possible Blob results

[nicnat]

just pondering over this very lackluster fishing season over much of the coast, at least so far. I'm thinking many of our returning runs would possibly have run through this huge blob we had off shore for much of last year during their migratory routes and maybe we are seeing the consequences of this now. This is not based on any great knowledge I have on this subject, but is one of the things that comes to mind looking at the fishing situation in many areas presently. anyone have any input to add, agreeing or disagreeing???

 

[tubber]

I got one big Chinook (white, so Fr. R.), a coho (Ukee) and a couple sockeye (PA) last week. Going back to Ukee July 22-26, Aug 6-9, 13-14, and 24-28. I'll be in a better position to speculate then. This forum leads me to believe that June/early July in Sooke, Nanaimo, Port Renfrew and Telegraph Cove are not as good as recent years till this point; Port Hardy, Powell River/Sechelt, Dent Island have been pretty good. WCVI offshore is normal but the weather has been a limiting factor; and this weekend until the end of summer will be outstanding everywhere (except inshore Barkley (wait till August 1))! I still think the Columbians are way out there 50-100 fathoms and many of them won't be in our reach.

 

[nicnat]

looks like they have just moved into the tofino area, better late than never, lol.

 

[ericl]

FYI, the blob is still there, it's just that the warm water has gone deeper & too deep to detect with the sea surface temp detection method. If you look at the water temps measured by the offshore buoys, the water is abnormally warm.
Personally, I would look at the fish counts at the dams on the Columbia River to see how actual versus normal & predicted returns are materializing as this is the most monitored Salmon stream in existence. Results for spring/summer run are available but fall run doesn't peak til Labor Day. FYI Spring Chinook tend to come straight-in to the river mouth from far offshore versus the coastal migration of fall Chinook.

In the mid-late 2000's there were massive amounts of 30 - 50lb white Springs being caught on the S/W Corner at Ucluelet ( I caught 3 over 30 one day & released 30 over 25lb; caught a limit for the guide).
These fish disappeared after about 2010 then we heard from the draggers that they were pulling up these fish along with the pilchards they feed on at depths over 400 feet 40 miles offshore.
In 2011 I related fish to a Princess Boat skipper who was an ex-commercial fisherman & he confirmed the 400feet 40 mile info.

In recent years the Westport WA boats with down riggers have been catching their Chinook way out at 250 ft instead of the usual 40-50 feet depths.

I was at Hippa Island in early July & Chinook were scarce. To me it looks like another unusual year.

 

[Stoisy]

Hey Eric,
Do you have info on the Blob still existing? From what I understood most of the science had pointed towards it having dissipated? Warm water is not able to sink below colder water as the density of warm water is less than that of cold. Would be interested to see the data showing the remnants of the blob!

 

[ericl]

Hi Stoisy. As posted above my source was a coupe lines long & i forget where I saw it. It looks to be somebody's conclusion based on interpreting some data The link below presents more detail (the data):

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...ppearing-at-the-surface-but-will-it-reemerge/

Here is a link to related info:

http://earthsky.org/earth/pacific-blob-is-changing-weather-patterns

While thinking about this I now remember some years in the 1990's where very few Robinson Creek Chinook would be caught at Ucluelet, Chinook catches were great at the Big Bank, and the actual returns to the Robinson Creel Hatchery were normal. My point here is that odd/abnormal Chinook migrations have probably been happening for years, and that due to greatly reduced abundances of SOME runs, fisher's such as nicnat are now saying "what's up"? At that time the Big Bank was new to the Ucluelet fleet and the rivers of origin of fish caught there were not understood. They still may not be well understood, but gaging from the large amounts of smaller Chinook caught on the Big Bank in August, I'd vebtute to say that for a lot of these Chinook, this is the limit of their northern migration & this is where they grow-up. The Pacific Salmon commission has data showing about 80% of Puget Sound Chinook are caught off WCVI.

I made a later post titled Where are the Chinook? that has links to Columbia River return data for Spring Chinook for year 2016 compared to the 19 year average & the returns are well above average for 2016. By definition Spring Chinook enter the rivers by July 1.

 

[Dave H]

Hi Stoisy. As posted above my source was a coupe lines long & i forget where I saw it. It looks to be somebody's conclusion based on interpreting some data The link below presents more detail (the data):

https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/20...ppearing-at-the-surface-but-will-it-reemerge/

Here is a link to related info:

http://earthsky.org/earth/pacific-blob-is-changing-weather-patterns

While thinking about this I now remember some years in the 1990's where very few Robinson Creek Chinook would be caught at Ucluelet, Chinook catches were great at the Big Bank, and the actual returns to the Robinson Creel Hatchery were normal. My point here is that odd/abnormal Chinook migrations have probably been happening for years, and that due to greatly reduced abundances of SOME runs, fisher's such as nicnat are now saying "what's up"? At that time the Big Bank was new to the Ucluelet fleet and the rivers of origin of fish caught there were not understood. They still may not be well understood, but gaging from the large amounts of smaller Chinook caught on the Big Bank in August, I'd vebtute to say that for a lot of these Chinook, this is the limit of their northern migration & this is where they grow-up. The Pacific Salmon commission has data showing about 80% of Puget Sound Chinook are caught off WCVI.

I made a later post titled Where are the Chinook? that has links to Columbia River return data for Spring Chinook for year 2016 compared to the 19 year average & the returns are well above average for 2016. By definition Spring Chinook enter the rivers by July 1.

Your first link is to Bob Tisdale, a well known GW denier who has made numerous claims regarding the topic, none of which holds up to scrutiny.

I'd ignore him.

And yes indeed, huge areas of warmer than usual water will provide more energy to weather events, as has been witnessed numerous times recently, fortunately mostly happening elsewhere.

We get starving birds and sea mammals showing up during big El Ninos, like we have just experienced, and the pasture available for salmon gets smaller and less fertile too.

Lots of noticeable manifestations of GW available also, if one chooses to look.

Interesting times indeed.




Take care.

 

[Eastmon]

Your first link is to Bob Tisdale, a well known GW denier who has made numerous claims regarding the topic, none of which holds up to scrutiny.

I'd ignore him.

And yes indeed, huge areas of warmer than usual water will provide more energy to weather events, as has been witnessed numerous times recently, fortunately mostly happening elsewhere.

We get starving birds and sea mammals showing up during big El Ninos, like we have just experienced, and the pasture available for salmon gets smaller and less fertile too.

Lots of noticeable manifestations of GW available also, if one chooses to look.

Interesting times indeed.




Take care.

Obviously your free to use what ever term you want to call the other side of the scientific debate about Climate Change (not global warming), but the name "denier" is kind of crass.

It is still a debate you know and while that debate isnt about whether it is happening, its about whether it is caused by man's actions and whether the effect of higher c02 levels is actually going to have the catastrophic results the drama queens have predicted. Hell even your poster boy Al Gore has been so far off the mark, to say its comical is an understatement.

Global weather is an extremely complex system, the gullible majority (that seem to believe higher taxes and a more intrusive government) should take a step down from their high horse and actually look at this with an open mind and with pure science at the forefront.

Hell, even the founder of Greenpeace has said this is not about science.

 

[MadJigga]

Ya never know......the next ice age could be right around the corner

 

[Stoisy]

Eastmon...that debate is long over as well. Climate patterns are complex, but the results of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere are very, very simple. Look it up...

 

[Dave H]

Obviously your free to use what ever term you want to call the other side of the scientific debate about Climate Change (not global warming), but the name "denier" is kind of crass.

It is still a debate you know and while that debate isnt about whether it is happening, its about whether it is caused by man's actions and whether the effect of higher c02 levels is actually going to have the catastrophic results the drama queens have predicted. Hell even your poster boy Al Gore has been so far off the mark, to say its comical is an understatement.

Global weather is an extremely complex system, the gullible majority (that seem to believe higher taxes and a more intrusive government) should take a step down from their high horse and actually look at this with an open mind and with pure science at the forefront.

Hell, even the founder of Greenpeace has said this is not about science.

The name "denier" is actually quite mild relative to other names that could be used, and their is no "scientific debate" about global warming and the climate change that follows.

There is, however, a lot of propaganda, paid professional deniers, appeal to authority arguments, political hindrance and out and out BS, some of which is found in your post.

There is an order in which things happen and it's warming then climate change, notwithstanding the denier side wanting to change the name to "climate change" so as to make it easier to dismiss.

I've been watching this topic closely for 15 years or more on-line and my interest really started when I became a surfer back in 1973 so started following weather events locally and worldwide in order to track swell.

Your use of certain expressions like "drama queen", "poster boy Al Gore", "gullible majority", "higher taxes and a more intrusive government" are all from the Denier 101 playbook and show the complete lack of science so often found in your type of posts.

Also, there is no such thing as "global weather".

Most school kids would know that.

Next, one must presume that your reference to "the founder of Greenpeace" means the illustrious Patrick Moore, one of my favorite Bi-ostitutes.

First, he was not THE founder of Greenpeace, he was one of a number of people who formed the group together, although in virtually every mention of him when he's giving a talk to the salmon farmers or the loggers or whichever group is paying him to polish their image the Greenpeace connection is mentioned, notwithstanding how long ago that was and how long it's been since he became "Head Scientist" at his little consulting firm.

He's a proven liar and I've dis-assembled his presentations before simply to show how guys like him operate, having sat through a number of them when I was married to a salmon farmer.

I have nothing but contempt for him and consider him a charlatan of no small proportions.

Finally, your mention of Al Gore means you're attempting to appeal to those who don't like Gore rather than using any actual scientific argument to bolster your side of the discussion.

And Gore made no predictions that haven't happened. That's just more lies from your ilk and anyone who wishes to check that can watch the movie he narrated and hear what he actually said rather than depend on lies put out by the denier crew.

Lies, appeals to authority, semantics, clever slogans, key words, talking points etc. etc. etc. don't mean anything at all in the face of real science and real world observations, but still people make denier posts.

Makes one wonder.



Take care.

 

[Karlo]

The name "denier" is actually quite mild relative to other names that could be used, and their is no "scientific debate" about global warming and the climate change that follows.

There is, however, a lot of propaganda, paid professional deniers, appeal to authority arguments, political hindrance and out and out BS, some of which is found in your post.

There is an order in which things happen and it's warming then climate change, notwithstanding the denier side wanting to change the name to "climate change" so as to make it easier to dismiss.

I've been watching this topic closely for 15 years or more on-line and my interest really started when I became a surfer back in 1973 so started following weather events locally and worldwide in order to track swell.

Your use of certain expressions like "drama queen", "poster boy Al Gore", "gullible majority", "higher taxes and a more intrusive government" are all from the Denier 101 playbook and show the complete lack of science so often found in your type of posts.

Also, there is no such thing as "global weather".

Most school kids would know that.

Next, one must presume that your reference to "the founder of Greenpeace" means the illustrious Patrick Moore, one of my favorite Bi-ostitutes.

First, he was not THE founder of Greenpeace, he was one of a number of people who formed the group together, although in virtually every mention of him when he's giving a talk to the salmon farmers or the loggers or whichever group is paying him to polish their image the Greenpeace connection is mentioned, notwithstanding how long ago that was and how long it's been since he became "Head Scientist" at his little consulting firm.

He's a proven liar and I've dis-assembled his presentations before simply to show how guys like him operate, having sat through a number of them when I was married to a salmon farmer.

I have nothing but contempt for him and consider him a charlatan of no small proportions.

Finally, your mention of Al Gore means you're attempting to appeal to those who don't like Gore rather than using any actual scientific argument to bolster your side of the discussion.

And Gore made no predictions that haven't happened. That's just more lies from your ilk and anyone who wishes to check that can watch the movie he narrated and hear what he actually said rather than depend on lies put out by the denier crew.

Lies, appeals to authority, semantics, clever slogans, key words, talking points etc. etc. etc. don't mean anything at all in the face of real science and real world observations, but still people make denier posts.

Makes one wonder.



Take care.

Well stated. The impacts of ocean acidification and temperature events caused by human-generated rises in CO2 aren't denied by any scientist not paid to deny them. It's sad that Faux News addicts, and those stuck with bashing every physical science that refutes their religious necessity to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old, remain an impediment to finding solutions.

 

[Seafever]

However on the other hand scientists are quick to point out that 95% of the oceans have never been explored.

The other day there was a press release where scientists allowed:- "There is so much we don't know". (Something I'd never thought I'd hear a scientist say these days).

So those that they claim they are experts on oceans are ...what....experts on 5 % of the oceans?

 

[Eastmon]

The name "denier" is actually quite mild relative to other names that could be used, and their is no "scientific debate" about global warming and the climate change that follows.

There is, however, a lot of propaganda, paid professional deniers, appeal to authority arguments, political hindrance and out and out BS, some of which is found in your post.

There is an order in which things happen and it's warming then climate change, notwithstanding the denier side wanting to change the name to "climate change" so as to make it easier to dismiss.

I've been watching this topic closely for 15 years or more on-line and my interest really started when I became a surfer back in 1973 so started following weather events locally and worldwide in order to track swell.

Your use of certain expressions like "drama queen", "poster boy Al Gore", "gullible majority", "higher taxes and a more intrusive government" are all from the Denier 101 playbook and show the complete lack of science so often found in your type of posts.

Also, there is no such thing as "global weather".

Most school kids would know that.

Next, one must presume that your reference to "the founder of Greenpeace" means the illustrious Patrick Moore, one of my favorite Bi-ostitutes.

First, he was not THE founder of Greenpeace, he was one of a number of people who formed the group together, although in virtually every mention of him when he's giving a talk to the salmon farmers or the loggers or whichever group is paying him to polish their image the Greenpeace connection is mentioned, notwithstanding how long ago that was and how long it's been since he became "Head Scientist" at his little consulting firm.

He's a proven liar and I've dis-assembled his presentations before simply to show how guys like him operate, having sat through a number of them when I was married to a salmon farmer.

I have nothing but contempt for him and consider him a charlatan of no small proportions.

Finally, your mention of Al Gore means you're attempting to appeal to those who don't like Gore rather than using any actual scientific argument to bolster your side of the discussion.

And Gore made no predictions that haven't happened. That's just more lies from your ilk and anyone who wishes to check that can watch the movie he narrated and hear what he actually said rather than depend on lies put out by the denier crew.

Lies, appeals to authority, semantics, clever slogans, key words, talking points etc. etc. etc. don't mean anything at all in the face of real science and real world observations, but still people make denier posts.

Makes one wonder.



Take care.

Fair enough, you feel strongly about your side of the debate. Which I still firmly believe it is.

Your side can claim neither victory or the moral high ground.

When the fear campaign continues and thousands of "scientific" livelihoods depend on keeping that fear alive, I will continue to be skeptical.

To actually think we can alter the course of Earths climate is right up there with this train of thought that the political elite can alter the worlds financial markets. Look how that has gone for us the last 8 years.

Global climate systems (which funnily enough, do exist) are complex and are interconnected, not only to factors here but from a far, i.e. The sun. Man, one volcano erupting can undue all the emission controls we have laid out for the previous decade.

I may have given you the impression, or maybe the one sided media you read on this topic has, that I think we should just keep pumping crap into our air and leaving a footprint in our environment. That's not the case AT ALL. I'm all for a better way of doing things and a more harmonious existence with nature. I have just lived long enough to know ******** when I see it and the alterior motives for these types of movements. Human greed doesn't always take an evil demenor. You should keep that in mind.

P.S. Gore wasn't wrong??!! He said by 2013 that we wouldn't have any Polar caps left. His computer models, along with EVERY other computer model that predict this end of world scenario have been WAY off the mark. Doesn't that say something? These are the people you are siding with. Get a grip and open your eyes, it's never a good thing to get married to one side of the argument. At least I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong, I just want proof.

 

[ericl]

Anyway, meanwhile back at the blob, I did not know who Tisdale is, i just looked at his data. If he is wrong about the blob sinking, I would like to know & be corrected if I am wrong. I do not see how saying Tisdale is off base about the blob & then not providing any proof/data helps the intent of this thread. I can understand & accept that we all get off base, but while I may agree with you all I just really wanna know the truth about the blob.

 

[Eastmon]

Anyway, meanwhile back at the blob, I did not know who Tisdale is, i just looked at his data. If he is wrong about the blob sinking, I would like to know & be corrected if I am wrong. I do not see how saying Tisdale is off base about the blob & then not providing any proof/data helps the intent of this thread. I can understand & accept that we all get off base, but while I may agree with you all I just really wanna know the truth about the blob.

I don't think anyone really knows. But it is more than likely going to dissipate at some stage. Thermodynamics requires it.

 

[Dave H]

Fair enough, you feel strongly about your side of the debate. Which I still firmly believe it is.

Your side can claim neither victory or the moral high ground.

When the fear campaign continues and thousands of "scientific" livelihoods depend on keeping that fear alive, I will continue to be skeptical.

To actually think we can alter the course of Earths climate is right up there with this train of thought that the political elite can alter the worlds financial markets. Look how that has gone for us the last 8 years.

Global climate systems (which funnily enough, do exist) are complex and are interconnected, not only to factors here but from a far, i.e. The sun. Man, one volcano erupting can undue all the emission controls we have laid out for the previous decade.

I may have given you the impression, or maybe the one sided media you read on this topic has, that I think we should just keep pumping crap into our air and leaving a footprint in our environment. That's not the case AT ALL. I'm all for a better way of doing things and a more harmonious existence with nature. I have just lived long enough to know ******** when I see it and the alterior motives for these types of movements. Human greed doesn't always take an evil demenor. You should keep that in mind.

P.S. Gore wasn't wrong??!! He said by 2013 that we wouldn't have any Polar caps left. His computer models, along with EVERY other computer model that predict this end of world scenario have been WAY off the mark. Doesn't that say something? These are the people you are siding with. Get a grip and open your eyes, it's never a good thing to get married to one side of the argument. At least I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong, I just want proof.

You can "believe" whatever you want to, that doesn't change reality.

"Scientific livelihoods" aren't making the ice melt nor the climate change (Denier 101 tactic again) and your "fear campaign" always works out to be a strawman concoction when examined.

To actually observe and record the changes in global climate created by warming has nothing to do with how the political elite think or act. Another diversion tactic.

Your sentence starting "Global climate systems" is nonsensical at best given the research being done on just that and is followed by your volcano reference which shows clearly how woefully ignorant on the topic you must be.

The annual total of CO2 emitted by volcanic activity on Earth is matched about every three days by man created CO2 emissions.

Every three days.

Volcanoes are a tiny contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere and actually have a cooling effect, the same as the thousands of airplane contrails do.

Finally, it's cute you think if Gore was wrong on something it negates what is happening globally, but the facts are whatever you claim about him is irrelevant and nothing depends on what he did or did not say. By the way, if you research your claim a bit you'll find the answer and the truth about your claim. You won't though, 'cause that's not what denier trolls do.

And so far you have shown no science at all and no inclination at all regarding the possibility of you being wrong, just posted more drivel.

I really don't have much time to deal with drivel nor do I wish to so you can wallow around in your denial state as much as you want and I'll let you be for now.

But really, get a clue.



Take care.

 

[Stoisy]

Hey Eric, Thermodynamically the warm water would not sink, just like the warm air in a room rises, the warmer water would sit on top of the cold water below it. As the water temperature increases the density decreases, causing it to "float" on top of the cooler water. The decreased temperatures would be visible on the surface, because thats where the warmest water would remain. The water is not separated by a thermocline like they can be in lakes because the currents are too volatile. Warm water simply cannot be trapped beneath cold water.

 

[Eastmon]

You can "believe" whatever you want to, that doesn't change reality.

"Scientific livelihoods" aren't making the ice melt nor the climate change (Denier 101 tactic again) and your "fear campaign" always works out to be a strawman concoction when examined.

To actually observe and record the changes in global climate created by warming has nothing to do with how the political elite think or act. Another diversion tactic.

Your sentence starting "Global climate systems" is nonsensical at best given the research being done on just that and is followed by your volcano reference which shows clearly how woefully ignorant on the topic you must be.

The annual total of CO2 emitted by volcanic activity on Earth is matched about every three days by man created CO2 emissions.

Every three days.

Volcanoes are a tiny contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere and actually have a cooling effect, the same as the thousands of airplane contrails do.

Finally, it's cute you think if Gore was wrong on something it negates what is happening globally, but the facts are whatever you claim about him is irrelevant and nothing depends on what he did or did not say. By the way, if you research your claim a bit you'll find the answer and the truth about your claim. You won't though, 'cause that's not what denier trolls do.

And so far you have shown no science at all and no inclination at all regarding the possibility of you being wrong, just posted more drivel.

I really don't have much time to deal with drivel nor do I wish to so you can wallow around in your denial state as much as you want and I'll let you be for now.

But really, get a clue.



Take care.

Atta boy.

Shoot me down for ignorance by using (incorrect) anecdotal evidence.

Anyways back to the fishing, good luck old boy.