000_6a010536b58035970c01310f4ff7a6970c_annot1.png)



Attachments
----------------
Attachments ax_beetles_for_upload.jpg.thumb.1160.1160.jpg (88KB - 22 downloads)
Attachments c3headlines_Greenland_GISP2_ice_core_last_5K_years_Alley2000_6a010536b58035970c01310f4ff7a6970c_annot1.png (186KB - 22 downloads)
Attachments tree-stump-climate-1612145775.4164 (1).webp (115KB - 22 downloads)
Attachments image-16 (1).webp (69KB - 25 downloads)
miket55
Posted 5/14/2023 8:30 PM (#1020726 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?




Posts: 1191


Location: E. Tenn
I move this thread be relegated to "The Basement"..
TCESOX
Posted 5/14/2023 9:53 PM (#1020729 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 1168


I appreciate the scientific part of this discussion, being in General. The rest is more basementy.
Kirby Budrow
Posted 5/15/2023 9:19 AM (#1020739 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 2255


Location: Chisholm, MN
UFFF!!! All these lists and graphs you guys are putting out are assuming the "scientists" know what they are doing. They don't. They're grad students, professors, interns collecting the data. I was one of them. The data is always manipulated to make it show what they want it to show and there are mistakes and intentional mistakes in collecting data. I know this from experience. All of it is BS. You read it in the news, or maybe even a real scientific journal and take it for fact but it is not. There is human error and assumptions that factor into. Some of is intentional, a lot of it is laziness of the intern collecting data., some of it is accidental. But it all skews the data.
sworrall
Posted 5/15/2023 9:28 AM (#1020740 - in reply to #1020458)
Subject: Re: Muskie Fishing in 100 and 500 Years?





Posts: 32761


Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin
So does politics. Apparently, a reminder is needed we don't do politics here. Social media, which this is in a literal sense, has already done enough damage.
Jump to page : 1 2 3 4
Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)