another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. gt

    gt Active Member

  2. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    I saw that in today's Seattle Times. Sure does make me wonder what the impact of a large 'dead' area off the coast of Oregon, SW Washington and northern California will be for anadromous fish.

  3. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    Saw that last night in the news.
    I don't think we will. With China in the gasoline race to the end of fossil fuels, they will be expanding their carbon foot prints while we may attempt to reduce ours. I think it's ironic that there are just enough fossil fuels to turn Earth into a venus like atmosphere, and then run out. When are we due to run out of fossil fuels? I guess at that point it may become profitable to find alternative energy resources.
  4. seanengman

    seanengman Trout have no politics

    Just like every other environmental issue, you cannot attribute the effects to just one cause. Over fishing in those areas is also a major part of the problem. Don't get me wrong, creating new sources of energy is going to make a major difference and is very important.
  5. Flyborg

    Flyborg Active Member

    Just curious, but how does coastal over-fishing create oxygen dead zones?
  6. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    Not being able to attribute the effects seems to be the catch phrase of the George W era. Either way, we are seeing the results of something on a daily basis. Nobody can deny that. Maybe we should call it global something. That way it would be sort of PC so that at least corporate folks could address the issue. But like I said, without a profit to the solution, nothing will be done.
  7. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Dead right Mattzoid. It used to be called 'global warming' before the Republican spinmasters softened it to the less-ominous 'climate change'.

    I saw representative Jay Inslee's talk at UW a few weeks back promoting his book 'Apollos' Fire' ( He makes a really compelling case for all the new technologies and businesses that are thirsty for federal R&D support and which could generate huge new industries and jobs to proper alternative energy sources.

    Instead, this administration's almost exclusive support of big oil and big coal as the energy sources of choice give the lie to the right's mantra of letting the markets determine business success. The old extraction industries are on life support thanks to W, Cheney, and their denier cronies.

  8. I suspect the dead zone off the coast has a similar ultimate cause to that in the Hood Canal, if not the same proximate cause - changes in dynamics of circulation that result in the depletion of oxygen in the water layer trapped near the ocean floor.

    As in the Hood Canal, this is likely to have little effect on the anadromous fish, which occupy the pelagic zone during their lives in the sea. That said, it is a symptom of serious problems in the oceans. The benthic zone (sea floor and lower layer where oxygen depletion is most likely to occur) is home to a greater diversity of (multicellular) marine life than is the pelagic zone. Halibut and other bottom dwelling fish are likely to be impacted.

  9. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    That's funny - I thought it was the Al Gore alarmists that were behind the change in terminology. Too many people were seeing more snow than usual, colder than average temps, etc etc and saying "warming my a$$!".
  10. creekx

    creekx spent spinner

    I understand you hate all things Republican, but that statement could not be further from the truth! The language shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' was perpetrated by the AGW side as a response to questions and data (like record cold in India right now) that points to cooling. Any and all weather patterns, real or imagined can be thrown under the umbrella of 'climate change'. You see, it's a catch-all that controls the language, making any debate much more difficult.
  11. MDL

    MDL We work to become, not to acquire.

    The more snow and crazy weather cycles are the effects of "Global Warming". The nay sayers will spin it to suit them. All one has to do is read the research and they will find that, the credible scientist, state the weather we are seeing is a direct result of 'Global Warming".
  12. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    I really don’t think it matters which party you say you’re affiliated with when neither side wants to piss off the big guns of business. None of the folks voted into office would be there if it weren’t for the corporate slim and lobbyists.
  13. David Prutsman

    David Prutsman All men are equal before fish

    IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! Okay, I'm in Antarctica helping support McMurdo Station for the purpose of science. I have discussed "global warming" with several of the worlds top researchers on the topic of climate change, which is what they call it....climate change because global warming is a catch prhase intended to cause global panic but more so because they can't prove human involvemnet. They are taking ice core samples which date back to over 20 thousand years and can extrapolate nothing decisive on the matter. Many of the researchers I've talked to do not yet believe there is enough data/proof to determine humans are the cause.

  14. snbrundage

    snbrundage Member

    The Seattle PI ran an article about deforestation on 2/2/08. They quoted UN scientists as saying that if we lose the forests we lose the warming fight. They also quote UN scientists as saying deforestation is going on at 32 million acres per year. The equivilant of half of Britain.

    It was interesting to me that they say the Northern forests are relatively stable and that the real deforestation is happening in Africa and South America.

    Tom Delay reported on tv last week, in an attack on McCain, that there is no human cause of global warming, period. Seems that a lot of people believe that.

    Well, since it is south of the equator it not our problem anyway.
  15. Jim Wallace

    Jim Wallace Smells like low tide

    Thanks for the link, gt.
    Remember the spring and early summer of 2006, we didn't get the usual amount of sustained stronger NW wind days here on the coast. Lots of light wind days. The surface water temp was more conducive to surfing, like it usually is late summer and fall.
    Finally, the NW winds kicked in, and the upwelling resumed. We need those NW winds to blow the surface water down and away from the WA coast to allow the upwelling.
    There were fewer baitfish around. No upwelling of nutrient rich cold water > fewer plankton > fewer baitfish. The food chain was interrupted from the botttom.
    Also, due to the warmer water,more Humboldt Squid showed up around here than I can remember. Earlier than usual, too. The Tuna came in closer than usual. For a short while some boats were catching them just a few miles outside of the Grays Harbor entrance.

    We think we're smarter than dinosaurs? We'll see.

    Last year the NW winds kicked in early again. We are still experiencing La Nina conditions and surface water temps 1 or 2 degrees Celsius below normal, so I have hope for good upwelling to happen again this year. The surfers are gonna be whining.:rofl:

    Interesting that scientists think the dead zones off OR and WA are caused by currents. I'm sure the nutrient mix from all the agricultural runoff coming out of the Columbia R contributes to this as well.
  16. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Is that anthropogenic warming? Because if it is I would love to read about it. I have yet to find any credible evidence linking the two.

    And its funny how you can say that all the "credible scientists" say that the weather we are seeing is a direct result of global warming. Maybe you should do some research.
  17. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    You're exactly right about language controlling the scope of the debate. But you're dead wrong about who coined the phrase 'climate change' first. Why would a 'The sky is falling!' liberal like Al Gore seek to soften the message he so carefully framed in 'An Inconvenient Truth'?

    But first, a minor correction for the record.

    I don't hate all things Republican. I'm a great fan of the historic GOP beliefs in small government and lower taxes. But I'm dead set against the budget deficit shell game as invented by Ronald Reagan and taken to new depths by George W. Bush. I'm frankly embarrassed that the party of Eisenhower, Nixon and Goldwater has been hijacked by the religious right for their own selfish gains.

    Nonetheless I voted for John McCain in this state's last open primary election in and if it comes down to him vs. Billary in November, I'll vote for McCain again. Why? For the very reason that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are so incensed with him: he has the nerve to actually compromise with Democrats instead of demonize them.

    But I digress.

    To my earlier point, Al Gore didn't invent the phrase 'climate change', which is much softer and less-ominous-sounding than 'global warming', although he does in fact use it in his film.

    Instead it was coined by Republican pollster and communications advisor Frank Luntz in a confidential 2003 briefing book for conservative candidates seeking re-election that was leaked to the press, including CBS' '60-Minutes' and PBS' 'Frontline'.

    Quoting from

    Luntz is famous for what he calls 'language guidance' -- the use of simple messages, carefully tested and frequently repeated, to overcome public suspicions on potentially unpopular policies."

    In his 2003 memo he told Republicans not to use economic arguments against environmental regulations, because environmental arguments would always win out with average Americans concerned about their health. Luntz also told his U.S. clients to stress common sense and accountability.

    "First, assure your audience that you are committed to 'preserving and protecting' the environment but that 'it can be done more wisely and effectively.' Absolutely do not raise economic arguments first.''

    Luntz advises use of the term "climate change'' rather than "global warming,'' which he says is more frightening.

    If you're gonna play the arch-conservative here, at least get your facts straight.

  18. Matt Burke

    Matt Burke Active Member

    So what you are saying is that it's a death sentence in ones scientific career to even think the world is not flat. How hard can it be to show the speed of all climate change in the past is radically different than the speed of change now in correlation to man’s current desire to choke off his own air supply? Anyway, enough. It’s a bad deal with the dead zones off our coast.
  19. chadk

    chadk Be the guide...

    Weird again... And here I thought the term "climate change" had been around for decades... Here, we see it was commonly used in 1988 and prior in the scientific and political arena. Hmmm, another "Inconvenient Truth?"

    "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations."
  20. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    I'm sure if you look back even further you could probably find the phrase 'climate change' published in the NY Times back in the 19th century.

    Nobody's claiming that Frank Luntz was the first person on earth to stick those two words together, only that he advised Republicans seeking re-election to use the phrase instead of 'global warming' due to his research showing it to be less alarming to the average American and thus more likely to get them re-elected by a gullible public. It's all about the context, not the literal interpretation.

    Hmmm . . . obviously it worked on you.


Share This Page