another disturbing impact

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

  1. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    If you had looked at what wildlander had wrote you would noticed specifically what I was responding to. Like what i said earlier, these things do not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that it is not as dramatic as some say it is. The guy living in antarctica says global warming isn't even real. He has pretty good cred right there.

    Anyway I think we are mixing up the issue. I believe that global climate change is non-anthropogenic, you do. Whether or not the glaciers are melting has little to do with proving either side of that debate.

    You seem to mention delay a lot, do you have a problem with him? :clown:
    So I am christian, though i am not particularly religious and have not gone to church in 10 years, but I would still consider myself a christian. I do care about the environment. I carry a garbage bag when I am fishing to carry out any garbage I see, I volunteer for and donate to various conservation groups when I can. Do I need "agendas" to believe what I believe or do what I do? No.
  2. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    What would be interesting is to see if the scientist you are talking to can provide some info and background on why he feels the way he does. The majority of information that I can find (even outside of mainstream media), suggests that greenhouse gases from man made sources are a major factor (with a strong confidence interval) for an acceleration of warming global tempratures. The info also does state that they believe that the world is in a bit of a cycle, but the cycle is exasperated by the current use of fossil fuels by man.

    Aside from that philisophical point, why not try to curb the use of fossil fuels anyhow? It's bad from many more points than just global warming. Coal emits far more radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere than any number of nuke plants ever would. We try to drill for it in the most remote and pristine wilderness. We have constant wars over its availability, etc...

    But seriously, if the scientist you work with could provide some citations and info to look at that would be great, as I know there are more than a few guys here who would look at a read the materials.

    -- Cheers
    -- James
  3. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,484
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    James -
    Nice use of the word "exasperated." I suspect it was a simple and understandable slip. I think most scientists (I could use a much more grand adjective here, since 'most' doesn't quite capture the near consensus among scientists) who study climate change, as well as those scientists who don't but who study other aspects of environmental science where the impact of climate change has effects, are "exasperated" by the steady denial of people who want to believe it is not anthropogenic. However, the anthropogenic effect really 'exacerbates' natural climate cycles by accelerating what may have been a natural warming trend. ;)
    Dick
  4. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
  5. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    One Lemming to another

    Background Noise: "Ahhhhh...." Splat... "EEEEEEkkkkk....." Thump! "Squeeeeekkk..." Splat! (ad nauseum)

    Daddy Lemming: "Sally, just keep running!"

    Mommy Lemming: "I can't help but run from our bretheren pushing from behind. EVeryone is so intent on getting ahead, but uncle Joe the wise owl says..."

    Daddy Lemming (interrupting): "Just follow the crowd! Don't listen to the owls... what do they know... there is no evidence there is a cliff ahead. Just keep the kids ahead of us so we all stay together..."
  6. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I can answer that. When I worked as a seasonal ecologist for the US Forest Service in the 80's I was approached by the Recreational Assistent to the District Ranger (both permanent employees). I knew the RA went to Church and I asked him about the logging that we were doing on the forest... the unethical part... some internal decisions that were made. His response was "Jesus said the earth would fail. Heaven and Earth would pass away. And so we can't save it. So just go with the flow."

    Just go with the flow???

    It was that day I chose never to go to church again. Imagine the Lord saying "Well, most will not be saved, so why even try saving them??? I am just going to go with the flow..."

    Regardless of who you think he was, Jesus Christ tried against all odds. He NEVER gave up. Even unto his death. That is the model Christians were to follow. And CLEARLY, the story of Noah and Ark where the Lord asked that two of every kind of creature be saved....

    THAT was the first recorded act of conservation.

    God gave a covenant at the end of the story of Noah and the Ark - never again to destroy the earth.

    But He never said he would protect us from destroying ourselves... global warming, nuclear war, or whatever combinination of events by which we achieve that end. But still I try to stop it.

    In ecology, everywhere we look, when a species overpopulates, it is followed by a collapse.

    There are those here who thing we are above that. Above the facts of life. The worst kind of denial in the things we face today.

    Christians, by the example of God, were meant to be environmentalists and to act sustainably in the resources that were provided for us. Instead we log the land and sell it off as housing developments to be paved over. This is, in every true use of the term, a cancer. Humans are only one small part of a larger ecosystem... one small part that has become a cancer - exceedingly overpopulating and consuming all of that ecosystem upon even they depend. This is what cancer does. It kills the life that sustains it. You only have to look and compare an aerial photo from 50 years ago to one of today - too see the trend in the loss of our natural areas. The cities like growing ameboas spreading out and consuming... the city nothing more than a species that has become malignant to its own base of resources. I look at the beaches in Puget Sound where I used to dig clams in the 60's and 70's. Half are polluted today. I look at the creeks I used to fish... some of which do not even exist anymore and now nothing but pavement and parking lots. The streams themselves entirely gone. And to suggest the cancer has stopped today, that the consumption has stopped, is not rationale.

    And so I speak out when we finally see the ultimate response to our destructive consumptive behavior. I speak out on global warming and promote a rapid move to sustainable living. As an educated ecologist. As a scientist. As one who believes in God.

    Wildlander
    The Environmental Christian
  7. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    Subtle no doubt, and completely unintentional... But it does accurately portray the state of my mind.
  8. FT Active Member

    Posts: 1,242
    Burlington, WA
    Ratings: +102 / 0
    Gee, we had had airplanes for a little more than 100 years and airports for around 75 years. And now we are being told that because temperatures recorded at airports (which at the maximum are 75 years old) have increased a bit since the '70's that we are to take it as proof that temps are higher now than ever before? Hmmmm.... what about the several hundred year long warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was indeed green and not covered with glaciers?

    Now based upon a very short time span of temperature records and about 35 years worth of satellite weather info, it has been determined that the warming noticed now is different than that several hundred year warm spell in the middle ages. And we are to take the glacier melting in Greenland noticed now as evidence of man-made global climate change, but the extended warm period in the middle ages when most of Greenland was not under glaciers goes unmentioned. Hmmmmmmm.... Interesting, very interesting.
  9. James Mello Inventor of the "closed eye conjecture"

    Posts: 2,787
    Tacoma
    Ratings: +88 / 0
    It's the rate that this is occuring that's the alarming part. Based on various sources, the temp change of these events can be studied and compared to current patterns. From the literature that's out there, it's significantly faster than should be expected.

    If the information were purely based on the airport temps, I'd be like you. But it's not, the record is coming from all sorts of sources (biological, geological, etc...).....
  10. Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Posts: 2,484
    Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +786 / 0
    FT -
    During the middle ages, Greenland was covered by an ice sheet pretty much as it is today. It may have been a little warmer and greener around the southern coastal edges and there may have been less sea ice, but greenland has had an ice sheet covering it for a long time. That's why climate change scientists are so interested in the record obtained from cores drilled down through the ice sheet there.
    D
  11. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    I love theology lessons. Especially on flyfishing websites. Onward Christian Soldier, onward! :rolleyes: Hopefully right on to another site.
    PS There is a high IQ level represented here. You keep up your half assed merged interpretation of creation and evolution and you're going to get schooled. Remember not too long ago, we were told that the 7 days was a literal thing. Some religions still do. And then with modern dating techniques not to mention shitloads of artifacts being dug up religion has been backpedaling for the last 25 years trying to re-interpret and re-teach their original message and merge it with scientific fact. I've been laughing my ass off watching the tapdance. I have nothing against you or any other religion. I believe in what I believe. I've just found that in my short lifetime, the people who are the most vocal about it are usually the ones living a lie. But your form of Christianity is the "one" right? :rolleyes: Wow!
  12. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    A bit??? From 30 below zero to 5 above as our lowest temps in winter. This warming occuring in 30 years. This is not significant in your view? What if it continues? Our summers have went from low 90s as a max to nearly 110. What if it continues? That is the real issue here. It is clear it is getting hotter faster, so say another 20 degrees in the next 20 years. Say 130F in the Yakima Canyon?

    This is not significant to you?
  13. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    Einstein. Who thought much as I do - that there was a God but that He was not active in the world (not interceeding in our freewill).

    So I find myself in good company... which precludes certain other individuals.

    I could also bring up Newton and many others - the greatest of 'scientists' that are largely responsible for what we have today.

    You are free to chose the company you keep Duff. I will not be one of them.

    THANK God!
  14. Wildlander Banned or Parked

    Posts: 64
    Ellensburg, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I have said all I can here. My comments are recorded in previous posts for others to read. Look at the behaviour of those contesting the science on the issue. Your answers will be found not by their words but by their works. We have people here pretending to be scientists. A coach of what? Where is the scientific validity of these people.

    It is all opinion.

    As for me, I am an ecologist. Religion aside, I have given facts from the NOAA, USGS and the Arbor Day Foundation. A religious man pointing out your OWN science. Things that any of you can confirm. And I would suggest that an ethical person look up that data for themselves and ask why? Why they, non-scientists, are so adamant in refusing the scientific message. They do not listen to religion but more importantly, they do not listen to their OWN science.

    Denial.

    So there is only one comment I have left on this issue...

    May God have mercy on our souls. I will pray for you.
  15. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    That's my favorite one of all. I will pray for you. As in I have more spirtual clout than the next guy because MY God is the one and only God and I'm going to "heaven" and you're not. The last time I checked Jesus was homeless and hung out with non-believers, hookers, thieves and the diseased and dying. By your comments that you wish not to befriend me, you have passed judgement (like most vocal Holy Rollers) and have already strayed away from the basic message in the New Testament. Your beliefs are weak in facts like most organized religions but heavy in faith, which is a good thing, but tends to lead to emotional pissing contests when your faith is questioned and there is nothing concrete to fight back with. I have a feeling you get backed into this corner often. So you let us all know we are going to hell. Fished for Steelhead in the last couple of years? :D By the way, I only consider the Bible a book, but a great book and worth reading (which I have more than once front to back). It has some great messages worth digesting. That New Testament message was not one of exclusion or exclusiveness, but of acceptance and love for our fellow man no matter what their make-up or beliefs. Now go pray for all of us, and while you're at it, throw in a special prayer for all of the steelheaders so we can land a 20 pounder this season. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
  16. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    I am getting tired of retyping my points so i will just quote what I said in response to what you said

    I didn't even need to get past the first paragraph to know that you didn't actually read my other posts.

    Here is what you said:
    Here is what I said:
    Wow, a response to your statement. i know I know, its crazy to actually want to refute being called a liar, but its in my nature I guess. You said I was a liar, I said no I wasn't and backed that up with proof of advancing glaciers in washington. So were you lying about me lying? Me thinks you might have been.

    Then this is what i said:
    Interesting...

    Actually only 70% of the glacier melted during the eruption. So it is still a glacier. Anyway i found it is interesting that it was still advancing despite being on the active rising dome and with global warming.

    And your right, the majority of glaciers are retreating, but do you really think it is because of the warming in the past 30 years? First off, lets get this out of the way, the vast majority of glacial melt occurred in the first half of the century. Ok, now lets talk about how glaciers respond to climate change. Glaciers are massive compressed ice sheets, yeah you know that already. The earth has been getting much warmer in the past 30 years, yeah you have mentioned that a few times. How fast do glaciers respond to climatic stimuli? Well this is what the glacier program at Rice University has to about glacial latency periods(hey, you know that word):

    ice sheet: 100,000 to 10,000 years

    large valley glacier: 10,000 to 1,000 years

    small valley glacier: 1,000 to 100 years

    So for example, for a small valley glacier it takes roughly 100 to 1,000 years after the change in climate for the glacier to be affected in a highly noticeable manner. So would the "human induced" climate change in the past thirty years have affected a glacier? Unlikely. Even if it had, the difference would be negligible. Could the larger glacial retreat in the early part of this century have been caused by humans? A profound No.

    I was talking about the member of this board with the username of crew634. He responded to this thread on the first page. I do not know him personally, and do not claim to say that what he says his fact. I just think that he has quite a bit of credibility by being down there.

    I definitely agree. We should try to reduce our consumption and reliance on fossil fuels. I just don't think that we need to do it in a "sky is falling" sort of way.

    Side note: I want to thank James Mello and others who have responded in a civilized manner. As for Wildlander, lets try and converse in a way that doesn't require calling the opposition a "liar" or "in denial."
  17. WPEB member

    Posts: 123
    Bothell, WA
    Ratings: +0 / 0
    The temp. gauges are not all at airports, your right. But i do believe that FT is touching on an important factor with these changes. Urbanization. If any human activities has an effect on the temperature, not world wide mind you, it is urbanization.

    In the vast majority of these temperature gauges, especially in the United States, there has been urbanization and massive population growth in the surrounding areas. As we should all know, cities hold heat. The blacktop, being black, gathers and stores heat. Be it at airports or by a building, the blacktop has quite a influence.
    These temperature gauges should be in an open field. The majority of them in the U.S. and many all over the world are in or are directly by urban areas or areas of large growth.

    Now do the temperature of these cities affect the temperature of the planet? Insignificantly, if at all.

    And I will add one more thing so people do not accuse me of waffling. This does not mean that the earth is not warming, simply that the change isn't as dramatic as some would have us believe.
  18. Coach Duff Banned or Parked

    Posts: 1,272
    Kailua Hawaii
    Ratings: +6 / 0
    I've wondered as a non-scientist how much affect our concrete jungles have on global temps. Maybe not a significant amount, but this is the culmination of many factors, right scientists? Coach
  19. Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    Posts: 1,346
    Phinney Ridge, Seattle, WA
    Ratings: +117 / 0
    I was staying out of this fray but this is a good point. I've always had concern about the rise of temperatures at certain sites over a long period of time. I think urbanization is definitely influencing the increase. It was documented ten years ago or so that cities like Atlanta and Houston were creating there own weather because of deforestization and development. Summer thunderstorms were more frequent and severe. I can't help to believe this isn't driving some of the other statistics,
  20. Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Posts: 7,136
    Not sure
    Ratings: +1,224 / 0
    On several nights last July and August, the temperature in Phoenix didn't drop below 100ยบ for the first time in history, even though daytime temps were normal for the same period.

    Why?

    The ever-increasing area of pavement and asphalt act as heat sinks, storing thermal energy absorbed from the sun during the day and then radiating it at night, thus driving up the temperature.

    K