Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Tim Smith]

Below is a quote from a similar forum topic a few years back written by Al Agnew. It makes total sense to me and is why I think climate change matters, even if our only raison d'etre is fishing in the Ozarks and everything else be god-darned.

"There's obviously a lot less debate in the scientific community (though SOME debate) about global warming than in the general public. But assuming it's real and the scientists are basically right about the extent of it, what would it mean for the Ozarks?

Trout--Ozark springs are right around the temperature of the region averaged over years. So a 4 degree rise in air temps would eventually raise the temps of the springs 4 degrees as well (Florida springs are in the high 70s, for instance). springs coming out at 60 degrees instead of 56 would NOT be good for trout in the spring branches, and probably not real good for the hatcheries, either. Probably the same thing would happen with the tailwaters, although I'm not familiar with how tailwater temps work. The smaller trout streams like Capps and Bluesprings Creek would really suffer with 4 more degrees in the summer, especially since they would warm up even quicker as you go downstream due to hotter summer temps. And that's not considering that the climate change might make drought more and more common and/or more severe.

Stream bass--drought would probably be the greates threat to bass and other warm water gamefish, although hot temps could become a problem on the less springfed streams. The Buffalo River already gets up in the very high 80s in the summer in some sections...if it gets over 90 degrees that could become a real problem for gamefish. And we don't even know how warmer temps would affect the food base. Low water, warm water, could mean a lot greater algae growth and aquatic plant growth, which is already worse now than it was 30 years ago on some streams.

Reservoirs--low water and little flow-through due to drought would be a big problem, with algae growth and probably lower levels of dissolved oxygen at depths the fish need in the summer. Who knows what other effects hotter water would have.

Learn to love carp!"

Well said.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Yes, Jerry that is interesting. Neat to see records broken, but tied is cool also.

Thousands of them are broken every year just in the US. Both low and high temps. Although I think it is like 11 to 1 the number of highs to lows. It is not really a rarity.

wow......we really need to go fishing

I thought you was in love with Wayne?? LOL

[OzarkFishman]

I have been reading some of the links that Tim has posted. The particulate article was very informative and I learned a lot.

The skeptic article was alright, but the comments on the link are pretty AMAZING. Some pretty smart individuals from both sides going at it. Look at post 14 for one of the sides of the argument ... and post 13 for the other. Both offer good "facts" (of course one side never agrees with the other).

On to trying to LEARN more ...

[OzarkFishman]

So we can all agree that the world cycles, has ice ages and inter-glacial periods.

The world WILL warm up to a point that enough methane is released (I think most know this) that a HUGE problem will be on our hands ... not that there isn't already a problem.

The only argument is whether or not we are speeding the process ...

To me, it is black or white ... either we do speed it up, even a little (or a lot) OR we have no effect.

I can't understand people saying that we have some effect, but not enough to matter ... for who (our generation, 5 generations from now, ...).

Pick a side. Not really calling anyone out on this thread, just spewing stuff out of my brain for some reason or another.

Like someone already said, in the end we all can see the obvious answer. We should find alternative energy (for sustainability of humanity, that leaves out the argument of global warming), we should cut emissions (while in the short term it can have a cooling effect, acid rain isn't fun) and we should try to replant as much forest as possible. Seems easy enough.

Defend the only way to move forward however you want, I think that the correct path will be taken (we WILL argue along the way). At least that is my hope, putting my faith in the same human kind that didn't know how a star was truly formed until 2004 when scientists could finally see inside a nebula (don't get me started ... I LOVE astronomy). Does anyone know how much astronomy has evolved in the last 8 years ... MIND BLOWING ...

[kirbydog]

Heres something else. We may clean up our act and polute less and become better stewards of the enviroment but what does it really matter when China is on a coal generated power plant building spree. They are not yet, but they are well on their way to becoming the worse polluter on the planet.

[OzarkFishman]

Kirby ... any response would definitely be TOO political from me to keep this thread going.

All I will say is that we can only control OURSELVES and try to be good examples everyday (like I said before, we all fail daily).

This has been a fun thread (maybe we can make it the first to touch on climate change and a little politics and not get axed).

[lee G.]

yes OF i follow several sites that have the latest on advances in several fields, and it is amazing!!

[lee G.]

As long as we remain civil , it will be ok with lilly , i think

[Al Agnew]

There's a man lying dead in the street. He has a bullet hole in his head. Autopsy will show he had prostate cancer.

Most of the Rush Limbaugh types would say that because people die of prostate cancer all the time, he very well could have died of it..."natural causes".

Most of the Al Gore disciples would say that he would have lived forever if it hadn't been for being shot.

About the only question left is how much longer he would have lived without the bullet hole.

Point is, climate cycles. We all know it. We even know a lot about the natural causes of it. But just because people die of natural causes after a long life doesn't mean they can't die earlier because of somebody shooting them. And just because there are natural causes of climate change doesn't mean there can't be human causes that speed it up considerably. That's the question that's left on the science side...how much are we speeding things up? Oh, and one more question...how much can we do to fix it? On the policy side, the questions are...do we put the effort into slowing it or stopping it, or the effort into figuring out how to live with it? And the problem with figuring out how WE are going to live with it doesn't take into account the effects it could have on natural ecosystems. THAT'S a huge problem if human actions are speeding things up...they may be speeding climate change up so fast that natural ecosystems can't cope with the change.

None of us on here know diddly about all the scientific foundations of climate change study. We can only listen to the real scientists...those who are in the relevant fields...and do our best to evaluate what both sides are saying. Not the conservative or liberal talking heads who don't know diddly about it either and most definitely have an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. Most of the time, policy should be based upon what the prevailing scientific "opinion" is, unless and until the contrarians can marshal enough data and evidence to sway the prevailing opinion. But science has become a political football on many issues these days, and most especially this issue because it so profoundly affects energy and economic policies. There are huge vested interests in business as usual when, if the prevailing scientific opinion is right, business as usual is the worst thing we can do. And there are a whole lot of scientists who have reputations at stake if it's shown the prevailing opinion is wrong.

I don't know whether it's wrong or not. I DO know that the belief that we puny humans can't possibly have much of an effect on something as vast and complex as climate is...just a little ridiculous, given that there is no place on earth that we haven't altered in some way and that we not only are the most numerous critter bigger than a bug on earth and have the technology to destroy most of the rest of the planet's inhabitants along with ourselves. Maybe we aren't having a big effect on climate, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Mainly...I hope we're just going through a "short cycle" of warming and things will settle back down to the kind of climate in which human civilization developed along with our present ecosystems. Because I don't think we'll ever have the political will to do the things that would need to be done to fix things if we're the ones that broke them.

[Addicted to Creeks]

Well put al as usual