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’: Italian fishers struggle to adapt to warm sea


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/green...climate-change

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.

I don't crop anything I literally copy pasted it from the article I linked myself.

The article itself claims science shows it's mostly from the increased CO2 but ofc science doesn't matter when you don't agree with it.

Higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere makes plant grow more. A lot more. Even if less water is available.

Which other than meaning that desertification isn't happening in aggregate worldwide at all (rather the opposite is), also means the absurd claims about lower agricultural production because "climate change" are completely false.

“If CO2 fertilization was the determining factor in regreening here, it would happen everywhere in a region, but it does not,” he says. Instead, the greening stops abruptly at the border with Nigeria, where farmers show little interest in nurturing trees.

Evans agrees that the exceptional greening his study found in southern Niger is probably related to farmer regeneration of trees. And he says that Indian farmers too have played an important role. In arid states such as Gujarat, they are pumping underground water to irrigate crops on once-barren land. The resulting increase in soil moisture shows up as greening, Indra Tripathi, a water-resource engineer at the Indian Institute of Technology in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, concluded in a study published in March

This is literally from the article.
It has several paragraphs about farming and environment policies.
I agree that CO2 has an impact, just that you are overspinning it to say more CO2= good , which I guess is helping your view that we should burn more fuel.

edit: one can only hope we adapt as well as plants , amirite?

Here* in that article was about that specific part of Niger jfc, stop lying.

They are saying "a bit of the greening is from this", most is from the CO2

Where plants do good we do good, we eat them and our livestock eats them ffs, which is why the previous claim was "oh my god we are going to suffer because climate change means disasters for agriculture", now it's "poor beetles in the desert how can we deal with the fact there will be less of them"

I'd never argue against CO2 being the limiting reagent in the chemical equation for photosynthesis.

Yeah, the plants that have access to all the necessary chemicals needed to undergo photosynthesis are going to do better in a CO2-rich environment. We call that a "greenhouse" colloquially. Unless they just burn up...

Now go study a hardiness-zone map. Are all plants going to thrive with the temperature increases?

https://www.ars.usda.gov/oc/dof/grow...-hotter-world/

Water is good. That means more water is better. I am very smart.

Northwest Passage could eventually make the Panama Canal obsolete
as a shipping route due to climate change and the melting of Arctic ice.

The naval war games that will take place between North America and Russia, when ALL the arctic ice disappears, are going to be really fun too!

I don't know Canada could send out their naval fleet ( If there is wind )

Take care out there @Luciom. Lots of the type of weather around that you think is a positive change.

I'll miss Venezia

With the MOSE (the mechanical damn we can put on when needed) Venezia is the safest it has been in centuries vs floods.

Ofc greens are now claiming that affects the lagoon ecosystem (you can never win against them, ever).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d43978-024-00062-x

Ye it never flooded in Italy, it's a recent change (jfc how do you guys even woke up from bed )