Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

Hard to answer properly to this because it's a long list of false claims.

Calling syria being destabilized by climate change is insane, it's a talking point of the godfather of radical climate change propaganda (Al Gore) , based on completly made up assumptions, reasoning, and data, akin to believe we didn't land on the moon. It's like, if you claim that you automatically lose all credibility on the topic of climate change forever.

Now as for the rest of the claims (keep in mind i was talking UK because i was talking with a british person, personally i am in northern Italy), agricultural production OBVIOUSLY is greater in a warmer UK and it's unclear why you believe that's not the case, it's completly uncontroversial.

No reason to think fishing in UK waters would be negatively affected by a warmer sea as well (wild fishing trends down in catch worldwide for the very well studied overfishing phenomenon which is expected when property rights are lacking, the basic tragedy of the commons, but that's another issue), fish farming has no reason to be less productive with warmer water in that area, given they farm fish in Greece and Spain with very good results.

Immigration "pressures" are an artificial problem, ie you decide as a country if you want them. If you don't you shoot to kill and sink boats and it goes to 0 very quickly. There is no illegal immigration in Australia or Japan unless they want to. Being an island makes it even easier of course. But it's a made up problem. Made up by the left, by people who refuse to defend the borders.

So the whole "climate migrants!!!" stuff only exists BECAUSE of leftism. Nevermind that it doesn't make sense to begin with as a claim (poor countries economy improve more than what a warming world does in damage to them, so pressures to emigrate *are lower* if you don't invite those people in), but even if it was the case that a 3x per capita gdp, but 1.5 celsius warmer, bangladesh is a worse place to live in than today bangladesh (a completly absurd claim of course), you just defend yourself and they stop coming anyway.

When they were infinitely poorer than today (so living far worse lives than today) they didn't emigrate en masse because western country didn't take them in in large numbers, it's as easy as that.

Food prices and cost of living problems are exacerbated by the catastrophic net 0 approach, and emission reductions in general. We could pay far less for everything in far lower energy prices if we drilled all shale in europe as well and we removed taxes on fossil fuels, instead of spending on antieconomic renewables obviously. Same as with fertilizer production processes and so on. It's "climate agendas" policies that increase prices and reduce quality of life for everyone.

"Ever recorded"

Unfortunately, our global records only cover about 0.0000006% of the timeline. Goddamned dinosaurs had 150 million years to get some satellites into the air and kickstart our climate records, but instead just sat around doing jack ****.

How ****ed do people in the middle east need to be in order for me to not have to shovel my driveway ever again in Southeast Wisconsin?

At what point in this timeline would one have seen the winged elements roaming and fluttering around?

Autocorrect doing you dirty, sport.

It sure is, 6 years of drought and economic collapse that was the catalyst for subsequent civil unrest, revolution, proxy wars, rise of a terrorist caliphate, bombing of civilians with chemical weapons and 13 million refugees - all which could easily have been avoided.

As for the rest of your post, it didn't seem worth reading.

The goal of our current efforts isn't to immunize us against the ebbs and flows of the universe or the next time 1/13 of the world decides to explode, it is to try and not and destroy ourselves.

Which, you know, isn't really a grandiose goal, but a sensible one.

The entirety of your relaxed attitude to extreme climate change is predicated on new food supplies developing to seamlessly replace existing ones that whole economies, jobs and ways of life have developed over centuries to include, and you're not saying where cod, haddock etc will migrate to or whether they will simply perish.

Not everyone wants sardines with their chips. And not everyone is as insouciant as you about the future of densely populated countries already struggling with extreme heat and/or floods.

the only existential risks we face are totalitarian world government (which could, given advanced enough technology, end the species until we only live on earth) and the very rare (but never impossible) risk of asteroid collision or other astronomical 10sigma event.

even a 8 Celsius warmer earth (which is many-sigma event centuries from now in worst case scenarios models) wouldn't end human life (wouldn't even come close) and you know that pretty well.

your tribe though is convincing people of the contrary, something like a third of adults in the west believe human caused climate change can bring humanity to extinction.

and thanks to this completely, objectively, insane and absurd fear you guys cultivate, you try to achieve political power for very nefarious (ie collectivist) ends.

but there are enough people like me around to make it non trivial for you guys to achieve that

unlike 30-40 years ago, we now know that human population will cap at around 10 billions then slowly decrease from that. we can *very easily* feed 10 billions people with dutch 1985 technology.

what I mean is that if in 2050 our food productivity is that of the Netherlands in 1985 as an average worldwide, we can feed 10 bln people.

now if you think climate change will impact food production in a negative way more than 65 years of technological progress can improve it, then you can be scared *about food access of the poorest 1-2 bln people*.

which would just mean that in that case, in 2050 the poorest of the world will have as many calories per person available as they had from 3000 AD to 1950.

not sure exactly why Egypt should have 100m (and growing fast) people or whether I should care at all if they stop growing as a population because of malthusian bottlenecks, instead of reaching 250m.

that is the super worst case disaster scenario.

should I be worried? no, as no1 gave a **** about Indian food access in 1955 in the west.

but mind, I consider that scenario exceptionally improbable. we can desalinate water with renewables/nuclear with current technology to have farms in deserts near the cost. we already do that.

you know what is making food production harder, food more expensive? Ukraine war (not only for Ukrainian food production itself, also for fertilizer access), & the left incessant attempt to regulate ban and tax optimal farming methods and energy production.

if you really cared about food being abundant you would treat as a direct threat to humanity (and act accordingly) all those people trying to regulate GMO and pesticides and fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers.

those people (each and every one of them, with very rare exceptions, a leftist) are creating the conditions for mass starvation in poor countries.

you want an enemy? that's your enemy. not people who want to eat steak, fly a couple of times per year to visit places, and drive nice cars with tanks that fill in 30 seconds and not 2 hours.

Antarctic temperatures rise 10C above av...

Reported temperatures on continent in midwinter reach 28C above expectations on some days in July

Ground temperatures across great swathes of the ice sheets of Antarctica have soared an average of 10C above normal over the past month, in what has been described as a near record heatwave.

While temperatures remain below zero on the polar land mass, which is shrouded in darkness at this time of year, the depths of southern hemisphere winter, temperatures have reportedly reached 28C above expectations on some days.

The globe has experienced 12 months of record warmth, with temperatures consistently exceeding the 1.5C rise above preindustrial levels that has been touted as the limit to avoiding the worst of climate breakdown.

Michael Dukes, the director of forecasting at MetDesk, said that while individual daily high temperatures were surprising, far more significant was the average rise over the month.

Climate scientists’ models have long predicted that the most significant effects of anthropogenic climate change would be on polar regions, “and this is a great example of that”, he said.

“Usually you can’t just look at one month for a climate trend but it is right in line with what models predict,” Dukes added. “In Antarctica generally that kind of warming in the winter and continuing in to summer months can lead to collapsing of the ice sheets.”

If the only rule is not to "end human life" then sure, keep the gas burning baby. Such arguments are pathetic.

But you're probably alone on this board in not caring enough about the effects on people and societies of 8C of climate change that you'd want to change human behaviour and its reliance on fossil fuels.

Oops, not even autocorrect, brain fart. Elephants, of course.

I feel you. I think you and I are roughly the same age, and I find that when it comes to typing, my fingers are not on the same page as my brain far, far more often than I'd like lately.

I've never done any drugs and and had a only a single, rather unremarkable run-in with alcohol on a camping trip to Wisconsin Dells something like 24 years ago, so I can't even blame that.

Younglings ITT, I strongly advise that you do not get old. It sucks.

Don't @ me, those of you who are past retirement age.

yep getting older sucks.

At least i can blame the alcohol etc.

I hope @Luciom will see this not as an existential threat to Italy's fishing industry but as an opportunity to refactor its entire agricultural economy.

'The Adriatic is becoming tropical&#8217...

Sticky mucilage made of microalgae covers the surface and fishing is impossible as waters reach 30C

Ye everybody knows that tropical beaches are places which people hate, no one would pay to go there.

It's especially tragic if the beach season instead of beginning in early June and ending in early September can start in May and end in October, that clearly would wreck the tourist economy.

Moreover, no country with tropical water has any access to fishing: as we all know fishes people like to eat can't survive in tropical temperatures.

Brazil famously import all it's seafood from southern Argentina for that reason.

And it's not like we already stop fishing ("fermopesca") from mid August to end of September in the Adriatic sea to allow stock to replenish, it would be disastrous if we stopped 2 weeks earlier.

I am terrified at the prospect that, 30 years from now, my grandchildren could be able to go to the seaside on Easter holiday, i cant sleep at night at the idea, who could?

Note: the worst Mucillagine was in 1928.

And as the article reports an event that didn't happen from 1990 to 2023 in any significant magnitude... Can only be attributed to climate change by completely bad faithed actors with extremely nefarious intentions.

Increasing tourism to the sort of levels that has Spanish people protesting in the street because their local services are overwhelmed is a typically bizarre Luciom take.

Hope you don't each much seafood or mind lager vomit all over your pavements.

Tourism in its present form a significant contributor to both climate change and also many other forms of environmental destruction, so it would be a rather poor solution to the problem.

It's hard to come up with solutions when you don't even understand the problem.

Brother thinks the cold is more of a killer than the heat.

It's like he gets in his car every late summer afternoon after it's been sitting in direct sunlight, relishes in the inferno, keeps the windows up, "forgets" to turn on the air con and says:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure the kids left unattended in cars for periods of time are dying from the heat. I don't seem to see ad campaigns aimed at preventing these tragedies during the winter months.

Nah, it's just a govt. conspiracy either underreporting or failing to report deaths from exposure to the cold.

Bro is literally cooked.

prize**

True, but politicians love that so many voters don't understand this problem, as it would make their life and careers very difficult.

Politicians on the left would have to enact policies that in the short term harms workers, politicians on the right would have to enact polities that in the short term harms business and politicians in the center wouldn't have pretend climate demands they could give up in negotiations.

So, we're in a bus with a drunk driver who has decided not brake before the cliff, because stopping would cost him his license.

Voters don't want "climate action" that costs them too much, often that costs them anything at all.

And there is no workers/companies distinction, everyone gets a lot worse off by "climate action", and not only in the short term.

Unlike for deficit though, delaying climate action is objectively optimal as a choice so these times we should be happy the democratic process blocks psychopaths from destroying the economy "because the climate", as even if the climate apocalpiters were right (and they clearly aren't), it's cheaper to spend on mitigation than on "net zero" by a very large margin.

We are at the point where they can't deny anymore that higher atmospheric CO2 is an unmitigated blessing for plants.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/greening-...

After decades of models which, according to the "experts" ITT and elsewhere, we should have bet our lives on, it comes out human-caused emissions help plants grow, especially in arid areas.

Desertification estimates turned around so much, that not only fewer areas did desertificate because of CO2, a lot or arid/desertic areas got greener lol.

/And Australia is far from alone. From Africa’s Sahel to arid western India, and the deserts of northern China to southern Africa, the story is the same. “Greening is happening in most of the drylands globally, despite increasing aridity,” says Jason Evans, a water-cycle researcher at the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

What is going on? The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times. This increased C02 is not just driving climate change, but also fast-tracking photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilizes vegetation growth in even some of the driest places.

As we pump yet more CO2 into the air, arid-land greening seems set to continue, according to two recent modeling studies. But ecologists warn that, despite appearances, going green may have downsides for arid ecosystems and for the people who depend on them. Desert plants and animals will often lose out, and the extra vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies./

Now what's the spin, to deny this is an objectively positive-for-humanity development , an "unforeseen" (if you decided on purpose to deny the positives) huge advantage of climate change?

They have to claim losing deserts is bad because biodiversity lolololololol. ****ing psychopaths claiming one day that getting more desert is terribad for humans, the other that deserts becoming verdant is terrible because many scarab species optimized to live in the desert or something.

Most of the world got a lot greener

How often did you hear it quoted in the "PRO" column of climate change? first time today when you read this by a *leftist* source? because we on the right were claiming it from day one

/
And there are downsides to the greening of natural ecosystems too. “Save the deserts” may not be a popular environmental message, but arid ecosystems matter. They are important habitats for species uniquely adapted to scarce water, whether plants that can survive decades without rainfall or desert beetles that have evolved novel geometry on their bodies to harvest fog moisture./

Lol

Then of course given you have a ton more vegetation in arid areas, thanks to human-caused emissions, it can burn more often , so you get more wildfires. Which is bad, except it isn't compared to having a ****ing desert.

I love how you (Luciom) say posters are arguing in bad faith and yet here again surprise surprise another mileading post from you.

If you didn't crop that map , we could read this is a trend in annual average leaf area (% per decade 2000-2017) .
Also completely misleading to ignore that most of these new green spaces are actually resulting directly from human policies to create them (afforastion program and reforestation), ie china programs and the great green wall in the sahel.

This map actually shows brazil forest isn't doing great btw.

Anyway I'm sure you will reply with something along bad faith poster etc...

It's a bit much to expect MAGA to argue the merits. They have a lot of ground to cover, social media engagement doesn't create itself.

Which is too bad, as there is a lot to argue. That there has been a focus on reforestation is great, but some of the efforts come with their own problems. As an example, China's reliance on single species reforestation, often with trees non-native to the area, takes a toll on eco-systems. With insect death being high on list of environmental problems, that is a concern.