2020's Record Heat

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
3,097
Reaction score
905
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Of greater short-term effect, he said, may be the reduction in some transportation-related pollution, notably tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxides, as driving has declined during the pandemic.

Nitrogen oxides form aerosols in the atmosphere that reflect some of the sun’s rays, which otherwise would strike the surface and be re-emitted as heat. Even a slight reduction in these aerosols would allow more sunlight to reach the surface, generating more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases.

Dr. Schmidt said efforts were underway to quantify the effect over the past year. “The numbers aren’t large,” he said, but they may have played a role in making 2020 a record-tying year.

“The warming associated with reduction in aerosols may be a part of the story,” he said.
So if we drive we are emitting pollutants that contribute to global warming, and if we don't drive then we don't emit pollutants, which contributes to global warming. I see...
 

Hayden Creek

Well-known member
Messages
993
Reaction score
1,332
Location
SoCO
It certainly screwed with the fishing here. Waters normally fish able until frozen were to low and hot in July.
With the exception of a couple of big snow years this has been a trend the last decade getting progressively worse.
 

jjcm

Well-known member
Messages
316
Reaction score
233
Location
Upper Midwest
It was bad for fishing here too. There is a river I stopped at after the salmon commenced their run. Just in the beginning of it there was a streak of 80–90-degree days, which warmed the water and resulted in pools of dead fish. Seems like this issue is continually getting worse.
 

jpielock1992

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reaction score
39
You can find one for carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, too. It's called exponential growth,only one place tp go UP
 

jpielock1992

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reaction score
39
Let's not go there. Darwin called it natural selection . It has been functioning for about 3.88 billion years + or -
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
2,237
Location
-
Let's not go there. Darwin called it natural selection . It has been functioning for about 3.88 billion years + or -
Natural selection has fine tuned lifeform evolution all along, sure, but agriculture and taking are of one another put a halt to that theory for humans starting around 4,000 years ago or more.

As a kid spending time during the summer on a granite geology lake at elevation I early witnessed acidification of the environment as its brook trout and amphibian life fairly quickly diminished. That was in the late 1950's and climate change was not that evident yet. But by 1980 or so my fishing began to be impacted by warmer overall temperatures but it was not smack you in the face stuff as now.
 

jpielock1992

Well-known member
Messages
116
Reaction score
39
That's because of exponential growth. Most people are either ignorant or innumerate. Nature is greater than all homosapiens and all other species combined. Look at the fossil record.So, you can be a conservator or other. I prefer conservator.Unfortunately, the drump has used political power to destroy ,for private power and wealth. so, everyone else suffer. Nature is ambivalent,it continues ad infinitum.
 

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
1,140
Location
CO
You can find one for carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, too. It's called exponential growth,only one place tp go UP
yes, and the CO2 chart is going to probably have a higher slope because not only is the population growing, the the number of people who ride bicycles and have little to heat their huts with will one day want to drive cars and have central heat
Natural selection has fine tuned lifeform evolution all along, sure, but agriculture and taking are of one another put a halt to that theory for humans starting around 4,000 years ago or more.

As a kid spending time during the summer on a granite geology lake at elevation I early witnessed acidification of the environment as its brook trout and amphibian life fairly quickly diminished. That was in the late 1950's and climate change was not that evident yet. But by 1980 or so my fishing began to be impacted by warmer overall temperatures but it was not smack you in the face stuff as now.
I remember going to some Adirondack ponds in the early 70's that were absolutely crystal clear and not one fish fry or tadpole in them because of their pH from smokestacks from the midwest........of course most people who want to knee jerk shut down these smokestacks arent willing to give up the comforts and luxuries that they provide...a true catch 22...........
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
2,237
Location
-
Exactly, crystal clear. I read a report recently about the world wide mass extinctions following the asteroid impact in Mexico. Yes the volcanic reactions and original masses of material thrown into the atmosphere caused rapid cooling of the climate. But the rapid acidification of the oceans over the next hundred years was most devastating. Today our seas are acidifying at a more rapid rate than at that catastrophic prehistoric time.
 

corn fed fins

Well-known member
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
432
Location
Montrose, CO.
Weird how data has changed. So much the data no longer reflects the news stories that were published through the 19th and 20th centuries. But I'm not one to allow facts to get in the way of truth.

Taxing and redistribution of income is no solution, but hey, if we are going to do it then spend the money in China, India, USA, and Russia and not third world countries that have next to zero impact. Oh, and lets make sure China is paying and India isn't borrowing their portion from the US which we in turn borrow from China. So ridiculous.
 

dr d

Well-known member
Messages
665
Reaction score
423
Weird how data has changed. So much the data no longer reflects the news stories that were published through the 19th and 20th centuries. But I'm not one to allow facts to get in the way of truth.

Taxing and redistribution of income is no solution, but hey, if we are going to do it then spend the money in China, India, USA, and Russia and not third world countries that have next to zero impact. Oh, and lets make sure China is paying and India isn't borrowing their portion from the US which we in turn borrow from China. So ridiculous.
I realized since some years a sort of "aquarium keeping" in our

black forest rivers>>>0.5-1 km no fish>>>then a place with a group

of trouts a.s.o.roman moser from austria declared this with a seldom

mix of good conditions(food,deep/cold water alltime,less mud/silt).

the flatter streches were more and more empty and too hot.
 

Ard

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
20,997
Reaction score
3,149
Location
Wasilla / Skwentna, Alaska
38* and raining here currently. This has been going on for the past ten years with less cold weather each successive year. Yes we had a lot of snow in 2020 but remember that rain turns to snow at 32*. Thirty Two degrees is not cold in the arctic, cold is zero or below.
 
Last edited:

okaloosa

Well-known member
Messages
1,500
Reaction score
1,140
Location
CO
Here is a website that shows you air pollution in every part of the world each and every day. Plug in any city anywhere. You will see most of the worst pollution is from Asia. Our politicians want us to believe that Western Europe and North America is to blame and should bear the major economic burden of reducing carbon emissions. But check for yourself...plug in some cities and be prepared to be amazed how polluted Asia is and then ask why.
 

karstopo

Well-known member
Messages
3,000
Reaction score
472
Location
Brazoria County, SE Texas
Going to have to solve how most everything gets powered without fossil fuels, before we cut emissions enough to even get to a neutral carbon gain. Like by 50-60 percent to get to zero CO2 gain, more than that to actually drop the number into negative annual increase. That’s a giant number and pie in the sky plans and good intentions do nothing other than possibly impoverishing ever more of the world. It doesn’t do any good lowering the annual gain from 3 parts per million to 2 or 1, it’s still a gain and if the current ~415 ppm CO2 is an issue anything going up from that number is still an issue. Dropping to a annual decrease is the only solution, so that 415 goes to 414, to 413 etc. Do you understand how much carbon production we’d have to remove to get to that number? Go to 40 percent of current levels or less. That’s a massive reduction and not even close to being workable in anything less than decades.

The amount of power needed goes up every year, not just talking transportation, but electrical power and part of that is the vast amount of servers and other computer hardware that just goes up and up. Part of it is the standard of living rising in the two most populous countries on earth.

We can all recognize CO2 and other gases are increasing, but to actually have practical, ready to plug in solutions, that’s the big issue. Just freaking forget you can do it all on the back of wind and solar because the math just isn’t even close to being there, not yet without some serious breakthrough on storage or some other game changing technology like using those renewables to make hydrogen cheaply.

Since all the greens killed nuclear, that ready to go technology is essentially dead moving forward and mostly dying where already in place. Most vocal greens, the ones with the microphones, in my experience, aren‘t about solving the problem, though, they just have a generally hate mankind agenda and development of any sort and some goodly
portion are in it just for a power and or money grab. True, many sincere people are wanting to fix this on all sides of the political spectrum, I’m there with them, but virtue signaling and tricks with Carbon offsets and such aren’t going to get it done in spite of the feel good advertisments and speeches and conference, etc.

Look, the fossils will likely run out anyway, whether its 200 years or 400 or 600 years, and so long as there will still be people and civilization then, somebody better figure out how to run everything without fossils cause they won’t be an option since there won’t be any left.

But, it isn’t really about making people suddenly recognizing there’s an issue, it’s about what is practical, workable and how it can be done without imposing extreme poverty and hardship on everyone outside of the leadership class cause they always get theirs, no matter if they are righties or lefties. The leaders will be fine, 2% 10% whatever the numbers will be, but if it isn’t done right, the rest of us will be sinking our whole paychecks into either new taxes to pay for costly schemes that don’t solve anything or to pay our power providers. That’s the trajectory we are on if we aren’t very careful and smart about this.
 

sweetandsalt

Well-known member
Messages
12,833
Reaction score
2,237
Location
-
Cutting carbon? You all know me, as most anglers are, as an optimist. But forget your gasoline engine or flying in a jet, take a moment to think about the atmospheric carbon from the Australian and California wild fires alone! Why should the western world take the lead on environmental issues? Because China and India and Brazil will not. All I can say is, while getting older is not fun, I'm glad to have had the fishing adventures I have loved when I did and the Ice Age evolved species of trout and salmon I pursue lived in relatively natural, unspoiled habitats. Every coming season brings with it obvious evidence of the rapidity with which cold water habitats are degrading. The ice is melting at the poles like in my evening glass of whisky and China's water supply, the glaciers on the Chinese side of the Himalayas (the Third Pole) is too and when that ice is gone, China will be out of natural fresh water, then what? I'm a grand parent and I hate to write this (and I am not a scientist) but we may well be beyond the point of return.
 
Top