# Global Warming in CFL



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

bonefish? caught this morning around 6:20AM while pompano fishing.


----------



## The Crew (Jul 8, 2007)

There was a thread with an article couple months ago about them being caught as far north as S.C. or N.C..


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

VicIII, if you're reading this PM me, I got my pompano limit in 1 hr and half. I'll tell ya the spot.
took my son fishing this morning because he got no school. he had fun. but the no-see-ums are a PITA, there's alot of 'em bugs.


----------



## The Crew (Jul 8, 2007)

Are you guys out of the witness protection program now? LOL :spam:

http://www.pierandsurf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42748&highlight=Permit


----------



## emanuel (Apr 2, 2002)

That's definitely a bonefish. I'm suffering up here without my snook.


----------



## RuddeDogg (Mar 20, 2004)

*Great pic*

of the young one there. That's great.


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

*HellRhay*

did you report it??? i belive they were asking for any type of report or picture. So they were able to keep track of bonefish. The thread that was started a while back on bonefish had all the infor. Anyway good looking kid he must get his looks from his mom  but he does get his fishing skills from you :beer: .......To everyone who takes time to teach your kid or any person the art of fishing :beer: pat yourselve on the back. oh HellRhay your pictures are funny are too funny and some are Priceless..... keep them coming....

*Latin Good Old Boy Club* opcorn:
No membership needed


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

how can i report it?


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

http://www.bonefishresearch.com/

These people might want to know, i will keep looking cause i know someone send me a link. a long time ago.....opcorn:


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

Why is global warming in your title?


----------



## VICIII (Apr 8, 2005)

Bone fish are caught near Sebastian Inlet quite a bit. Maybe 15 a year I hear about.


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

*Blacktip*

I belive the reason for HellRhay naming this thread "Global warming"......Is Because Bonefish are suppose to stay and live in warm waters (If it gets to cold they die) We are starting to see them more, in place's they arent suppose to be. More are being caught north of SI and in the ICW up in Central fla. Same goes's for our Snook more are being caught further north every year. Our mild winters would have to be one of the main reasons. We also have a great numbers of exotic species that are producing and doing well in our river systems. Fla introduce the Peacock bass in 1984 into southern fla canal systems. More of these fish are being caught further north every year. This is a fish that is suppose to die off in water that gets below 60 degrees. Granted we havent seen many get caught, but that was the same thing that was said about the Bonefish and Snook....Only Time will tell....opcorn:

*Latin Good Old Boy Club* opcorn:
No membership needed


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

I asked that because, Global Warming, doesn't exist.

There have been stranger catches than that. For example, someone has caught a tarpon at cape cod before. I read the story in one of my fishing books, it had pictures and everything.


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

bonefish being caught this far up north is a proof that the waters are warmer than before. they stay on really warm waters, from the keys down.

blacktip hunter, you are young. if you don't believe in global warming, it's your decision. but before you believe or say it doenst exist, please do some research into it before you make your call.


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

I am not going into the weather issue that's another can of worms altogether....I am only telling you how some fish here seem to be moving further north...Is it the weather?? maybe maybe not....But if you start catching Snooks up there....Than something is really mess up .....all i know is i don't like the COLD and hope it keeps getting warm. Than i can start catching some bonefish and Peacock bass up here in Central fla...:beer:.....Blacktip last time i went to Canada it was during thankgiving and got talk into going fishing on a boat.....I spend the next two weeks trying to get warm I have to say....I was out there on that boat saying....*Where the HELL is the Global warming AT!!!*  ......Again just my .02 ...:beer:

*Latin Good Old Boy Club* opcorn:
No Membership Needed.....All welcome


----------



## emanuel (Apr 2, 2002)

We are in a warming trend, whether it is man-made or not, that's for you to decide. 

Just walked outside and pulled a pork tenderloin off the grill while sipping on a Blue Moon Winter Ale. Ahhhh, life is good.


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

emanuel said:


> We are in a warming trend, whether it is man-made or not, that's for you to decide.
> 
> Just walked outside and pulled a pork tenderloin off the grill while sipping on a Blue Moon Winter Ale. Ahhhh, life is good.


True, we are in a warming trend, but its not man made. Of all the greenhouse gases, water vapor is the most dominate, it covers 95% of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 takes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases, and heres the best part, we contribute only 3.2% of that 3.6 of the CO2. Even if we tried, we couldn't make a difference with the clmiate, water vapor is so abundant, that the amount of CO2 that humans cause is so insignificant. 

Also the planet cooled from the late 1940's to the mid 1970's, when industry was booming and when we were a lot less environmentally safe. 

According to climatologists, the planet will begin cooling again in the next 5 years. It's all a natural cycle.


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

HellRhaY said:


> bonefish being caught this far up north is a proof that the waters are warmer than before. they stay on really warm waters, from the keys down.
> 
> blacktip hunter, you are young. if you don't believe in global warming, it's your decision. but before you believe or say it doenst exist, please do some research into it before you make your call.


I have done more than a years worth of research on global warming, i've talked to geologists, physists, and climatologists, and they all agree that its a myth, there's not enough concrete evidence to prove it.

The Earth was on average 1 degree Celsuis warmer during the mediveal period. The vikings grew crops on greenland, this could not be possible today, for the permafrost would stop the roots from growing. 

Global warming also violates the second law of thermodynamics:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/104929.shtml


----------



## toejam (Jan 28, 2005)

BigEdD said:


> Are you guys out of the witness protection program now? LOL :spam:
> 
> http://www.pierandsurf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42748&highlight=Permit


Hey , Ed it may be a one of those "disinformation" pic to throw them off track,,,,

BT,,, I read your 149 page source paper,,,, it seems to be more of a political paper rather than a science paper,,, They did proved that climatology is not an exact science, but climatologist have never clamined it to be. If gobal warming could be proved by physic, we would have never even gotten into this debate. By the time it can be proven as a matter of fact, it will be too late to do anything to change the problem. YOur source paper beat the hellouta climatology for not being an exact science then "kicked them the mouth for mumbling". If you are right, us doing something to correct the problem is no big thing but us looking foolish ,,, but if you are wrong and we do nothing then we will have eliminated our species. I don't know if we are warming our planet by our increased CO2 output or not,, but I will place my money on us trying to correct the warming now rather than gambling that you are right and hope that I look foolish in the long run.


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

Blacktip Hunter said:


> I have done more than a years worth of research on global warming, i've talked to geologists, physists, and climatologists, and they all agree that its a myth, there's not enough concrete evidence to prove it.
> 
> The Earth was on average 1 degree Celsuis warmer during the mediveal period. The vikings grew crops on greenland, this could not be possible today, for the permafrost would stop the roots from growing.
> 
> ...


obviously we are reading different papers. i did not read the link you posted. i have done soo many research and papers (working for the department of health) to have made my decision along time ago.

as i told you before, make a research and make your decision from there. i respect your deicision, now you can respect mine for naming the thread what it is.

goodluck and have fun.


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

toejam said:


> Hey , Ed it may be a one of those "disinformation" pic to throw them off track,,,,
> 
> BT,,, I read your 149 page source paper,,,, it seems to be more of a political paper rather than a science paper,,, They did proved that climatology is not an exact science, but climatologist have never clamined it to be. If gobal warming could be proved by physic, we would have never even gotten into this debate. By the time it can be proven as a matter of fact, it will be too late to do anything to change the problem. YOur source paper beat the hellouta climatology for not being an exact science then "kicked them the mouth for mumbling". If you are right, us doing something to correct the problem is no big thing but us looking foolish ,,, but if you are wrong and we do nothing then we will have eliminated our species. I don't know if we are warming our planet by our increased CO2 output or not,, but I will place my money on us trying to correct the warming now rather than gambling that you are right and hope that I look foolish in the long run.



* OK here's a much better example of physics vs. Global Warming: *

When in energy balance, the Earth radiates from the top of the atmosphere at 235 Watts per square meter (1). 

Radiation from the greenhouse gases goes in all directions, and so, effectively, half is radiated out into space, and half is returned to the Earth’s surface and so helps to increase the surface temperature up to a value for which the radiated emission is twice that from the greenhouse gases to outer space, having made allowance for the energy which escapes directly through the ghg layers to space. Thus, the Earth’s surface radiates at 390 W.m^-2 

Carbon dioxide has an important absorption peak for infrared photons of almost 15 micrometres, but very little of significance at other wavelengths. 

In order to ensure 100% absorption of photons of this wavelength, the surface must be “covered” by sufficient molecules of CO2. Now, the absorption cross section of a CO2 molecule for a 15 micron photon is about 5×10^-22 m^2 per molecule (2), and so the number of molecules required to cover an area of 1 m^2 is 1.0 / (5×10^-22), ie. 2×10^21 molecules per square metre. 

Now consider a vertical column of the Earth’s atmosphere based on a square of area 1 m^2.
This air column has a mass of 1.01×10^4 Kg.m^-2.

The mass of the neutron (& proton) is approximately 1.67×10^-27 Kg.
So the mass of the nitrogen molecule is 4.68×10^-26 Kg.
Therefore, the number of N2 molecules in the column is approximately 2.15×10^29.

Now, carbon dioxide is currently present at the level of about 380 ppm by volume, and so the number of CO2 molecules in our 1 m^2 column is about 8×10^25.

Therefore, the 100% cover for the 15 micron photons can be provided 8×10^25 / 2×10^21 times over, ie. 4×10^4 times. Moreover, 100% absorption cover can be provided down to absorption cross sections of about 1.0 / (8×10^25) m^2, ie. 1.25×10^-26 m^2. This is about 1000 times smaller than the smallest spectral lines shown for the 15 micron wavelength region in the HITRAN data to be found at http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm. The smallest spectral lines shown in this region are at about the 10^-23 m^2 level, and occur within ± 1 micron of the major line, ie between 14 and 16 microns. (Note that the HITRAN ordinate axis is in cms^2.) It follows that the absorption peak in this region must have a flat top, corresponding to 100% absorption of photons, from at least 14 microns to 16 microns wavelength. If still smaller spectral lines occur, too small to be shown in the HITRAN data but greater than 1.25×10^-26 m^2, then the flat top will be wider still. 

However, if there are appropriately small spectral lines, there must be a wavelength at which the absorption cross section is sufficiently small for some photons to manage to escape through the carbon dioxide to outer space. At this point, the height of the absorption peak begins to fall from the 100% level, and this proceeds further as the wavelengths are reduced below 14 microns, and increased above 16 microns. This forms the sides of the peak, sometimes referred to as the “shoulders”.


Low level infrared absorption cross sections of carbon dioxide



The diagrams may be enlarged by using CONTROL+SCROLL.
Alternatively, the Windows Magnifier may be used.

In the diagram, ABCD represents a simplified infrared absorption peak of CO2 at 15 microns. The ordinate axis is the power per square meter (W.m^-2) of the Earth’s surface per micron element of wavelength. The horizontal axis is the photon wavelength in microns. 

If there are no smaller spectral lines outside the 14 to 16 micron range, as discussed above, this would give vertical sides to the absorption peak in the diagram, and we would get EFCD, which means that extra CO2 could not produce an enhanced GHG effect.

To be realistic, however, we should allow for the possibility that smaller lines do exist on either side, but are too small to be shown (or are too small to be measured). The exact values do not really matter, but together they would produce sloping sides to the peak, simplified as straight lines, AD and BC, in the adjacent 1 micron sections. Still smaller peaks removed yet again by another micron would give an effect too small to be really significant.

The effect of doubling CO2 concentration in the atmosphere

Original peak, at pre-industrial CO2 concentration
The wavelength axis has been considered to comprise 0.1 micron elements, giving 10 steps per one micron element. The power absorbed by the peak ABCD is given by the area under the peak and so, for arbitrary units with 10 units of height corresponding to the 100% absorption level, the flat top, the original area is 300 area units. (A simple, approximate measure can be obtained by adding the ordinate values for each 0.1 micron step.)

Final peak, after doubling CO2 concentration
Suppose that the CO2 concentration is now doubled from pre-industrial levels. The flat top cannot go any higher because it is already at the 100% absorption level. However, the first 0.1 micron element can double from 1 height unit to 2 height units, an increase of 1 height unit, and similarly for the next elements up to and including the fifth one. The increases are shown by the short vertical lines at the left. But the last set of 5 elements cannot double because of the 100% limit. Their increases are shown above the vertical lines. This results in an increase of 25 area units each side, ie a total increase of 50 area units, with the final peak absorbing a power of 350 area units.

Now, from a Planck distribution of the Earth’s radiation spectrum, with the Earth in radiative balance at a surface temperature of 288.0 degK and emitting 390 W.m^-2, we find that the power from a wavelength element of 1 micron, at 15 microns, is 7.43 Wm^-2. This is equivalent to 100 area units in the diagram. So a power increase of 50 area units in real terms is 3.72 Wm^-2. 

Therefore, (final power) / (initial power) = 393.72 / 390.0 = 1.009538
Hence, the Absolute temperature of Earth’s surface increases by a factor which is the fourth root of this, (1.009538)^0.25, ie 1.002376, by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

So the Earth’s surface temperature becomes 288.68 degK, ie an increase of, say, 0.7 degC.

If conditions were such that the original peak sides sloped linearly over two microns instead of only one, then it can be shown that the temperature increase would be 1.4 degC, but this would seem to be very unlikely in view of the way the amplitudes of the small spectral lines fall off with displacement from the major peak within the closest 1 micron elements. From the HITRAN spectra, this fall-off seems to be at least a factor of 10 per micron.

This simple model using only 10 points each side has been verified by calculating the results for 1000 points each side. Moreover, the simple model has been extended to include 5 one micron sections of assumed small lines on either side, with a fall-off of a factor 10 in each section. The results are shown below.

CO2 Factor Increase_____Surface Temp Rise degC

1.36 present day_________________0.42
1.5____________________________0.54
2.0____________________________0.86


For comparison, an absorption peak with sinusoidal sides has also been considered, as shown below.



CO2 Factor Increase_____Surface Temp Rise degC

1.36 present day_________________0.27
1.5____________________________0.34
2.0____________________________0.50


Conclusion
It is not known whether any small spectral lines exist in the 15 micron region, outside the range 14 to 16 microns, because of limitations in available data. If there are no such lines, then it is difficult to see how additional carbon dioxide can have an enhanced greenhouse effect. 

If such small lines do indeed exist, then this could cause an enhanced GHG effect, and for a doubling of CO2 would produce an increase in Earth’s surface temperature of no more than about one degree Celsius.


References
(1)http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Clima...hsEnergyBalance

(2)http://vpl.ipac.caltech.edu/spectra/co2pnnlimagesmicrons.htm

The diagrams don't seem to work.


----------



## SurfRat (Apr 16, 2005)

*No chance of cold day in hell?*

I'll have to come up with another saying


----------



## The Crew (Jul 8, 2007)

Ok Blacktip, I fold - I'm out. Too much science for me. E=Mc2


----------



## seasnake (Jan 21, 2007)

This thread just warms me up... Did the bonefish live up to his scrappy reputation??


----------



## toejam (Jan 28, 2005)

BT,,,, even a old computer scientist like me know bulls hit when i see it. It seems you are picking and choosing your data to support your pre drawn conclusion---- not the scientific method to say the least… You say there is no data for spectral lines of CO2 outside the 14-16 micron range,,, well CO2 has two other absorption spikes, one around 2.6 microns and the other around 4 microns. This is not secret data. And you have only taken the to affect CO2 by itself,,, it is not the only Green house gas,,,, hows about methane, nitrous oxide , O2 and O3, are you going to take them into the system. However, even with your selected data you did come up with a increase in the surface temp of our planet.. But your failed to link this to the exponential rise in the rate increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. How long before the concentration of CO2 is doubling -every 50 years, 25 years, and then 10 years??? You run the figures on this and you may surprised at what you find! Let go fishing……..


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

It was only one stinking bonefish way to much info for me.....I am waiting for the peacock to make into our canal here, than i will make up my mind.....Thread was about Bonefish and now, i am waiting for Al Gore to jump in 
Agree to Disgree.....everyone has a right to their Opinion opcorn:........I don't even want to touch this issue....Hell i got in enough crap over a Mako Shark....I know if i took sides all my Nemesis would jump in here.....and say i am the cause for global warming  opcorn:

*Latin Good Old Boys Club* opcorn:
No membership Needed, all are welcome


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

i really think you're the cause of global warming JP.

lets all crucify JP!!!


----------



## bcssux (May 23, 2005)

seasnake said:


> This thread just warms me up... Did the bonefish live up to his scrappy reputation??


yeah man, did it? thats what i wanna know. not bout global warmin or anything. howd the critter fight???


----------



## jettypark28 (Jun 23, 2006)

*HellRhay*

I already explain Global warming in this thread, but NOOOOOOOOOOO nobody wanted to listen to me and look what happen 

http://www.pierandsurf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43821

I belive that thread got a little warm also, because of all the farting ....alright now before you respond ask yourself...Do i really want to add to Global warming" ??........I do all the time  
"HellRhay" crucifying me will only start a Religious debate. 
*Latin Good Old Boys Club* opcorn:
No membership needed, all welcome


----------



## cpn_aaron (Apr 11, 2006)

nice catch on the pomps and bone. [email protected], can we ever have a thread without a high jack?!

As a climate scientist I've had to research both ends of this and trust me, global warming is a reality. You have to extend back over 15 million years to see the same warming pattern and we're slated for a cooling trend according to solar influx, tilt of the earth, and ellipse of our orbit around the sun. For the past 70 years we thought we were set to hit an ice age in the near future due to the long term extraterrestial trends, but after manjor industrialization and modernazation along with more reasearch we found the odd warming trend coupled with CO2 rise. While people can debate whether we control it (I believe we do), the earth is warming. UNless you listen to the American Enterprise Institute and other special interest group's shaky science. Just because Gore is championing global warming and a lot of people hate him doesn't mean it's a falsehood. I actually wished he hadn't championed it, since it made the other side call politics, not justifiable concern. Oh well, politics is posion and will always permeate and destroy everything it touches.


----------



## HellRhaY (Jul 6, 2007)

i was standing about 10 yards away from the LDX when i saw the rod bent. it wasn't bent like all the others that morning, this was really bent. it was a strong tag. i was thinking, i must really have a good size fish on. 

i ran to my spiked rod and began to reel the fish in, i can feel him at the other end, but he didn't have enough strength to pull some line on my reel with the drag set at 20#. the rod fought the fish, and with the power the LDX has, i can't really say how the bonefish fought. The ROD bullied the fish in.

But, If i had that bonefish on a lighter tackle, i know it would be alot more fun. But with the LDX and the Spin Power, i can barely feel him. But he indeed bent the rod more than any other fish i caught that morning.


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

cpn_aaron said:


> nice catch on the pomps and bone. [email protected], can we ever have a thread without a high jack?!
> 
> As a climate scientist I've had to research both ends of this and trust me, global warming is a reality. You have to extend back over 15 million years to see the same warming pattern and we're slated for a cooling trend according to solar influx, tilt of the earth, and ellipse of our orbit around the sun. For the past 70 years we thought we were set to hit an ice age in the near future due to the long term extraterrestial trends, but after manjor industrialization and modernazation along with more reasearch we found the odd warming trend coupled with CO2 rise. While people can debate whether we control it (I believe we do), the earth is warming. UNless you listen to the American Enterprise Institute and other special interest group's shaky science. Just because Gore is championing global warming and a lot of people hate him doesn't mean it's a falsehood. I actually wished he hadn't championed it, since it made the other side call politics, not justifiable concern. Oh well, politics is posion and will always permeate and destroy everything it touches.


The warming of certain areas of the planet is for sure, but its not CO2 driven. The temperatures were rising during the beginning of the 20th century. CO2 was slowly rising constantly, but when the temperatures dropped, CO2 was still rising. 










Also the term "Global Warming" isn't even possible



> The entire debate about global warming is a mirage. The concept of ‘global temperature’ is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Bjarne Andresen who has analyzed this hot topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, both Ontario, Canada.
> 
> It is generally assumed that the atmosphere and the oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years. The reason for this point of view is an upward trend in the curve of measurements of the so-called ‘global temperature’. This is the temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the Globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.


http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/uoc-gt-031507.php

The hockey stick theory has been proven wrong:

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm


----------



## Blacktip Hunter (Sep 16, 2007)

toejam said:


> BT,,,, even a old computer scientist like me know bulls hit when i see it. It seems you are picking and choosing your data to support your pre drawn conclusion---- not the scientific method to say the least… You say there is no data for spectral lines of CO2 outside the 14-16 micron range,,, well CO2 has two other absorption spikes, one around 2.6 microns and the other around 4 microns. This is not secret data. And you have only taken the to affect CO2 by itself,,, it is not the only Green house gas,,,, hows about methane, nitrous oxide , O2 and O3, are you going to take them into the system. However, even with your selected data you did come up with a increase in the surface temp of our planet.. But your failed to link this to the exponential rise in the rate increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. How long before the concentration of CO2 is doubling -every 50 years, 25 years, and then 10 years??? You run the figures on this and you may surprised at what you find! Let go fishing……..


It's data collected from 2 sites:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-123613.html

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7157


----------



## emanuel (Apr 2, 2002)

Since we're pretty far off topic from the original post, I pronounce this thread closed.


----------

