Hatch charts and climate change

[Eagle Claw]

I was wondering if anyone sees any correlation between traditional hatch charts and climate change.
I frequently hear people say the hatches are not what they use to be. .Could it be that times have advanced. Maybe what used to happen in the first weeks of April have move to the third week of April and the fall activity is hotter and maybe the Aug and Sept activity has shifted to
Oct/Nov Anyone have any thoughts ? I would like to hear from some guides who are on the water a good part of the weeks.

 

[moosekid]

I was wondering if anyone sees any correlation between traditional hatch charts and climate change.
I frequently hear people say the hatches are not what they use to be. .Could it be that times have advanced. Maybe what used to happen in the first weeks of April have move to the third week of April and the fall activity is hotter and maybe the Aug and Sept activity has shifted to
Oct/Nov Anyone have any thoughts ? I would like to hear from some guides who are on the water a good part of the weeks.

Eagle Claw,

The noble big oil lobbies have worked hard to debunk the liberal delusion known as "science."

The intelligent men on this board know all about the feedback loop that industry has on politics and don't let it cloud their vision.

Hopefully some of them chime in between spoonfuls of hamburger helper.

 

[lightenup]

https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/insect-disturbance-and-climate-change

this is a good read by the US forest service...Insect decline will affect every other species on the planet. they have been declining for years now as a whole, not just the aquatic ones, birds rely heavily on insects for food and their numbers are shrinking as well, at least that's what the scientists say. I bet some people will have some twisted "facts' to show otherwise. Some insects may thrive while others die off, it seems the balance of nature is being affected and the outcome is unpredictable.

 

[Vance]

Way back before most of you were born NYS.sprayed DDT through out the Catskills for the Gypsie Moth(I am not much of a speller). The end result was the killing of most of your major hatches. Sure a few survived and we now have better hatches now then we had back in the Fifties. The same is happening now where everyone is using insecticides around there houses.. The run off goes into the streams and in the long run are killing the insects that live in the stream. I do not think it is because of climate change right now but may happen 30 or 50 years from now. Just my thinking on this subject. Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Bill the mailman

 

[Trout Nazi]

Pretty sure climate change has nothing to do with the hatches since water temp, and variations in water temp, have more to do with reservoir releases than air temperatures. I would also throw out a theory here that the knotweed infestation plays a role also. It causes the slow widening of the riverbed, and siltation.

As far as climate change goes, it’s been happening in cycles for the last 4 billion years. To think that humans can have an effect on it one way or the other is laughable. To blame it all on the emission of a gas and ignore every other variable is pretty funny, but looks like a lot of “scientists” are making a pretty good career out of it.

 

[Johnw]

That's exactly my thoughts on climate change also but you were able to express it far better than I.

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Pretty sure climate change has nothing to do with the hatches since water temp, and variations in water temp, have more to do with reservoir releases than air temperatures. I would also throw out a theory here that the knotweed infestation plays a role also. It causes the slow widening of the riverbed, and siltation.

As far as climate change goes, it’s been happening in cycles for the last 4 billion years. To think that humans can have an effect on it one way or the other is laughable. To blame it all on the emission of a gas and ignore every other variable is pretty funny, but looks like a lot of “scientists” are making a pretty good career out of it.

I agree with you on climate change, but you lost me with your theory on rock snot widening the river and adding siltation. As a river restoration expert, I am struggling to imagine any scenario where that could be the case.

 

[Trout Nazi]

I agree with you on climate change, but you lost me with your theory on rock snot widening the river and adding siltation. As a river restoration expert, I am struggling to imagine any scenario where that could be the case.

We're taking knotweed, not didymo. Its a theory (like anthropogenic climate change), but one we can prove/disprove through a few years of observation. Knotweed grows along the banks in spring and summer, but dies back in the winter. The roots are shallow and don't hold the bank as well as something like willow. As the mass of plants dies back in the winter, it temporarily removes a barrier to erosion. Knotweed completely chokes out any other plants, so once it dies back, there's nothing there. Once its gone for the winter, this allows the river to slowly erode those portions of the bank during high-water events into early spring, slowly widening the river bank, making that part of the river more shallow, changing flow down stream as well. Where has fishing actually gotten better since the knot weed arrived?

 

[Rusty Spinner]

We're taking knotweed, not didymo. Its a theory (like anthropogenic climate change), but one we can prove/disprove through a few years of observation. Knotweed grows along the banks in spring and summer, but dies back in the winter. The roots are shallow and don't hold the bank as well as something like willow. As the mass of plants dies back in the winter, it temporarily removes a barrier to erosion. Knotweed completely chokes out any other plants, so once it dies back, there's nothing there. Once its gone for the winter, this allows the river to slowly erode those portions of the bank during high-water events into early spring, slowly widening the river bank, making that part of the river more shallow, changing flow down stream as well. Where has fishing actually gotten better since the knot weed arrived?

My bad, I ready Didymo where you wrote knotweed. I do agree about that highly foreign invasive plant and damage it is causing along many rivers as it continues to expand. Any plant that dies off in winter along a stream/river will be unable to hold the banks together in severe storms, causing erosion which does widen rivers.

 

[Trout Nazi]

My bad, I ready Didymo where you wrote knotweed. I do agree about that highly foreign invasive plant and damage it is causing along many rivers as it continues to expand. Any plant that dies off in winter along a stream/river will be unable to hold the banks together in severe storms, causing erosion which does widen rivers.

That stuff is a scourge with no cure, once it establishes itself, there's no way to really get rid of it. There are streams that I've been fishing in VT for the last 20yrs where things have noticeably declined because of the knotweed.

As far as the D goes, I don't get up there to fish as much as I'd like to, spend a lot of time wading so don't cover as much water, but over the years it seems that things have gotten more inconsistent, while the fishing pressure has also increased (in addition to the knotweed being everywhere). Things to me seemed to really go off in the last few years after that one really warm and dry spring. This fall kind of sucked also, and that particular observation is backed up by a guide I know. Maybe the guys there day in day out have a different observation? Having said all of that, I had a good spring season up there, caught all of the fish I covered, so I can't really complain. The Sulphers seemed good this year.

 

[MACFLY]

To be blunt I am very troubled by the methane gas some of you boobs are expending on this thread

 

[FIN-ITE 34]

It has been my understanding that Japanese Knotweed, like Phragmites has such a robust root/rhizome system that which makes it almost impossible to eradicate. Where the top growth dies back every winter season, it is the living root/rhizome system that remains intact and alive that promotes such vigorous regrowth each spring. But in fact as you state all other side effects of the spreading mass on native plant life is correct.
"Japanese knotweed’s ease of spread and rapid growth from a deep rhizome (root) system was initially prized for planting schemes. However, from an ecological perspective, these plant traits are precisely why it has become a huge problem for native biodiversity and, increasingly, wider society.
Rapid growth from early in the growing season (February onwards in the UK) excludes most native plants from well-established Japanese knotweed patches (known as “stands”). This is because the dense canopy of leaves shades out other species. This shading effect is amplified as insects do not graze on knotweed plants, and native diseases don’t keep the plant in check either. Knotweed also produces a thick leaf litter, and chemicals that inhibit the germination and growth of native plants. It dominates non-native habitats, displacing native plants and altering how local ecosystems function – for example, in soil nutrient cycling."

Just a little more methane..........

 

[tompg]

all this knot-weed scare crap is from a bunch of pseudoscience herbologists trying to keep their grants funded. Can't believe you rubes fall for it.

 

[Trout Nazi]

So I've done a lot of research on how to actually get rid of knotweed, and the options are very limited. Pulling them out when they first appear, before they establish, is a good option. However, if you leave behind even a small part of the rhizome, it will come back, so you need to do this several times. Once established, repeatedly mowing them down will slowly deplete the stored starch in the rhizome system, so the plant will eventually not be able to fuel new growth and die. This takes over a year of repeated mowing though. The plants are very resistant to glyphosate (Roundup) also. You need to cut the plants, and squirt Roundup into the stalk immediately because it begins to heal in about 30 sec. You may need to do this several times also to get rid of the plant. Up in VT by where my parents live, some knotweed started to appear last year, probably brought there in the dirt when they repaired the road in the spring. I had to employ the Roundup method twice before the plants didn't come back again. Lets see what happens this spring. A local civic group also went on a knotweed control initiative, isolating different areas and trying different methods. They failed miserably, and didn't like my Roundup method, because they were pseudo-tree huggers from VT (even though the farmer down the road grows genetically modified corn thats resistant to the stuff). In short, I think that we're all fooked when it comes to the knotweed.

Ironically, its our desire for nice plants and landscaping that's had a bigger impact on our environment vs. climate change. Also look up how earthworms (an invasive species in the north) changed the landscape from when the first settlers brought them over in root balls and dry ballast.

 

[Trout Nazi]

all this knot-weed scare crap is from a bunch of pseudoscience herbologists trying to keep their grants funded. Can't believe you rubes fall for it.

Naaaa, the global warming guys will bury us tiny knotweed people, because no one gives a shit about fishing or actual ecology. Knotweed isn't as good of a propaganda device as global warming.

 

[tompg]

I hear the fishing in Venice has gotten more convenient.

The NYNJTC (trail conference) has an evasive species strike force. I wonder if they'd be interested in helping eradicate the evil weed.

 

[Trout Nazi]

I hear the fishing in Venice has gotten more convenient.

The NYNJTC (trail conference) has an evasive species strike force. I wonder if they'd be interested in helping eradicate the evil weed.

Well, Venice has been slowly sinking for the last 300yrs, the fishing is only gonna get more convenient.

I think the bus has left the station on the knotweed, don't think there's any eradicating it. The best they can do is maybe slow it down from infesting new areas. Plus knotweed just isn't a sexy enough cause because you can't tie it to global warming, so no one will pay attention.

 

[tompg]

Venice slowly sinking for 300 years? Read that somewhere in the commie liberal media. no doubt placed there by a bunch of pseudo science geologists and historians from some ivory tower keeping their grants funded. damn elites telling us what to think.

 

[Trout Nazi]

Unlike the pseudo-science of anthropogenic climate change, Venice is in fact built on what is essentially a tidal bog. Around 120 small islands in what used to be a wetland environment. So yea, it’s eventually gonna sink below water level.

 

[tompg]

I get it. Only the thousands of scientist that claim mankind contributes to global warming are charlatans. The rest are OK. I say they're all self-interested crooked elitists telling us what to think from their ivory towers through the liberal media.

 

[Trout Nazi]

I get it. Only the thousands of scientist that claim mankind contributes to global warming are charlatans. The rest are OK. I say they're all self-interested crooked elitists telling us what to think from their ivory towers through the liberal media.

Yes, they are. Look who sponsors them. The natural world does not stay static, its always changing, and that goes for climate as well. Its either getting warmer, or getting colder, and sometimes that happens relatively quickly. Look at how the Sahara went from a temperate and life sustaining Savannah to a desert 8000 years ago. This happened in a span of 4 centuries. But hey, lets ignore all common sense and natural history, and any other factors involved with something as complex as climate change, and say its man made.

Anthropogenic global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on a global scale. A Globalist goal adopted as a way to control the entire population through manufactured fear that can neither be proven false or true. Every weather event is exploited as proof, contrary evidence is denounced as not valid and short sighted. The perfect propaganda device. And surprise, surprise, the "solution" always comes down to taking money out of your pocket through legislation. This is the perfect evolution to the ozone hole (that they proved always existed). But keep believing like the rest of the sheep. Baahhh, Baahhh!

 

[moosekid]

Yes, they are. Look who sponsors them. The natural world does not stay static, its always changing, and that goes for climate as well. Its either getting warmer, or getting colder, and sometimes that happens relatively quickly. Look at how the Sahara went from a temperate and life sustaining Savannah to a desert 8000 years ago. This happened in a span of 4 centuries. But hey, lets ignore all common sense and natural history, and any other factors involved with something as complex as climate change, and say its man made.

Anthropogenic global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on a global scale. A Globalist goal adopted as a way to control the entire population through manufactured fear that can neither be proven false or true. Every weather event is exploited as proof, contrary evidence is denounced as not valid and short sighted. The perfect propaganda device. And surprise, surprise, the "solution" always comes down to taking money out of your pocket through legislation. This is the perfect evolution to the ozone hole (that they proved always existed). But keep believing like the rest of the sheep. Baahhh, Baahhh!

I tend to agree with Trout Nazi. This propaganda is necessary to keep "science" relevant. There would be zero money to be made in innovation and technology without the false-hysteria that's rolling down Global Warming Mountain. Don't let this hoax steam-roll you folks.

Big Oil interest groups, on the other hand, have zero incentive to introduce a narrative that challenges the credibility of anthropogenic climate change. I haven't given it too much thought, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to think that source-cues from the politicians they bank-roll trickle down into the dialectic. Keep your eyes open folks.

No matter what you believe in, I think we can all agree that a more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy model is bad. Pass the Hamburger Helper.

 

[lightenup]

I tend to agree with Trout Nazi. This propaganda is necessary to keep "science" relevant. There would be zero money to be made in innovation and technology without the false-hysteria that's rolling down Global Warming Mountain. Don't let this hoax steam-roll you folks.

Big Oil interest groups, on the other hand, have zero incentive to introduce a narrative that challenges the credibility of anthropogenic climate change. I haven't given it too much thought, but it would be absolutely ridiculous to think that source-cues from the politicians they bank-roll trickle down into the dialectic. Keep your eyes open folks.

No matter what you believe in, I think we can all agree that a more sustainable and environmentally friendly energy model is bad. Pass the Hamburger Helper.

Why would you want to live in a cleaner world? Cool clean water everywhere, and sustainable energy? It's a damn hoax..drill baby drill, fill the conglomerates pockets, they'll get your money one way or another. In these parts we just call it helper Sparky...

 

[Trout Nazi]

You guys crack me up. What sustainable energy other than fossil fuels do you speak of? Please, give me an example. Wind, solar, hydro? Technologies that have all been around for ages, but at the end of the day are not scalable (except for hydro, but that’s bad because it dams our trout streams up), or else they would have been scaled already. The oil companies are like the gun companies and tobacco, and easy target. Oil is why the world is getting hotter, gun companies are why people are losing their minds, cigarettes harvest themselves, roll themselves, stick themselves in your mouth, and light themselves up. All a very convenient story the fits your narrative. The reality is that things like battery power (that only addresses cars) is a distraction if you believe in the carbon dioxide causing climate change bullshit, but there sure are a lot of people lined up to make a fortune off of this (I guess these guys have no lobbies either?). The only thing that gets us off of fossil fuels is a scientific discovery on the scale of the discovery of nuclear power. Think along the lines of finding a way to wirelessly transfer electricity over thousands of miles. Then again, burning fossil fuels ain’t why the climate changes, but keep drinking that Cool-Aid.

You want clean water? Stop dumping shit into it, pretty simple. The worst part of this entire climate change BS is that it distracts from things that we actually can affect. And the biggest irony of all is that big oil is spending the most on finding sustainable energy, so that they can patent it of course, but if you think that anyone is looking into alternative energy for altruistic reasons, that’s another bit of delusion you’re living under.

 

[falcon]

What is the little entitled, self serving "envro kook" Greta going to do when she finds that China and India are burning the majority of the coal. I presume the Soros Foundation will formulate a appropriate response. China ??? That's not a acceptable narrative
I dare you little nitwit!

 

[Trout Nazi]

What is the little entitled, self serving "envro kook" Greta going to do when she finds that China and India are burning the majority of the coal. I presume the Soros Foundation will formulate a appropriate response. China ??? That's not a acceptable narrative
I dare you little nitwit!

Greta is the perfect propaganda tool, a kid. She tries to sail everywhere to reduce her carbon footprint, but the crew flies home on a plane:rofl:

 

[Rusty Spinner]

Venice slowly sinking for 300 years? Read that somewhere in the commie liberal media. no doubt placed there by a bunch of pseudo science geologists and historians from some ivory tower keeping their grants funded. damn elites telling us what to think.

I first visited Venice in about 1981, long before we heard about global warming. In fact, we were still highly concerned about global cooling for those of you old enough to remember. But I digress. Back in '81, the first floors of all the buildings in that city were already under water. So yes, Venice has been sinking for centuries and will continue to regardless if the planet is getting much warmer or much colder.

 

[lightenup]

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

I'll just put this here...3 million years

 

[Trout Nazi]

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

I'll just put this here...3 million years

So lets get scientific, since I'm a scientist that actually reads scientific papers all day long (real science, not climate science) and have had to have my shit peer-reviewed, and defend it. One of the fundamental flaws in all of these "scientific" papers is that they only look at effect, whats happening, with no serious look at cause, since they've already assumed that CO2 is the culprit. News flash, number one flaw in all science is to assume anything.

Now, this paper is shit, but since it comes from a government agency (NOAA), thats to be expected, because contrary to popular opinion, the government hasn't contributed shit to science since the Manhattan project, but that was a bunch of civilian scientists anyway, but I digress. Fundamental flaw in this paper? She doesn't correlate CO2 levels to a rise in temperature. What the heck is the point of writing any climate paper if it doesn't correlate anything to temperature? Well, in this case its because the CO2 may be the highest, but the temperature was actually warmer during a couple of the previous interglacials (see below). Go google it, you'll find other graphs that match it. If you look even deeper, you'll find some papers where they've observed that CO2 levels don't precede warming, but follow it. Taken from those same ice-core samples, but since thats contrary data, it must be wrong, right? Not one paper out there that definitively links CO2 as the cause of warming, which brings us to number 2 no-no in science, which is not empirically proving your hypothesis.

 

[lightenup]

and they also say it's climate change, not warming, the science admitted a mistake there and that many factors would change, temperature rises seem to be in the poles and the ocean, the declining populations of fish and bugs and birds and bees have nothing to do with human existence and burning everything we see.......extreme weather events are the hypothesis. But since you're a scientist, I guess there is no way I can twist my facts better than you can twist yours....the rise in CO2 is alarming....highest in 3million years, but that has nothing to do with human existence or climate change, it's just arbitrary bullshit....I'm sure.