7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Certain fish, fished in certain ways. But again their website makes it explicitly clear that overfishing is still an issue and some fish are more sustainable than others. Again all the links I provided are from their website. 

Hey, he asked. 

And as I said you'd have to go out of your way to find items at a grocery store that are not renewable. Where do you find and what do you buy that is renewable? Or are you just trying to pat yourself on the back? 

2 hours ago, RPeeteRules said:

I think the problem is that any time there’s a storm or it’s very cold or very hot, it’s blamed on climate change.  It’s the coldest temperature for December 18th in 20 years, that’s climate change.  It’s the warmest day for July 21st in Vegas in 15 years, that’s climate change.  It sometimes seems like something happens and people say it’s climate change, regardless if that’s the actual reason.  Much like when a football teams wins more often when they run the ball more than 20 times, fans wonder why they don’t just run the ball more.  Those fans don’t realize that running may not be the reason they win more often, though it can be a reason some of the time.

I do think there’s a change, but I when everything is seen as a result of climate change, even things we’ve experienced in the past, it’s hard to take some of the claims seriously.

there has definitely been a bit too much hoopla around every crazy weather event. 

at the same time, there is a startling number of records that are regularly being set now. I'm not saying ALL of that is climate change, but things are happening in a way pretty consistent with expectations as it relates to heat waves and other freak occurrences. 

I've always kept one eye on the skeptical environmentalist to help ground me. the big thing I'd note here is that as a nation, the US has done a decent job (especially considering the political headwinds) at curbing greenhouse gas emissions and doing some of the things necessary. but most of the reform has to take place:

1. In power generation and industry. Any changes we make at home in our own habits are at most marginal. Changing eating habits away from beef and reducing overall meat intake will help if it takes hold among the masses, but I don't expect that will be the case. It's changes to the big industries that would be necessary to really make a difference further, and that would require things like carbon taxes. 

2. Emerging economies are by far the biggest issue. India, China, and other emerging Asian economies have 10x the population of the US. The reliance on coal and other fossil fuels in these countries makes anything the US does basically moot. even if the US + EU went completely renewable and contributed basically nothing, the trajectory is bleak.

I'm resigned to geo-engineering our way out of this. And I believe we can do it. 

For something digestible, this podcast was good: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/save-the-planet/

31 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Certain fish, fished in certain ways. But again their website makes it explicitly clear that overfishing is still an issue and some fish are more sustainable than others. Again all the links I provided are from their website. 

Gotta get the farmed and not wild-caught I guess?

36 minutes ago, 20dawk4life said:

And as I said you'd have to go out of your way to find items at a grocery store that are not renewable. Where do you find and what do you buy that is renewable? Or are you just trying to pat yourself on the back? 

No it isn't dude. Atlantic Cod is listed on both the Monterey Bay and NOAA website as well below target population levels. Are you really trying to tell me you can't find Atlantic cod at you local grocery store? Let alone fish market. 

C'mon man you're better than this. This is the kinda stubborn heel digging I expect out of posters like caesar, WV mike, and Bcarty. 

15 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Gotta get the farmed and not wild-caught I guess?

In general yep, but also plenty of wild caught fish that are fine too

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/how-the-little-ice-age-changed-history

How the Little Ice Age Changed History

Starting in the fourteenth century, cooling temperatures disrupted our economic and social structures—and may have given rise to the modern world.

By John Lanchester

March 25, 2019

The big chill helped disrupt a settled order of feudalism and restrictive guilds.Illustration by Pieter Van Eenoge

 

 

 

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeurope.php

Roman Warm Period (Europe) -- Summary

---

Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia.  Why?  Because this contention helps them sell their claim that the "unprecedented" temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced.  Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now.  Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that the temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that still earlier time were also much lower than they are today.  As a result, climate alarmists rarely even speak of the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.  In addition, they refuse to accept the possibility that these two prior warm periods were global in extent, claiming instead, with respect to the Medieval Warm Period, that it was a purely local phenomenon restricted to lands that surround the North Atlantic Ocean.  In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period.  In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with the part of the planet where climate alarmists are willing to acknowledge the Medieval Warm Period's existence, but not its magnitude, i.e., Europe.

We begin this discussion by noting that the studies of Olafsdottir et al. (2001) and Jiang et al. (2002) document the existence of relatively benign weather conditions in Iceland and its oceanic environs up to about 2500 ± 200 years ago (the "beginning of the end" of the Roman Warm Period), after which their data depict the region gradually descending into what has come to be known as the Dark Ages Cold Period.  The first of these research teams also describes the concurrent long-term cooling-induced decline in vegetative productivity on Iceland, which was actually reversed for about four centuries during the Medieval Warm Period but then declined to what they describe as "an unprecedented low" during the Little Ice Age that lasted from about AD 1300 to 1900.  In like manner, Jiang et al.'s data, obtained from the seabed of the north Icelandic shelf, depict a similar post-Roman Warm Period decline in summer sea surface temperature, which exhibited a dramatic increase that peaked around AD 1150 after having risen more than 1°C above the line describing the long-term downward trend.  Thereafter, however, the temperature fell rapidly, by approximately 2.2°C, as the depths of the Little Ice Age were encountered, after which modern warming overcomes some of the dramatic cooling but cannot return the region to the pinnacle of Roman Warm Period warmth.

Further east in Ireland, McDermott et al. (2001) derived a similar picture of post-Roman Warm Period cooling based on ð¹⁸O data derived from a stalagmite.  Here, however, the initial climatic deterioration did not begin until about 2000 years ago.  Then, Berglund (2003) documented what he called a great "retreat of agriculture" throughout northwest continental Europe that was coincident with the declining temperature, based on assessments of "insolation, glacier activity, lake and sea levels, bog growth, tree line, and tree growth."

Contemporaneously, in northern Swedish Lapland, Grudd et al. (2002) developed a 7400-year history of summer mean temperature based on tree-ring widths obtained from 880 living, dead and subfossil northern Swedish pines.  The most dependable portion of the record, based upon the number of trees that were sampled, consists of the last two millennia, which the researchers say "display features of century-timescale climatic variation known from other proxy and historical sources, including a warm 'Roman' period in the first centuries AD and a generally cold 'Dark Ages' climate from about AD 500 to about AD 900."  They also note that "the warm period around AD 1000 may correspond to a so-called 'Mediaeval Warm Period', known from a variety of historical sources and other proxy records."  Lastly, they note that "the climatic deterioration in the twelfth century can be regarded as the starting point of a prolonged cold period that continued to the first decade of the twentieth century," which "Little Ice Age," in their words, is also "known from instrumental, historical and proxy records."

Dropping down to northwest Germany, Niggemann et al. (2003) employed petrographical and geochemical techniques to develop a climatic history of the last seventeen millennia from a set of three stalagmites.  This history closely matches the one derived by McDermott et al., with Niggemann et al. explicitly noting that it provides evidence for the existence of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period, which also implies the existence of the Dark Ages Cold Period that separated the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, as well as the cold period that preceded the Roman Warm Period.

Continuing south, Desprat et al. (2003) studied the climatic variability of the last three millennia in northwest Iberia via a high-resolution pollen analysis of a sediment core retrieved from the central axis of the Ria de Vigo in the south of Galicia.  There they detected "an alternation of three relatively cold periods with three relatively warm episodes."  In order of their occurrence, these periods are described by them as the "first cold phase of the Subatlantic period (975-250 BC)," which was "followed by the Roman Warm Period (250 BC-450 AD)," which was followed by "a successive cold period (450-950 AD), the Dark Ages," which "was terminated by the onset of the Medieval Warm Period (950-1400 AD)," which was followed by "the Little Ice Age (1400-1850 AD), including the Maunder Minimum (at around 1700 AD)," which "was succeeded by the recent warming (1850 AD to the present)."

In light of these findings, Desprat et al. conclude that "a millennial-scale climatic cyclicity over the last 3000 years is detected for the first time in NW Iberia paralleling global climatic changes recorded in North Atlantic marine records (Bond et al., 1997; Bianchi and McCave, 1999; Chapman and Shackelton, 2000)."  Considering that the same findings are reported by the other studies described above, the establishment of the Modern Warm Period in Europe over the course of the past century or so is seen to be nothing more than the most recent manifestation of the warming phase of this ever-recurring cycle of climate, which is totally unrelated to the coincidental historical increase in the air's CO2 content.

 

14 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

No it isn't dude. Atlantic Cod is listed on both the Monterey Bay and NOAA website as well below target population levels. Are you really trying to tell me you can't find Atlantic cod at you local grocery store? Let alone fish market. 

C'mon man you're better than this. This is the kinda stubborn heel digging I expect out of posters like caesar, WV mike, and Bcarty. 

In general yep, but also plenty of wild caught fish that are fine too

It says it's sustainable which you have interchanged with renewable. Renewable foods are something that can be replaced to the same levels. Obviously you can wipe out an entire species but because of the rules in place eating and fishing this fish is fine. Below a target level does not mean it is not sustainable or renewable. 

Climate fluctuates on earth and goes through cycles - it has done so for billions of years.  Do not believe that we need to fork over trillions of dollars to corrupt politicians and industry leaders.  They will not do anything except steal this money.  Countries like Russia and China are not on board with forestalling climate change either - so don't think even if we had the power to do so, we could in fact do so.  This is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  Man is not nearly as omni potent as some would believe.

Yes there have been ice ages and warmer periods.

But based on ice core samples there's never been a CO2 increase like we're seeing.

And temps have been measurably rising.

You can't deflect anthropomorphic climate change by pointing out that climate has been dynamic. The temperature changes in a short time we've experienced have no analog in the natural dynamism of the climate.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yes there have been ice ages and warmer periods.

But based on ice core samples there's never been a CO2 increase like we're seeing.

And temps have been measurably rising.

You can't deflect anthropomorphic climate change by pointing out that climate has been dynamic. The temperature changes in a short time we've experienced have no analog in the natural dynamism of the climate.

Huh?

2 minutes ago, TEW said:

Huh?

LOL that chart is scaled to 100s of thousands of years.

The little ice age was a reduction of half a degree Celsius over multiple centuries. In less than a century the temperature has increased almost a full degree Celsius.

Just happens to correlate with the industrial revolution. Total coincidence.

You know there's a path to engineer our way through this that doesn't frame recognition that we're impacting the climate as some kind of attack on capitalism, right?

1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

LOL that chart is scaled to 100s of thousands of years.

The little ice age was a reduction of half a degree Celsius over multiple centuries. In less than a century the temperature has increased almost a full degree Celsius.

Just happens to correlate with the industrial revolution. Total coincidence.

You know there's a path to engineer our way through this that doesn't frame recognition that we're impacting the climate as some kind of attack on capitalism, right?

You said there is no analog. There absolutely is. The fact that climate cycles have occurred over thousands of years doesn't negate that fact.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

You said there is no analog. There absolutely is. The fact that climate cycles have occurred over thousands of years doesn't negate that fact.

There is no period in history where temperatures have changed this quickly. 

There is no analog. Unless they're able to actually map out when the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs hit the death and isolate that over a 100 year period.

The temp changes we're dealing with over 100 years being comparable to changes over millennia isn't helping your case.

Actually, temperature drop during the Little Ice Age was closer to 2 degrees celsuis, 3.6 degrees farenheit, ah but what good are real facts if someone chooses to be a crazed alarmist kook. 

https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age/

Remember when Al Gore said the polar ice caps will have melted by 2014?  How inconvenient that they actually grew in size.

https://electroverse.net/ten-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-would-be-completely-ice-free-in-five-years/

9 hours ago, Procus said:

Actually, temperature drop during the Little Ice Age was closer to 2 degrees celsuis, 3.6 degrees farenheit, ah but what good are real facts if someone chooses to be a crazed alarmist kook. 

https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age/

Remember when Al Gore said the polar ice caps will have melted by 2014?  How inconvenient that they actually grew in size.

https://electroverse.net/ten-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-the-north-pole-would-be-completely-ice-free-in-five-years/

the "little ice age" was also not global, it was regional. and it happened in different regions at different times. as your article stated. dropping 2°C in one region doesn't mean the aggregate drop globally was 2°C. the mean global temperature drop was 0.6°C, not 2°C. 

outside of major volcanic activity, temperature swings like we're seeing in the last 100 years don't happen and aren't as long lasting - especially temp increases. typically you'll see a global temp drop related to a large volcano eruption, then a return to the mean over a relatively short period of time (years). 

11 hours ago, Procus said:

Climate fluctuates on earth and goes through cycles - it has done so for billions of years.  Do not believe that we need to fork over trillions of dollars to corrupt politicians and industry leaders.  They will not do anything except steal this money.  Countries like Russia and China are not on board with forestalling climate change either - so don't think even if we had the power to do so, we could in fact do so.  This is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  Man is not nearly as omni potent and some would believe.

Ahhh….but what hasn’t happened for billions of years is a species on the planet having the ability to remove carbon trapped for billions of years in the earths crust and burn it off releasing it into the closed system of the atmosphere.  Folks like you seem to ignore this very fact.

21 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

We can’t even convince people to take a life-saving vaccine. I really doubt that we can convince people to do something about climate change until there’s a lot more death and destruction.

Yeah, this is why climate change is way down in the list during a pandemic. The danger from these same idiots is way too imminent right now for me to care much about anything more long term.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Yeah, this is why climate change is way down in the list during a pandemic. The danger from these same idiots is way too imminent right now for me to care much about anything more long term.

And then there this - trying to link wild fires to climate change to covid deaths.  It’s a stretch IMO.  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.news10.com/news/coronavirus/study-wildfire-smoke-possibly-caused-thousands-more-covid-cases-deaths/amp/

12 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yes there have been ice ages and warmer periods.

But based on ice core samples there's never been a CO2 increase like we're seeing.

And temps have been measurably rising.

You can't deflect anthropomorphic climate change by pointing out that climate has been dynamic. The temperature changes in a short time we've experienced have no analog in the natural dynamism of the climate.

If you mean the rate of increase, then perhaps that's true.

If you mean the total ppm of CO2, then check the geological record and you'll find CO2 isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss greenhouse gas. Methane is 25X stronger.

Current CO2 concentration is approx. 412 ppm.

Ice Ball Earth CO2 concentration 7000 ppm. Yeah, Ice Ball Earth. Don't let the climate pirate profiteers make you afraid.

 

2 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

If you mean the rate of increase, then perhaps that's true.

If you mean the total ppm of CO2, then check the geological record and you'll find CO2 isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss greenhouse gas. Methane is 25X stronger.

Current CO2 concentration is approx. 412 ppm.

Ice Ball Earth CO2 concentration 7000 ppm. Yeah, Ice Ball Earth. Don't let the climate pirate profiteers make you afraid.

 

This is the exact type of language and line of reasoning covid deniers use to make it same like it's nbd. 

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

This is the exact type of language and line of reasoning covid deniers use to make it same like it's nbd. 

Science. Like it or not, it's true.

4 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Science. Like it or not, it's true.

If you mean the rate of increase in covid deaths among the elderly, then perhaps that's true.

 

If you mean the total cases of infection, then check the historical record and you'll find covid isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss respiratory virus. SARS1 is 25X stronger.

 

Current covid survival rate is approx. 99.97%.

 

Survival rate in 1912 was 80%. Yeah, back in 1912, and we still made it through it without a vaccine. Don't let the the big pharma profiteers make you afraid.

8 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

If you mean the rate of increase in covid deaths among the elderly, then perhaps that's true.

 

If you mean the total cases of infection, then check the historical record and you'll find covid isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss respiratory virus. SARS1 is 25X stronger.

 

Current covid survival rate is approx. 99.97%.

 

Survival rate in 1912 was 80%. Yeah, back in 1912, and we still made it through it without a vaccine. Don't let the the big pharma profiteers make you afraid.

False equivalence my man. The two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This is the exact type of language and line of reasoning covid deniers use to make it same like it's nbd. 

And what's your proposal to resolve all of this if true - throw money at it?  Do you honestly believe it will not get stolen?  How do you propose to reign in Russia, China, India, Brazil.

And as for Covid, the deniers were onto something.  We should have treated this the way Sweden did.  Instead, the alarmists and totalitarians put innocent people under house arrest and destroyed businesses by forcing them to shut down.  Then they helped put currency on the path to destruction by blowing out budgets and printing money like there's no tomorrow.  And of course they did everything possible to suppress cheap, effective treatments like Ivermectin.  Betcha 90% of those reading the boards here don't know they should get monoclonal antibodies ASAP at the first sign of infection.  Shhh.  See anything wrong with that?

The alarmist kooks always due their best to muck things up.  Truth be told, they really don't have a clue on how to effectively deal with emergency situations.  When's the last time you heard a climate change kook work to stop property development on the coastline?

Just now, PoconoDon said:

False equivalency my man. The two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

On the contrary, the overlap in covid denial and climate change denial is massive. You'd have to be politically naive to believe otherwise. Next you'll tell me anti-mask sentiment doesn't massively overlap with political affiliation either.

Even in general though, everything is no big deal until it hits home, but by then, the damage is already done and regret is all that's left. The only difference is in the accelerated timeline for covid where the process can play out in a matter of weeks, versus a century or two for the latter.