Tim Smith

I saw a 6" specimen raise a bruise on the palm of a guy's hand. That's how much bite strength they have. Just a bit of grip and they can really do damage. They'll also launch themselves at you if you stumble onto their nests. Would love to have one for the aquarium but yeah, they're no fun to catch. Unlike snakeheads they have the benefit of a long, long history in this area and they're in balance with the local species. Along with largemouth, it has been said that snakeheads will probably do significant damage to bowfin over the long run. They're way too similar to coexist peacefully.

In North Louisiana that's "Grinnel".

Thoughts are with you, Mitch.

Actually, they're common as dirt. But don't let that slow you down.

This.... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8LSc17E-f3s/UYMpW2Q1mbI/AAAAAAAAGLU/1CrI_NCMM1k/s1600/April+21st,+2012+-+Creek+Chub+-+Tacony+Creek.JPG ...is a creek chub. Mustache on the upper lip, dark spot on the front margin of the dorsal fin.

Justin's right. The common name recognized by the American Fisheries Society is "striped shiner". You can tell them apart from common shiners by the fact that the lines along the body cross over behind the dorsal fin.

Yeah those silly biologists, using ridiculous notions like "data" and "peer reviewed research" to form their opinions. Fat reserves in fish often do go down in winter. Even cold blooded animals need SOME energy for metabolism. There's a theory that particularly hard winters combined with inadequate growth of YOY fish during the summer and fall results in large die-offs of smaller size classes of juveniles during winter because small fish have fewer reserves of fat. The data is a bit mixed and it clearly doesn't happen all the time, but winter is no friend to warm water fish.

Look at the picture of the body. The ground is torn to bits all around it with snow and tracks reaching out in every direction. Although clearly the experts who's job it is to figure out these things couldn't possibly know what they're talking about. I bet they're covering up the secret drone bear brigade on the loose in Pochahontas.

That sticker is all over the US. I see them regularly here in Colorado. TU has been on this thing from the beginning. Hopefully they'll manage to hold it up for now...although the EPA has been such a weakling recently it's hard to imagine they have the stones to pull up their britches, much less stop a mine.

No bear tracks in the area and the specialists are saying it was another dog or coyote? It's pretty easy to identify bear tracks. That's no bear. More like the people are bored and need something sensational to talk about.

Nope. They both have a subterminal mouth and a much higher back. Also, they have paired anal fins instead of an anal keel. This is probably a gizzard shad although the spot behind the gill plates isn't very distinct and there should be a filament off the lowest ray on the dorsal fin that isn't showing either. The spot can fade with age and the filament is probably plastered against its back by water tension and slime...which gizzard shad have in abundance. The biggest ones can reach 3 pounds so this one isn't out of line size wise.

Always.

One thing doesn't follow from the other, Wayne. There are multiple drivers affecting the climate. The amount of CO2 has been going up steadily. Other things are cycling up and down. There's going to be year to year variability in temperatures that have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.

Ness, that's ridiculous. If I were really trying, I'd be using emoticons.

So let's get this straight...that little place at the top of the long climb in temperatures is a reason to think climate change is a fraud? I suppose if you're going to be wrong you might as well be spectacularly wrong. The trends speak for themselves. We're sitting at the top of a long continual climb in temperatures with some variation. The period from 1960 to 1970 shows an actual decline in temperatues (primarily associated with particulate pollution), the same thing that's going on now in China where most of the global manufacturing productivity now occurs and is unregulated in any meaningful sense. That point has been out there for quite a while. Interesting you don't address that in your discussion about your models. The carbon is still there...in fact there's more of it than ever, but a larger proportion is going into particulates. That's not suddenly going to reverse the current warming trend. It can push down the effect of carbon in the short term, but in the long term the effect of increasing greenhouse gasses will still be around for the next 100 years. http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/possible-causes-to-the-recent/9845329 What else...oh yes... The assumption that someone somewhere will continue to build up CO2 levels if we don't is entirely baseless. China is vastly more vulnerable than we are to climate change. Their policy people are beginning to make changes because they're beginning to realize they're cutting their own throats. The IPCC has just issued their newest report and they're upgraded their certainty level yet again that humans are influencing the long term trend toward increasing temperatures. Here in Colorado, we've just had our 1st and 2nd worst fires ever over the last 2 years. We just lost 200 miles of roads, 50 bridges, 8 lives, and billions of dollars to the kind of event the climate change models predicted would become more frequent. The road I was hoping to take up to Rocky Mountain National Park for Thanksgiving Holiday is now the bed of a river. The glaciers are melting (you can watch that process over the last 30 years on Google Earth if you care to), the temps are rising, animals and plants are moving north and the temperatures are now higher than they have been over the history of our country. These are all the kinds of things that were predicted by climate change models. Am I alarmed by that? Am I an alarmist? Not really. There are practical steps that will help once we finally get off our butts and do something about this. I don't spend much time quaking in my boots about this. But I'm also not buying any property at sea level or planning to build in fire zones or arid regions any time soon either. The OP's post is spot on. We're going to be spending more and more time dealing with this in the decades to come.

I appreciate the straightforward tone in your reply Jeb. Things have been busy or I would have gotten back to you sooner. Looking at your content, I suppose I expected most of your reply. You'll probably not be surprised by what I say here, either. The bottom line is that science has nothing to do with beliefs. If the data supported rejecting the models, that would have happened or would be happening, I do agree with you that it will take more than a few people cutting their carbon footprint. I suppose mine is well less than half of what it would be if I weren't actively trying to reduce it but it will take all of us doing that plus some systematic changes in the way we do things to make a difference. As a population the US is still the largest per capita emitter of carbon in the world, the changes we make will have more impact than most. I have to say it shames me when I see people in Belize who live far below our poverty levels and who have far smaller impacts than we do trying to reduce THEIR carbon emissions while we're still dawdling over misguided arguments. I suppose the difference is that they live on a dying reef and are watching the changes unfolding more plainly before them than most Americans have taken the time to see. It's not an abstract issue for them in the slightest. I look at your arguments as the kind of hold overs that occur during every major change. The people who resisted the sewage treatment plants, or the National Parks, or the effects of cigarette smoking or recycling bins all had reasons to oppose the necessary steps. But we took them anyway and every one benefited. Eventually, that will also be the case here as well. As the trends continue to play out over time, there won't be any variability to hide behind anymore. It's too bad that we'll have to suffer more until a majority is voting solidly to fix these issues. But that's the cost of democracy and it's a price we're lucky to be able to pay.

I don't see the logic in this argument. Americans are not surrender monkeys. We have made successful inroads into every environmental problem we have tackled so far while improving our standards of living at the same time. Why would global warming be any different? Every angler should be aware of the huge successes of the Clean Water Act since 1972 and the fact that your favorite fishery probably would not exist today without it. Our total and per capita solid waste streams have been declining for over a decade now. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/MSWcharacterization_508_053113_fs.pdf Here in Colorado, the population has increased 19% over the past 10 years while water use has declined 10%, part of a nation-wide trend, even in the West where water resources are often limited. http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2009/world/u-s-water-use-declined-from-2000-to-2005-part-of-growing-trend-usgs-report-finds/ A third of animal populations in North America are increasing rather than decreasing, a trend that goes strongly against the global trend. The same is true of our commercial fisheries. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/health_of_our_planet/ http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2013/05/docs/2012_sos_rtc.pdf And that’s just a tiny fraction of what we’ve accomplished. It is absurd to say we are hopeless in the face of large scale environmental issues, because most of the issues we’ve addressed we’ve actually managed to improve or solve and in the meantime, we’re wealthier, healthier and have better quality of life than we’ve ever had. Certainly I’m enjoying my own life and my kids have vastly better quality of life than I did when I was their age. Jeb you asked what I do because of global warming. Ok I'll rise to that bait. 1. Over the last 6 years, I planted or helped plant over 20,000 mangrove trees, which traps as much carbon per acre as a rain forest, and which buffers shorelines against rising sea levels and hurricanes. 2. For years, I’ve promoted green shoreline development, keeping shallow water plants and productivity in place rather than replacing it with seawalls that require frequent repair and do not act as carbon sinks. 3. For my last car I chose something that makes 32 miles per gallon rather than the 18 mpg of the truck I had been running. 4. I use a programmable thermostat and keep the max and minimum temperatures at 60 and 80 in the winter and summer. Most of the time, there’s no heating or cooling on at all in my house. 5. I try to buy locally and I raise some of my own food in the summer through gardening and laying hens. We put up 300 pounds of food last year and we’re just now finishing off what was in the freezer. This year we’ll do about the same. 6. I’ve turned my food waste streams into compost and put those in the soil in my yard rather than the denitrification vats at the waste water plants (incidentally that also pollutes the local river less). 7. I carpool twice a week. 8. I made a conscious decision to try to reduce work-related travel. This year, I’m down to a 15 minute commute, and for a time most of my work was done through telecommuting. 9. I own a relatively small house, big enough for my needs but not so big I’m heating and cooling dead space all year. 10. I used light rail for about 25% of my local transportation needs last year. 11. I walk if the destination is less than a mile and a half away. 12. I buy from green businesses and vote for people who support sustainable energy research and sustainable energy implementation. Most importantly, I’m ready to support effective measures in the future that will move this process forward. It is sheer hysteria to say our lives are over or our quality of life can’t be sustained if we take steps to conserve and reduce our carbon footprint. Nothing in our recent history supports that point. How all that balances out in terms of carbon footprint, I don’t know. I do know that I've consumed vastly less than I would have consumed if I didn’t care or threw up my hands like a surrender monkey. ...and your points about the climate models being incorrect are just as misguided. We've just passed the warmest decade on record and we're well within the confidence intervals of almost every prediction the IPCC has made. The cause and effect for climate is known and we're causing the temps to rise. The only question left to us now is how to handle it.

The point is that GW adds considerably to the national debt...as in the original post. Ignoring it adds to the national debt, and that's the least of the problems associated with that. We lost over 500 homes in Colorado this year due to drought and fire...so far. We're adding fire protection services at tax payer expense and the insurance companies are that much closer to the line. The bird in question here is an ostrich, not a chicken.

Wrong. You've lumped CO2 and particulate matter and a dozen other things into one category. Wrong. Again. The "gravy train" is still about the amount of money it has always been. The funding for sciences has not increased since AGW became a major issue. The scientific community has chosen to study this as an issue because it is an important issue. The politics followed after. Losing the trout in the Rocky Mountains should not be a political issue. Rampant massive beetle killed forests and wildfires should not be a political issue. Increasing numbers of intense storms should not be a political issue. Sea level rise should not be a political issue. They should, however, be studied because those things are all happening and we have to deal with them now. If they weren't important, scientists would put that money into something else like wasting public resources on frivolous things like cures for cancer, new methods to control pollution, new sources of energy, improved educational systems and other schemes to enslave America.

Must have told you 10 times, Jeb. Glad to see you finally come around. Also, I'd encourage you to not ignore the spirit of Phil's post. He put it up to be sure people knew that's a sensitive topic and to be respectful and on point... I sought out clarification as soon as (before, really) it went up. Most people were aware of the ground rules as they're pretty much common sense. Hope you folks are ok in MO today. OK just got ripped to pieces.

As for myself, I have changed some of my perceptions of natural gas due to the discussion here, largely due to the points Wayne has made. It may not be a full solution, but it probably has more merit in the short term than most of the other options available to us. I think it was also from responses of various people in these discussions I realized that once people finally look at the science and realize it's right, they still have to decide that cooperating to fix the problem is better than suffering the consequences of climate change. That's an important point and I still don't think I have an answer for the people who aren't willing to try...other than a bunch of stuff I learned in church.

"...keeping any MORE from coming in." The horse is already out of the barn.

Then I suggest you talk to the owner as I have many times to be sure you're following the spirit of the rules that HE sets down. Falling into a lengthy off topic exchange WOULD be cause for banning the thread according to Phil's rules so I'm done here until someone has something to say about the topic. Baiting people into a shouting match won't fly.

The flyways in the Gulf of Mexico would make windmills a problem there. Hopefully you could post far enough off the Eastern seaboard to avoid most of the Atlantic flyway. The aesthetic issues are subjective at best. Oil rigs make for excellent fishing and I suspect wind pylons could become pretty attractive recreational sites as well. The logic of the thing will eventually over-ride personal politics. I also agree with the tidal production idea. As with the windmills they will require proper siting and safeguards, but they're another way to get off the fossil fuel heroin. Retrofitting existing flood control dams with turbines wouldn't suck either. Can't use them all the time, but they might make a substantial contribution during spring and early summer.

Dgames. I confess I was thinking about coastal generation when I wrote that. Shrimp farms I worked with in Belize wanted to use wind power for aeration in their ponds but needed power at night when oxygen was low in their ponds and they needed to aerate. Personal wind plants worked well for homes and resorts. Peak times vary regionally You're right that In the US, inland summer peak does not match peak demand, but that is not the case in winter or in coastal/offshore areas. There is talk about using the oceans as windmill sites and if those sites are used, wind supposedly has the potential to supply most of the wind to the east coast. http://sailorsenergy.com/node/1 (wind peak map from North Dakota) Otherwise, yes, you are right that summer peak wind and energy demand do not mesh. Your larger point that wind has limits and is limited by variability is important. Wind and solar aren't as reliable as other sources and will probably always be an add on. Still. 14% is 14%. Coastal sites or long distance transmission might build up from there, but let's take what we can get for now. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/december5/windfarm-120507.html