Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Every Day]

Is it climate change or is it just a couple odd years in a row....

The past couple months on the island and coast have been so far away from normal it isn't even funny. No precipitation, 7% of snow pack... Not to mention it's been above 8C pretty much every day for the last 2 weeks straight. I have been observing good hatches some days of midges, stones, and mayflies the past 2 weeks out here.

One thing I wouldn't consider "normal"...

I observed button up fry (one step up from alevin - already emerging from gravel) North island (either sockeye or coho, didn't take a close enough look) a week ago.

My buddy has observed button up coho fry for 2 weeks now in some of the Mid/South island rivers, and I have as well. These fish are probably a month early emerging. Also the mergansers are already feasting on pinks/chum that have already hatched.

Another "abnormal"....

Yesterday on the Stamp we caught a couple chromed up kelts already. Crazy for them to be in the lower river, already back into good shape and close to the ocean.

Me and a buddy also each got CHROME hatchery winter run does. Upon whacking them, they started spewing their eggs everywhere. These fish were bullets, but were ready to go already... winter runs already spawning/within a week of spawning on the 1st of February?!

Hopefully this is just showing that the steelhead are very adaptable and will be able to cope with climate change and low winter flows if the lack of precipitation and increasing temperatures continue ...

Winter runs seem to be disappearing rapidly everywhere. It seems that "winter" fish are changing and coming either early or late. The past 2 years on the Stamp have been spectacular for "fall runs" in the middle of November until Mid December. From what I have heard, the fall runs (seems people call them sminters?) seem to have "appeared" a number of years ago on the Stamp (I wasn't fishing it at that time), does any one know if that's true, did they just start up all of a sudden? It would make sense that steelhead are changing their run timing based on water flows and temperature... The same can be said for the Vedder river as more and more "summer run" fish seem to be reported each year. I personally have caught 2 there the past 3 years and have heard of quite a few more as well.

On the flip side of that the past few years have been good to great for summer runs on every flow that I have been fishing. This makes sense as well, as summer runs tend to do well in low water to get up barriers (in my limited experience anyway). As long as the water doesn't get too warm they seem to be fine in low water. They can also compete with salmon easier (get away from where salmon can spawn) compared to winter runs which utilize somewhat the same areas.

Any one else have thoughts on what is going on? Any patterns or oddities you have observed this year?

Cheers,
Dan

[Fish Assassin]

Clearly global warming.

[Carich980]

Clearly you need to go to the opposite coast and talk global warming.

[Every Day]

Clearly global warming.

I wouldn't call what is happening to Earth right now global warming.

It's definitely climate change though, I can't see a way around it. I've always denied it, but it's getting insane, and patterns are definitely developing in new areas. North is getting more precipitation, we are getting less precipitation and warmer, east is getting colder and more precipitation, storms are getting more intense, the COLDEST ever recorded temperature on Earth was recorded this winter in the Antarctic. The next couple decades will definitely tell whether or not these are just a couple fluke years, or whether it is what is to be expected in the future.

[Fish Assassin]

There is enough scientific data to suggest global warming. The polar ice caps is a fraction of what it was decades ago.

[TNAngler]

Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming".  Climate change, sure.  Man made, laughable.  The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity).  There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming.  If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job.  You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?

Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013?  Instead it grew 29% in a year.

The Earth temperatures change.  They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there.  There are cycles.  One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year.  There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models.  Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those.  It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.

[jazzhead]

The global warming premise is likely politically driven...

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

[blaydRnr]

Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming".  Climate change, sure.  Man made, laughable.     

I'm not a scientist nor am i an environmentalist, but you're kidding yourself if you believe we humans and our abuse of the environment has no effects on the ecosystem...try googling the study of frogs in the rain forest and the concentrations of carcinogens in the air due to pollution.

Didn't you study the process of photosynthesis in high school?

It's true the world's climate does change through the millenniums, but you can see a chronological change in the past 120 years since the beginning of the industrial era...change which is sporadic and fast coming.

[Chuck]

I'm not a scientist nor am i an environmentalist, but you're kidding yourself if you believe we humans and our abuse of the environment has no effects on the ecosystem...try googling the study of frogs in the rain forest and the concentrations of carcinogens in the air due to pollution.

Didn't you study the process of photosynthesis in high school?

It's true the world's climate does change through the millenniums, but you can see a chronological change in the past 120 years since the beginning of the industrial era...change which is sporadic and fast coming.

You took the words out of my mouth, and made them sound a lot more intelligent. To suggest we have zero part in the changing climate is wrong and naive.  The term "global warming" is out-dated and definitely needs to be used less.

[Spoonman]

.............just after New Years saw a large flock of robins....usually not back around untill mid Feb/early March...??

[Matt]

Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming".  Climate change, sure.  Man made, laughable.  The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity).  There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming.  If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job.  You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?

Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013?  Instead it grew 29% in a year.

The Earth temperatures change.  They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there.  There are cycles.  One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year.  There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models.  Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those.  It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.

This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.

You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.

Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change.  Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change.  Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced.  This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.

The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.

What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"?  No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda.  Where would the money come from?  If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research.  That should be self-evident to even a half-wit.  Look at which scientists lost their job recently.  Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding.  Experimental Lakes Are: shut down.  Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.

Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better.  Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid.  Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.

I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.

[DionJL]

Pretty sure the last couple years have been cooler so not necessarily "warming".  Climate change, sure.  Man made, laughable.  The sun had a lot of activity a couple years ago and has been pretty dormant these past couple years (I believe it is getting ready to switch polarity).  There are too many people that get paid if they show there is man made global warming.  If they say it isn't man made, they lose their job.  You consider these people impartial because they are scientists?

Weren't we supposed to have no ice on the north pole by 2013?  Instead it grew 29% in a year.

The Earth temperatures change.  They grew grapes in Greenland when the Vikings settled there.  There are cycles.  One volcano explosion can put more crap in the atmosphere than man does in a year.  There are huge parts of our global climate that have been ignored in the models.  Underwater currents have been one of them but I think I just saw that someone figured out how to model those.  It isn't included in the models yet but could be soon.

I suggest you join this discussion forum. Your opinions will be more appreciated there.

[TheFishingLad]

This is one of the most myopic diatribes I've read in a while, go back under your rock.

You see numbers and facts on the internet, you incorrectly piece them together in a manner that only makes sense to you, doubtful you check sources and guaranteed you have no scientific background.

Sun activity varies, but not nearly enough to explain climate change.  Greenhouse gases do explain that, and humans post-industrial revolution have been clearly demonstrated to have contributed those gases responsible for anthropogenic climate change.  Google "hockey stick graph" and then understand all the literature surrounding that as a starting point if you're still unconvinced.  This is one instance where the scientific community is in complete agreement.

The North Pole isn't exhibiting a growing trend, one data point isn't evidence, don't get your imbecile facts from tabloids.

What are you talking about that people get paid to advance the "global warming"?  No one gets paid to forward some conspiratorial climate change agenda.  Where would the money come from?  If someone came up with any tangible evidence to the contrary, that climate change was in fact a conspiracy, they're be wiping their arse with Rembrandts because the oil industry would throw unfathomable sums of money to advance that research.  That should be self-evident to even a half-wit.  Look at which scientists lost their job recently.  Harper axed all branches of science that generated climate change evidence and understanding.  Experimental Lakes Are: shut down.  Arctic research station PEARL: closed for good.

Ocean currents have been modelled for years, they aren't a new advancement, but they are getting better.  Models are difficult to make due to the meta-analysis required, but the science behind them is solid.  Denying climate change because an un-named model of unknown origin was wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  But armchair climatology expert TNAngler knows better.

I'm waisting words, I have no doubt I'd make my point more effectively here with crayon.

+1

 For those inquiring minds wondering how we got to this point of our scientific community being halved by the Harper Admin I can't recommend this boom enough.

'The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada'

[salmonlover]

it always turns into a religious debate. way to go dan lol

[Sandman]

First off, let us clarify that "Global Warming" refers to increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere.  It does in no way suggest that the climate is going to be warmer all over the Earth (indeed parts of the Earth may actual get colder).  There are also periods of cooling and warming as the climate globally is highly variable, but that does not change the fact that the average global temperature has increased significantly over the last 100 years and the last few decades have been the warmest 30 year period in the last 1400 years.  True, it can be pointed out that "global warming" has occurred naturally throughout the history of the planet. We experience global warming during every full Interglacial Period, or approximately every 100,000 years and during each interceding precession period (these are periods of warming in the current Ice Age...that's right kids, we are in the middle of an Ice Age, the Quarternary Period, and have been so for about 2 million years). However, it is the  rate of global warming that has scientists worried as the loss of the continental ice caps and the corresponding increase in sea level will displace literally billions of people in a relatively short time warming periods are far more abrupt than cooling periods due to "positive feedback".  That is when one factor (warming temperature melts the polar ice cap) causes an effect that enhances the preceding factor (less ice covering the ocean means more solar radiation is absorbed and increases the temperature which causes more ice to melt).  It is a human castatrophe, not a natural one.  Mother Nature will get along swimmingly long after we have all drowned.