I’m not much for panic (stick me near a BWO hatch without my small fly box and you might develop a different impression), but when the NOAA’s senior scientist thinks 1000 years of climate change is now inevitable (how bad it gets depends on what we do right now), you start wondering about buying high-elevation property farther north:
A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,†said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.
“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,†Solomon said. “But the new study advances the understanding of how this affects the climate system.â€
While the Underground isn’t all about gloom and doom, we do have to wonder what fly fishing’s going to look like in 50 years – will brownliners Singlebarbed.com and Roughfisher.com become the “old guy” tweed sites?
And if that’s true, could the end of civilization be far behind?
See you in the desert, Tom Chandler.
Remember, this is one scientist’s view. An important one, yes; but suspiciously timed. That is, I suspect a political motive as much as a scientific one here.
There’s other technical opinions, including that a) there’s been no true warming for nearly 2 decades now, and b) we’re actually going into a mini ice-age in less than a decade. However, there’s no political gains to be made from these, and the scientists are not inside NOAA.
That said, I still think you did the right thing moving up from Santa Clara…
Canadians are really nice Tom, at least for the time being….
Time to sell the beach house, then? Or maybe move it to Idaho?
I suppose if you root around long enough you can attach a political motive to any scientific study. I think Gus Speth should just land a helicopter on an aircraft carrier sized chunk of ice that has detached from Antarctica and shout “Mission Accomplished”.
We’re Doomed. In fifty years you’ll all be fishing for Grass Carp in eighty degree water under leaden skies…
Problem?
Sounds like Nirvana to us chemical fishers.
I think it was George Carlin who posed this paraphrased question, “What if God’s purpose for man was styrofoam? Maybe it is missioned accomplished.” Definitely and alternative view.
“It could be the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.”
Oh Please..
Anyone who still has ANY doubt that we are contributing to global warming and climate change is either A) Ignorant (deliberately), B) Thinks the earth is Flat or C) well I don’t have one for C).
As for Chile Doctor, this is ONE Scientists view, are you joking??. Most (I.E. 95%) agree with this statement. If you even take a cursory look or Google climate change OR get on the NOAA website, Union of Concerned Scientists etc you will see a consensus.
Taking a “Head in the sand†approach is not pro active or even logical. Just because an extreme minority say there is nothing to worry about does not make a serious case to “Debate†the issue.
There was a point in time when the consensus pointed to a flat earth.
Probably one of the most damning proofs against anthropogenic global warming is the change on Mars. Are we so screwing up not only our world but the galaxy that we are melting the ice on Mars?
That said, I’m for cleaning up the environment cause I don’t want to see my waders disappear in a puff of smoke when I step into a river.
The “consensus” for the Flat earth was Religious based, not sceince based, religion assumed (incorrectly as usual) that the universe revolved AROUND the earth and not vise versa and that ships simply “fell off” the edge of the “Flat†earth. People can disagree on how to solve the climate crisis but there is NO rational argument that proves beyond ANY reasonable doubt that humans are NOT causing serious if not irreversible environmental damage. To compare a Sceince based consensus of today to one centuries ago misses the point.
wow, somebody’s got god issues…and issues with their capital letters.
Notice I didn’t argue that a warming trend hasn’t happened. Also note that I was for cleaning the place up. I never mentioned religion but only pointed out that there was consensus much like you pointed out. I would argue that the green movement is as much a religion today as any brand of faith has been in the past. Your shrines and deities differ but the fanaticism is alike.
I like how I did present one piece of rational, factual evidence that may prove that there may be more than CO2 at play here but you didn’t respond to it, rather just stomped your feet and plugged your ears.
Anyway, it’s fishing blog, I digress
No God issues here….Just issues with those who follow.
As for shrines and deities, I re read my post and saw no mention of any that I bow to….
I am not part of any movement and even if I was, comparing religious followers to those who want to save the planet is a stretch.
Since I do fly fish and have watched my favorite streams hammered by but not limited to, ignorance, logging, mining, development and those who try to downplay the seriousness of the current state of affairs, I take issue with those who try to group me and anyone who is willing to go to great lengths top save what little we have left with religion.
The argument is over concerning global warming, it is happening, humans are changing the planet in ways we may never be able to reverse…..
sorry Tom for having long debate in your comments, I promise that I like to fish much more than having a global warming discussion…but sometimes it’s fun to poke the bear as it were.
Among the many arguments against religion is belief in something that can’t be proved and most people get up in arms about having others dictate the way that they live or the things that they can’t do. So to that end I will place much of the green movement in with religion. Hypocritical mandates dictating how a person can live, how much energy they can consume, and regulation of a “carbon footprint,” carte blanche dismissal of opposing views without review, mockery of those who don’t believe; sounds a lot like religion to me.
The argument is far from over about the cause of warming.
You still have never addressed the issue of ice melting on Mars, can we all say together, “Solar flares?” Of course that doesn’t fit neatly within the man made global warming hypothesis does it?
Now if only all the snow and ice would melt around here so that I could go fishing…
Photo: You’re clearly poking the bear now, and if I read your comment correctly, getting people amped is at least partly the aim of your participation. Good luck with that tactic in the future, but it seems counterproductive, and I’m on the verge of closing this thread, suggesting there are probably better places you can “poke the bear” as it were. And oh yes, your logic kinda sucks.
Yes! Yes!
Shoot this horse before it infects the rest of the herd.
This will be my last entry.
photosarv.
All people should have their voice heard no matter how out of this world it may be. If solar flares on Mars is you basis for the Global warming / Environmental debate, GOD help you.
I think all environmental issues effect fly fishing and frankly all outdoor activities. I like this website because it focuses on fishing in general and typically does not veer off, but sometimes one must respond to hubris.
All of my fly fishing buddies ( of both political persuasions ) believe global warming is real and a serious threat to not only our sport but life as we know it, this is a big deal.
Here’s how I look @ it, if we make an effort to change and I am wrong, so be it, @ the very least we have made the world a better place. If on the other hand we take your view and do nothing but “Debate†the issue some more and you are WRONG, then what?. I am willing to place my bets on being pro active and taking that chance that we must act and act NOW. Arguments of procrastination are for those who do not have the will to make change.
Love this blog and promise not to make another entry on this issue.
Please keep up the great work.
Cheers to All…..
tom, et. al – sorry, didn’t mean to stir the pot quite as much as I did. The blog is great and I throughly enjoy reading it. Sorry to have helped push this topic too far.
back to fishing,
Humbly,
Scott