"There Will Be No Trout East of the Mississippi in 90 years"

Ok, so the west will just have to share.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
But to suggest plants will thrive due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is probably misplaced. All else being equal, it does help a little bit.
Click to expand...

Don't tell that to NASA. Here's a prediction that suggests plants will do so well, they'll actually slow global warming!

Another from Columbia U. suggests higher CO2 levels will make plants grow so fast that weeds are more apt to take advantage first and will flourish over crop growth.

LOL... Indeed, nobody really knows what's going on!
Click to expand...
 
so polar vortex in winter, rebounding hatches and waters, and record rainfalls in late June. their conclusion no trout will be around in 90 years. im glad ive taken my chances not paying taxes, screw these morons
 
I always like to think something between doing nothing and following the we're all gonna die crowd is the best course of action. Moderation doesn't make good news for CNN or Fox.
 
I find it amusing that we think we can control the climate. The climate has been changing forever, and will continue to. I am still trying to figure out how mankind's evil energy consumption and divine intervention and climate control started and ended the last ice age. I also find it amusing that the predictions of the disasters and consequences have changed to long after everyone debating it will be dead. That way the claim can never be debunked, not in our lifetime anyway. Global warming was the battle cry until we saw avg temps drop, then it became climate change. They can't have that when they are trying to get politicians to pass money from our pockets into theirs to fund their next study. Any climate change "solution" proposed by politicians is going to be tax and spend massive amounts of other peoples money, US taxpayers being at the front of the list while the rest of the world continues to polluting at will. I'm not buying it. When I stop catching wild trout in freestones where they aren't supposed to exist, I will start worrying.
 
Reeder I couldn't have said it better or probably not as well but you summed up my feelings perfectly. Anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen 90 years from now is a fool, not to mention even 10 or 20 years from now.
 
Climate change is real and is influenced by anthropogenic means, the biggest worry is about rate of change and that scary area under the slope.i think we would have to consider many systems that would be impacted by a change even tiny at 2 Celsius, not just creek systems. Even in a creek small temp changes can greatly impact DO
 
"And if man-made global warming is real, atmospheric as well as surface temperatures should have increased steadily. But they haven't. There was merely that one-time increase, possibly caused by a solar anomaly. In addition, an "urban heat island effect" has been identified.@
A great indicator of year round average temps in certain areas of PA are our spring creeks as previously mentioned. They have been relatively stable for many years without much fluctuation more than a degree or two.
 
Amen Reeder.....can I still say that?

If you were around in the seventies you can probably remember that the nitwits in academia assured us we would be experiencing an ice age at this very point in time.
 
ryanh wrote:
I find it hard to believe that climate change will alter the water temp in true lime stone streams.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article, but got to the second post and saw this. NICE! Short and to the point.

I read somewhere that the temperature of springs equate to the average air temperature. It's basically the temperature of the rocks and soil several feet under ground which doesn't fluctuate either.

So, if a Spring is a constant 55F now, and the average temperature of goes up by 4 degrees C, the temperature of the spring will increase to about 59C.

If average temperature increases that much, we won't see trout in Georgia anymore.
 
MKern wrote:
Did you know that air only absorbs 1% of carbon dioxide, while in comparison the land absorbs 6% and the ocean 93%.

So while that air might raise a degree or two, the land and the oceans raise several. This is why droughts and storms are more intense.

Some of you can't see the forest through the trees....well you might not be able to see either soon.

I suggest you check out MinuteEarth on Youtube.
Click to expand...

To put it simple, your rationale is wrong, therefore i will not visit MinuteEarth if that is where you got that info.

Carbon absorbed into the land is called sequestering and is a good thing. It does not raise temperatures.

Carbon absorbed by the oceans does make them more acidic which isn't a good thing. But that in itself does not raise temperatures, either.

The 1% into the air likely raised temperatures. That is why it is called a greenhouse gas. And that in turn is what heats the oceans and the land.

So basically it's those damn 1%ers again.

I hate it when people use accurate info to try to prove something unrelated.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
They do both. They take it in during the day since it is part of the photosynthesis process. They excrete it at night. If I remember my grade school science right, I believe the nightly excretion is relatively minimal compared to the intake.
Click to expand...

Of course, this is correct (as is huntfish's comment).

But, in the end, plants are net CO2 consumers, oxygen producers. We learn this in what, 3rd grade science? More plants = less CO2 and more oxygen.

So, of course, Jack is VERY wrong.

But to suggest plants will thrive due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is probably misplaced.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. One could argue that higher CO2 helps plant growth quite a bit. That is unless you are a denier.

Causes warming?
Warming means longer growing season?
Some argue that warming means more rain?
More rain means more plant growth?

Last one is debatable. Some theories say warmer would ultimately be drier, but I tend to think positive.;-)

Consider yourself pcrayed. :lol:
 
I have a simple question.

Do ya'll who think we have no impact on our changing climate through our actions also believe that we then have no impact at all on this planet which we all share and inhabit?
 
Tomitrout, that is an interesting question.....I think some of the climate problems that we have could be caused by humans. I also believe that if it really were that big of an issue, We would have all airlines shut down for say 1 day a month. We would replace black asphalt with something that does not radiate the heat long after the sun goes down. And of course rebuilding of our forestry would help. Air conditioners would be replaced, and Moscow would stop seeding the skys during their winter.

Have you ever noticed that while they say the North pole is shrinking - there is no mention of what is going on at the South pole? Or why was the term "Global Warming" changed to "Climate Change"? Alot of BS things are created just to stimulate the workforce and economy.

I also believe that everything goes in cycles whether it be a 4, or 8 year depending on who we elect and re-elect for president and how congress steers the BS enough to get the man in charge to sign off on it. Let's hope the next one (man or woman) in charge is not so gullable.
 
All eastern trout streams gone in 100 years? I dont know about that. To answer a previous comment though, I believe they changed the headline from "global warming" to "climate change" because global warming simply isn't a good all encompassing word for what's happending with our climate. It's not just warmer temperatures, it's rather an evolution of our climate that results in more volatile and extreme weather. This isn't my opinion, this is the general consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists. I have no idea why some people think they know more about our climate than those who spend their entire life studying it. It's like a general construction worker saying that he knows more about building bridges than a structural engineer, or me telling a mathematician that I understand calculus better than he does. There's so much misinformation that gets fed to us by folks that have a vested interest in denying climate change.
Overall, I don't think even our best climate scientists know how climate change is going to play out exactly, its a function with too many variables to keep track of, but I think they understand the big picture of what's going on with our climate and how it is evolving better than we do.
 
Well, yeah there won't be nae trout n the cricks cuz Peeyae will quit stawkin em. Other states'll run outta money too.

PS: trout don't eat nae bugs nither
 
Its Junk articles like this that turn the Climate debate into a mockery.
 
The more volatile and "extreme" weather argument is a bit overblown, in my opinion. What new volatile weather phenomenon have we experienced that hasn't been going on since before mankind existed? We have only been accurately recording weather and climate for a tiny sliver of time in relationship to the estimated age of planet. Consensus among some about theories of the future based on theories about the past isn't settled science. The idea of unproven theory being undeniable, settled science is contrary to everything the scientific community is supposed to stand for. It doesn't take a scientist to sense the urgency of the climate control scientists and politicians taking aim at my wallet. At the root of all suggestions and solutions for fighting climate change you will find government seizing more money, and more control of our lives.
 
At the root of all suggestions and solutions for fighting climate change you will find government seizing more money, and more control of our lives.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Not necessarily. One could argue that higher CO2 helps plant growth quite a bit. That is unless you are a denier.

Causes warming?
Warming means longer growing season?
Some argue that warming means more rain?
More rain means more plant growth?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Indirect effects can be fairly major. But he was talking about direct effects of CO2 concentrations on plants.

And to be clear, overall, yes, even without the indirect climate factors, raising CO2 does directly increase plant output (the same way that increasing oxygen makes humans more active). But to use a point zero whatever % increase in atmospheric CO2 to predict effectively more stream shading is missing the forest for the trees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top