Shocking satellite image shows Alaska’s formerly frozen Yukon Delta is completely green

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015RG000482

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/glacial-interglacial-cycle

Come on now, this is basic geology here. This is hardly the first interglacial our planet has seen, and it will not be the last. The evidence is easy to see, it is right there under our feet.

 

Sure, but that's over thousands or tens of thousands of years, which is just not the issue.

The problem we face is that Earth is warming faster than what can be solved by adjustments we know of in agriculture, etc. Plus, mitigations for coastlines, etc., is hugely expensive.

The best approach we're likely to be able to pull off is to make the changes that will slow the warming, giving us more time to adjust to that lesser change.

There are changes we should be making regardless of climate change. For example, moving to all electric cars would be cleaner for our cities. Plus, it costs less to fuel them and they have less maintenance overhead.

Why resist a change that can benefit the owner AND slow climate change??

 

It is the very issue.

None of the warming is outside of what geologists were predicting decades ago. What, you think the Great Plains and Northern Europe turned into lush farmland overnight once the glaciers left?

It is the very issue. That change has never stopped. The permafrost line (other than a few times like the Little Ice Age) has never stopped moving north. The glaciers and ice caps have never stopped melting. The changes never ended. Yet people seem to pretend that somehow they had, until humans started to change things.

Are you even aware that even after humans reached North America, there were massive lakes covering Death Valley and most of Utah? Like so many obsessed with this, you are completely ignoring the actual geological history of the planet, and the changes that have been seen in the past thousands of years which dwarf even the last 2 centuries.

 

And I am one that believes you can not "slow the warming". No more than you can stop the moon from pulling away from the planet and lessening our tides, or stopping the sun from entering a Red Giant phase in a few billion years. The warming is going to get worse. Storms are going to get worse. Oh, not overnight but it is happening. And those storms will dump more water on the land, helping them to turn green. In a dozen thousand years or so.

And in fact, the biggest problem I see with CO2 rising is the very fact that overpopulation is causing almost irreversible damage to the rainforests. To the tune of over 16 thousand square miles per year. That is literally an area larger than the state of Maryland each year, of rainforests being destroyed and turned into wasteland. The very system our planet created to help regulate the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. In a decade, we are losing enough rainforest to cover California. You are looking at people causing it, look at the destruction of the system which is designed to capture CO2 and not the emissions themselves.

This is why I laugh at most alarmists. They are literally looking entirely in the wrong place. You all plant some trees and claim you are "saving the planet". Well, let's see you replace rainforests thousands of years old that cover an area the size of the third largest state in the US in the next decade. And even if you did that, you would at most only be replacing what was eliminated during that time, not even improving things at all. If the rainforests were healthy, we could pump out a lot more CO2 and nothing would change. Much like the Apollo 13 mission, the problem was not the actual CO2 itself, but that the system to remove it was not working. And what was the solution? Think about it a second.

Was it ordering the astronauts to stop breathing? Or was it to restore the system to remove it from the atmosphere? But no matter what, even if we convert all of North America to a giant rainforest, the warming will still continue. The increased CO2 is a symptom of the warming, it is not the cause.

I do not joke when I say that the planet is overdue for a good pandemic. On the level of the ones of the Middle Ages, which killed hundreds of millions. Except today to adjust our population numbers to what is sustainable, we would need billions to die.

 

Again, you are pointing to phenomena that took thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands of years.

>> That is just not the issue of climate change today.

And, the fact that the warming we face is not outside that range is also TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the issues we face between now and a hundred years from now.

Yes, there were predictions of what we are experiencing that were made a few decades ago, but nobody was listening at that time.

 

Rainforest destruction is coming because of short term views of economics in the region. One can more easily point to poverty and wealth disparity as the reason.

So far, there has been no sliver bullet found. However, there are lots of bullets that can add up. Even then, I might agree that there is no way to fully stop the human caused warming that really got kicked off by the industrial age. But, claiming it can't be slowed isn't rational. And slowing the warming is an important objective, as it allows time for learning how to live with it.

Now, you are accusing me of promoting some seriously stupid idea.

Basically, that is ad hom. And, I'd like you to stop with that kind of total crap.

And, no. There is no justification for your nonsense about "needing" billions to die.

Besides, the number who will die due to climate change IS going to be high, I suspect, because that's what happens when agriculture is impacted.

We CAN lower this number. The question is whether we give a crap.

 

What? This is why you are susceptible to bogus claims like climate change will starve people. Because you can’t comprehend systems. You try and isolate one metric and obsess over it instead of looking at systems that mitigate or completely eliminate the problem you isolate.

You think Canada eats all the food it produces?
From the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance.

We live in a global economy. Any starvation in the future will be driven by politics and/or poor agronomy practices not climate change. Nobody needs to go to Canada to get Canadian food. LOL

I’ve been meaning to ask your opinion on Bangladesh. I see you brought that country up the other day. What aspect of climate change do you think is going to be most detrimental to Bangladesh and why? Do you think they could benefit from increased food production in Canada?

 

Starting with NIMBY, Americans, and others, will fight to keep 'others' out. Look how wigged out Americans get with a handful of immigrants coming into the country. We can't simply move large masses of people around without serious damage to those areas...there's no infrastructure, healthcare, security, natural resources, shelter, food, jobs, etc. Most any area of the US that has the amenities today is already overcrowded and experiencing problems. In some ways, forcing mass migration will be a net-negative...

 

Starvation has long been a distribution problem, not a world shortage problem. The global nature of our world economy does not solve starvation.

Let's remember that today there is more food in Canada than Canada needs. AND, Bangladesh has a large population of starving people.

Those starving people have no way of getting that Canadian surplus.

Suggesting that Canada could grow more food just doesn't solve anything. You're a free market capitalist like the rest of the first world, right? Think it through. Look at what's happening TODAY.

 

Amen. We even have "leadership" that is going crazy about the idea of Afghan allies coming here - people who risked their lives for us.

And, that's true for other countries, too. India has built a wall against Bangladesh, for example.

The war in Syria displaced about 13 million with about half now outside Syria.

Most of the numbers aren't that large yet, but agricultural hardship in a region could change that in a huge way.

 

Ahhh. Just as I suspected. You know nothing of Bangladesh except maybe some journalist’s opinion. Bangladesh is the sixth largest importer of Canadian wheat—and growing. The more wheat Canada grows the more world ending stocks increase (and price decrease) and the more wheat Bangladesh can buy from Canada instead of nutritionally inferior wheat from the Black Sea region.

Bangladesh has food problems because of poor agronomic practices and government missteps including expanding shrimp farming. Shrimp farming is one of the decisions destroying the ability of Bangladesh to grow food now and in the future. But you are completely unaware of it and why it’s a problem. You probably also believe flooding in Bangladesh is evil and a result of climate change, not a result of a broken system of land management that narrowed and raised waterways while polders gradually are left below the level of the delta waterways and sea. Not only do polders cause massive intermittent flooding, they are partially responsible for the poor soil fertility they once had before the dikes kept seasonal flooding out. This is all exacerbated by the growing shrimp farm industry on the coasts. And what drives shrimp farming? Americans and Europeans who “need” shrimp. Gullible Americans and Europeans are told climate change is damaging Bangladesh and they swallow that with the shrimp that is more responsible than climate change for Bangladesh’s problems at present.

But we are never told the truth. It’s a broken system and climate change gets the blame for decades of bad decisions.

 

The main issue with any of these actions is who provides the funding? Certainly there is more arable land that can be developed for farming, and water can be piped across the nation, then the actual cost of farming including labor and supplies and equipment...considering a capitalist economy it's unlikely any of this will be funded and/or profitable. The ONLY chance of any of it happening is if it's funded and managed by the government. Don't know how much this would cost but I'll assume over 10-20 years it will be billion$ or trillion$...and this is before any mass-migration can begin...

 

Well...more severe storms and flooding and cyclones, etc. have caused major problems for food production and yes this is attributed to climate change.

There are vast rural areas in which distribution of food products is poor.

And just as it is in the USA, fewer people and kids desire to do farming...non-farm industries attract the labor.

 

You're the one proving you do not understand this problem.

The fact that Bangladesh has to buy food to feed its people IS the disaster. They do not have the wealth to do that.

As a result, the food imports of Bangladesh today are NOT solving the starvation problem in Bangladesh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_Bangladesh

The idea that this problem can be solved by Bangladesh buying more food to give to its people is just plain nonsensical.

Let's not forget that food insecurity is NOT a problem with world production of food - it is a distribution problem.

Besides, climate change is causing MORE nations, especially poorer nations, to be less able to feed their people. One can not compare projections of tomorrow's Canadian surpluses to today's international demand. Demand will rise. Besides the climate change damage to agriculture in many regions, the world population is increasing. And, it is increasing fastest in regions of poverty - those least likely to be able to call Canada for delivery.

Again, don't forget free market capitalism so easily.

 

OK, BUT, those starving are not going to wait for any country to pass an infrastructure bill.

And, whether they come here or decide to go to some other country than the USA the locals are HIGHLY likely to hate their ever living guts - just like we do!

And according to our DoD, if the numbers of those moving are large, that will result in the kind of crisis that the US has to care about, as our economy and our standard of living depend on just about every other nation on Earth.

Also, the amount of unused arable land in the US is not that significant. We've done an amazing job of finding and growing on the land that we have. Capitalism does that, as each individual can be well compensated by finding and using land in a more profitable way than it is used today.

 

Good points.

We actively work to keep agricultural labor and the entire food chain poorly compensated.

We've seen what happens in agriculture when we deny entry to those who are willing to work for pennies.

 

The big deal is trying to hijack conservationism to push forth socialism.

If you don't need to take a look at the green New deal there's very little in that about greenness it's mostly about trying to establish socialism.

The people who support this sort of thing don't really believe it. If they did they would seek to ban in her Continental travel ocean liners and so forth because those pollute far more than anything else on the planet.

But they don't seem to focus on that at all it's mostly about you and what you should be allowed to do and not allowed to do.

One ocean liner pollutes as much as 5 million cars and I believe carnival has 319 of them. Not a peep about those. Just how you should adopt a vehicle that doesn't use petroleum.

Why do you think this is split almost exactly on party lines?

Conservationism shouldn't be political. I don't drink out of plastic bottles not because of who I vote for but because it's wasteful.

 

Your claim your premise is "it's socialism". But, you don't really defend that.

As for electric cars, I'd point out that they are cheaper to operate both due to fuel cost and due to maintenance cost. So, whining about advocating that direction seems monumentally silly to me.

It's about like whining about clean energy.

I do agree with your point about gigantic cruise ships. But, killing that industry is certainly more "big brother" than is encouraging cheaper transportation options. Plus, it is an international industry, so the most we could do is cut out American ports. While I would back that, I doubt it would change much. Most Americans who want to cruise already have to fly to ports.

Today, more than 2/3 of our oil consumption goes to automobiles. So, ending that means less CO2, less city pollution, cheaper transportation, far better balance of trade for the USA, AND we get to focus our oil consumption on the uses for which there are few alternatives, rather than just burning it up at the astounding rate currently seen.

Our nation should conserve its oil for when oil is far more valuable due to depletion of supply.

 

Flooding is not a result of climate change. It’s a result of deforestation and long term polder use. The rainfall in the Ganges delta watershed (yes monsoonal as well) has steadily decreased over time.

In 1988 flooding covered 60% of the country. In 1998 it covered 75% of the county. In 2020 flooding covered 37% of the country.

Flooding today is not a result of climate change.

The incidence of cyclones has decreased by 8% in the Bay of Bengal.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...a-over-two-decades-study-101626550577184.html

The jury is out on intensity in the bay, but damage from cyclones will increase in Bangladesh regardless of the decrease in frequency because the protective mangrove forests are being destroyed and polders continue to “sink” relative to the levels of remaining waterways.

Malnutrition in Bangladesh is a function of economic status, not urban vs rural dynamics. Poverty has been halved in Bangladesh over the last 30 years with most of the poverty alleviation occurring in rural areas. Bangladesh is self sufficient in rice production (the staple food) and over 70% of the population lives in rural agricultural areas so distribution is not the problem. If you are interested in why most countries that use rice as a staple are malnourished go here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072774967/

For more on other causes of malnutrition besides lack of food go here, the situation in Bangladesh is similar to that of India.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1071247763/

The only labor shortage I’ve ever heard of in Bangladesh agriculture was due to Covid restrictions on movement. I’m open to evidence to the contrary. There are nearly a million refugees from Myanmar in Bangladesh. I doubt there is any labor shortage.

 

You have to first get my claim correct in order to argue it.

My claim is pro socialist politics have hijacked conservationism.

if that was the case there wouldn't need to be any government bribery to adopt them. They would simply replace conventual vehicles because they are superior.

There is no such thing.

Not if people just stopped going on cruises and flying in airplanes. It's largely needles and if they have half a crap about the environment they would simply decide not to. The point is they don't care.

You authoritarians all think alike. The way to end airlines and cruislines isn't the government dictating. It's you not consuming it.

So end it. Make electric cars that people want to buy.

Or create a dictatorship where you don't have choice. Seems the latter is the whole motivation behind this

If people want to they will I don't want to live under a dictator that tells me what I can and can't own as far as cars.

You are proving my claim correct.

 

And why should we do that? It makes no sense.

The fact is, the US is actually number 1 in the world in many areas. Including both food exports and food donations worldwide. In fact, the US donates more food than the top 12 food donating countries combined. It donates over 3 times the food of the number 2 country on the list.

A lot of farmland in the US sits idle because there is either not enough demand, there is not enough money to worth farming it every year, or there is no way to collect, process, and deliver it to the consumers before it spoils.

Not to mention, farming actually increases greenhouse gas production. SO if we were to do that, we will be releasing even more greenhouse gasses. So if your claims are right, that is the ultimate in catch-22.

 

OK, so we pay them more. And, the price of food goes up even more. Catch-22.

And we do not deny entry. Hell, we have a large and highly active migrant worker program. I can only imagine you have never actually lived in an agricultural region, or you would know this. Hundreds of thousands of them come to the US legally every year to participate. There are large housing projects and communities of them all over the Central Valley in California. And there is always a demand for more. A short distance from Oroville there were at least 8 that I knew of. Basically trailer parks, they were created for the very purpose of providing housing to the migrant workers when they came up to work the fields.

 

That news is hidden from the bulk of Americans. This is done on purpose. To allow more illegal aliens into America.

 

This is about the greener Yukon Delta. What is greener? Trees are greener than dead tundra.
Things are improving as opposed to declining.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148464/yukon-kuskokwim-in-colorful-transition

 

Nobody seems to notice or realize that most "illegal aliens" do not go to Central California and other areas to work the fields. They go to LA, SF, and other areas. Far from any farms.

And mostly, I bet those that believe that nonsense have never been on an actual farm, let alone worked at one.