Report: Massive Die-Off Of Salmon Due To Higher Temperatures

My recent return from Alaska left me with a wealth of new experiences and new friends. It remains a truly wondrous and wild place that everyone should visit. However, as I mentioned during the trip, the impact of climate change is obvious and alarming. Just comparing my kayaking pictures from three years ago, the glaciers have receded a great deal and most have lost any snow cover. If you doubt that climate change is real, go to Alaska and speak to the fishermen and guides. It also has apparently taken a devastating toll on salmon. When I was flying to Alaska, I was speaking to some avid fishermen in the airport who said that they have been going to Alaska for a couple decades and have never seen so few salmon. It turns out that they were right. Scientists have reported that salmon are experiencing a massive die off due to the higher temperatures. Other remote areas a reporting unheard of temperatures and melting. Greenland alone has lost 12.6 billion tons of ice IN ONE DAY — in a record meltdown.

Scientists have recorded widespread losses of sockeye, chum and pink salmon with high numbers of unspawned dead salmon. The fish showed no lesions, infections or other causes of death. It was all heat.

Take the Cook Inlet near Anchorage. The highest temperature ever recorded at the inlet as 76 degrees Fahrenheit. This year is was 81.7 degrees. Scientists report that the temperature was worse than their worst-case scenario . . . for 2069.

It is no secret how I feel about the climate change or President Trump’s short-sighted emphasis on fossil fuels. However, this crisis is accelerating to an alarming rate. You can see it and feel it in places like Alaska.

102 thoughts on “Report: Massive Die-Off Of Salmon Due To Higher Temperatures”

  1. From the August 8, 1974 New York Times, “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output”:

    “A recent meeting of climate experts in Bonn, West Germany, produced the unanimous conclusion that the change in global weather patterns poses a severe threat to agriculture that could lead to major crop failures and mass starvation.”

    The NYT goes on to report that the so called “climate experts” who assembled for this wing ding were from several countries. As you can read from that paragraph, the conclusion of the “climate experts” was UNANIMOUS.

    “There is a growing consensus that the change will persist for several decades and that the current food‐production systems of man cannot easily adjust.” There’s that “consensus” word the scare mongers like to invoke.


    What’s happened in the 45 years since these so called “climate experts” unanimously predicted a dystopian future of “major crop failures” and “mass starvation”?

    “Since 1955, corn grain yields in the U.S. have increased at a fairly constant 1.9 bushels per acre per year, sustained primarily by continued improvements in genetics and crop production technologies.”

    From 1866-1936 corn yields averaged about 26 bushel per acre. In 2018, the USDA estimates corn yields averaged 176.4 bu/acre.

    In 2017, a farmer named David Hula set a new global record for corn yields of an eye-popping 542 bu/acre. He thinks he can eventually produce 800 bu/acre.

    Localized, temporary, summer heat waves suck. Sometime this winter that area will be buried in snow. When that happens you won’t be attributing it to climate change.

    Sorry about the fish.

    1. increasing crop yields are driven by market rewards for productivity, which brings new technology online, such as better fertilizer, superior hybrids, and better planting methods

      this has little to do with weather. moreover, it’s possible that global warming has helped increase crops yields in states like indiana, where purdue is located ,btw

      weather is complicated and hard to predict. the errors of past weather forecasters does not mean that it is not a worthy endeavor

  2. We can blame the republicans and their corporate doppelgänger democrats for working for corporate sociopaths who are willing to destroy the planet for profit and fun.

    1. Wind mills are lousy at creating usable power for the electrical grid. The Green New Deal doesn’t allow nuclear power, so what fills in the gap? Fossil fuels like natural gas and coal.

      “And we are sick and tired of hearing your song
      Telling how you are gonna change right from wrong
      ‘Cause if you really want to hear our views
      “you haven’t done nothing”

      – Stevie Wonder

    2. people don’t think very much do they allan

      a lot of “Renewables” will take a very long time to cancel out there use of “nonrenewables” that went into their production

      there is one very simple proven highly efficient technology to reduce fossil fuels consumption —


      which has its own perils.

      1. Nuclear power has definite perils. But they’re shared by fossil fuels. Coat’s radioactive. So’s Oil. “Produced water” from oil wells has radium and other radioactive isotopes in it, and the problem gets worse with fracking.

  3. When “global warming” changed to “climate change”, it reminded me of how nonprofits change their focus in order to stay relevant and continue to raise $$. “Donate for the cancer cure” becomes “Donate for cancer awareness”.

    Somebody once said something about he who controls the language…

  4. Quinn Davidson said in eight years etc etc.

    That’s all? The photo of salmon jumping en masse looked normal the others looked liked those at the end of their four year cycle.

    Try again. and meanwhile what are you doing about the heat sinks NY, Chicago and LA?

  5. It’s pleasant and balmy 95 deg F here in Mexico ha haha. I suppose the overfishing allowed by the last regime of crab and salmon to keep Tyson’s happy had nothing to do with it.

    Also I see the temperature extremes are measured only in the heat sinks of the major big cities while the rest of the country is enjoying a warmer than average part of the repeated since I was a kid weather cycles. So how about you city people quit producing so much heat?

    And maybe those who figure out these averages should start making them averages. You can only fib so many times and go woof woof woof to find the belief rate has made you irrelevant.

    Quite frankly it takes more than two dead fish sort of like the non existent plastic island in mid Pacific to convince me ….

    Proof, Verifiiable facts, from credible sources.

    Also salmon always die out after four years……

  6. It is no secret how I feel about the climate change or President Trump’s short-sighted emphasis on fossil fuels. However, this crisis is accelerating to an alarming rate. You can see it and feel it in places like Alaska.

    JT, you obviously do not have much understanding of science and specifically climate change (formerly global warming until “warmists” lost that battle). No reasonable person doubts that climate is changing. The debate is whether the driving force is human activities or natural forces. In the last several years the CO2 hypothesis has been severally challenged by studies in several countries which support a natural effect hypothesis based in large part on solar activity. To justify serious consideration of the C02 hypothesis requires an argument that invalidates the natural hypothesis and demonstration of a correlation between CO2 and temperature/climate which has not occurred.

    On the hand the earth has a finite volume which means that fossil fuel resources are also finite. This argues for a carefully considered conservation/replacement strategy at the federal level. To the best of my knowledge this has not occurred. This should be pursued but in a thoughtful manner without political rhetoric or panic.

    1. Olesmithy,
      “This should be pursued but in a thoughtful manner without political rhetoric or panic.”

      This is the trickiest part I’d wager.

    2. Olesmithy, ‘Climate Change’ was the term George W. Bush’s Administration preferred to ‘Global Warming’. So scientists said, ‘Fine, let’s call it Climate Change’. The term still describes changing weather patterns. But deniers like you would have us believe that these changes are ‘perfectly natural’ and nothing to worry about.

      One should note that since 1950, the world’s population has more than doubled, a rather grave statistic. It took all of human history to reach 1950’s population. But in the past 70 years we have more than doubled that!

      In the past 40 years, China, India and Brazil, three of the world’s 5 most populous countries, have industrialized on a massive scale. Those three nations have added millions of vehicles to their roads while building thousands of factories and power plants.
      Urbanization in those three countries has altered an untold number of ecosystems.

      During this same period, forests throughout the world have been depleted on a massive scale. This is especially true in Brazil. But deforestation has also been extensive in Madagascar, Indonesia and Burma.

      Yet deniers claim that massive industrial growth combined with a doubling of the world’s population has had ‘no effect’ on the earth’s atmosphere! As though record warming trends are a perfectly natural phenomenon completely divorced from massive industrialization.

      Then deniers claim, as Olesmithy asserts, that Science supports the claims of deniers. Such claims are based, of course, on disinformation promoted by rightwing media. In truth about 90% of Climate Scientists believe Global Warming can be attributed to the massive burning of fossil fuels combined with deforestation.

      The Climate Change debate is now primarily limited to the United States. The rest of the global community moved-on from this debate years ago. China, the world’s most populous nation and second largest economy, is currently developing solar power on a massive scale.

      Increasingly the United States is a scientific laggard for allowing the Climate Change debate to continue. This debate has greatly undermined our leadership and prestige.

      1. when you said “overpopulation” you stepped on a fifth rail because a lot of your marxist friends believe that’s just an excuse for white countries to limit the population growth of third world countries.

        this is not just prolife rhetoric, people in Asia, middle east and africa, take that notion very seriously, including people who are neither Christians nor Muslims but still regard a growing national population as a social resource

        for my part, i think there is an overpopulation, of hungry and poorly educated people in the third world, and would be pleased to see their population growth limited.

        and not just have them all resettled to the northern hemisphere.

        I get called a racist for that sort of thing. but i am not shy at understand where my own interests lie and taking the logical conclusions. other people are afraid of that I guess. other white people are I guess. a peculiar and perplexing aspect of our people that i find rather offensive, the insincere altruism that leads to constant double-talk.

        It was not always thus. as I pointed out last week, there has been an overlap between people who are called white “racists” and environmental issues going back to the days of Madison Grant, and before. Now, all that is either gone or perhaps hidden under layers of phony euphemisms

        political correctness warps all of our discussions and makes sincere debate almost impossible.

        1. Kurtz, I have to tell you that your comments on these threads have become increasingly bizarre. This effort to claim that Whites are ‘racist’ for being concerned about overpopulation is one of your weirdest comments yet. Like there should be a gag order on recognizing the causes of Climate Change..?? Like noting population trends is now ‘incorrect’..???

          Your comments become not just bizarre but hypocritical regarding Trump’s obsession with the border and migrants from Central America. Climate Change combined with overpopulation are factors in that issue. Yet you would have us believe those issues are ‘incorrect’ to acknowledge.

          It makes me wonder, Kurtz, if you have drinking problem.

      2. China has some interesting energy projects. They have built impressive road systems in many places. They’re embarked on the “Silk Road” initiative that will build more and add untold tons of “carbon to the atmosphere”

        they also had a brutal population control program, the hated “one child policy.” interestingly, they’ve back off of it a lot the past few years. maybe worrying about solvency of social pensions? I dont know. maybe just Chicoms trying to make people less pissed off at them and keep a hold on power.

        reckless logging and most of all “slash and burn” by hungry peasants has done a lot of harm to old growth forests in tropical areas. it’s tragic. but, people are hungry. ask yourself, would you cook up an endangered deer species that you had caught, rather than see your own child die from starvation? I would

        “international development” has been poorly marketed to Republican voters who often see these things as schemes for bureacratic elites. they are sometimes I am sure but not always. sustainable economic development in the third world, quite frankly, serves the interests of natives of the first world, in ways that are pretty obvious, especially if you think about mass migration.

    3. the degree to which anthropogenic sources contribute to this complex thing is not clear. certainly it should be studied objectively according to scientific disciplines.

      what is clear in the meantime is that we need WAAAAAY better land use and development codes especially in coastal areas, and secondly, we need more strong and resilient infrastructure including bridges, dams, levies, and waterways, to say nothing of land infrastructure like roads

      these are fundamental government purposes and there is a broad overlap of partisan shared interests

      1. And we need fewer stupid regulations like plastic honey sticks need an additional plastic wrapper for ‘sanitary’ reasons. More plastic for the landfills and oceans.

  7. We should be far more worried about being hit by a giant asteroid than CO2 levels of 415ppm(growing at 2ppm/year). The younger-dryas impact hypothesis should terrify us- it looks like we were hit by a series of asteroids 12,800 years ago causing mass extinctions and the destruction of civilization across the entire planet.

    1. there is a program from tracing space rocks

      there is always climate change and we are definitely in a warming trend. it is at least in part caused by human action. not that it matters: if the primary cause is solar activity, and we are going to get more heat from Sol, then the warming will happen as it happens and we may be swamped no matter what happens with industry and fossil fuels

      hence, the smart thing is to aim at adaptation, which is to say, coastal engineering and other things that will help us meet the changing conditions safely, than just more harebrained schemes like a “carbon tax” that will create a big bureaucray and solve few if any problems

      1. Yes, there’s a program and I know that the scientific community is now very worried, but this problem dwarfs the “threat” from climate change which is way overblown. One rock like the one that hit us “this morning(in geologic time-12,800 years ago)” and we’re done for…again.

  8. Everybody believes in climate change. Nothing in nature is static. Climate change has been a thing since God invented the climate.
    Speaking of God, it would be really great if we could stop treating climate change as a religion.

    1. its aims are predictive, which makes it a lot like religion, no matter what the premises.

      adaptation, is the business of engineering however, which is doable



    This is very disturbing though not surprising. Those of us who follow Climate Change (in mainstream media) have known for years that Alaska is Ground Zero in the United States. But among replies posted here already, we see presumptuous doubts from mindless Trumpers.

    Professor Turley notes “Trump’s short-sighted emphasis on fossil fuels”. The professor should have said ‘tragically short-sighted’. For several decades the global community looked to the United States for leadership. Yet on the issue of Climate Changes, our nation has squandered precious time that can never be recovered.

    America’s foot dragging in the face of this enormous challenge can be attributed to The Koch Brothers Network Of Political Donors and their hold on the Republican party. Through a vast web of political proxy groups, The Kochs can threaten any Republican who acknowledges Climate Change.

    Consequently, the Republican Party and rightwing media continue casting doubts on changes that travelers like Professor Turley can record with their own cameras. The fact that these doubts persist illustrates the folly of our Supreme Court’s Citizens-United decision. Said ruling allows the Koch Bros to control Republican doctrine.

    Science Fiction writer Rod Serling opened an episode of “The Twilight Zone” by narrating, “The Place is here, the time is now”. That description applies to Climate Change as 2020 looms. Global Warming is no longer a futuristic, theoretic prediction. It is now playing out in ‘real time’ for all the world to see.

    Ignoring Climate Change at this point is like denial of Nazi ambitions on the eve of World War II. Deniers are like French generals feeling safe behind the Maginot Line. In this case the Maginot Line is misinformation promoted by rightwing media. This shockingly stupid idea that Climate Change only reflects ‘cyclical trends’.

    The French discovered that German bombers could simply fly over the Maginot Line. And if we don’t act soon, the effects of Climate Change will overwhelm our ability to respond. The end could come when a series of Hurricane Katrina-like disasters wipes-out the U.S. Treasury. Imagine Congress saying we no longer have the funds to clean-up disasters.

    At that point the U.S. economy collapses and anarchy sets in.

    1. In the future, maybe Professor Turley will submit his articles to Hill for editing before he prints the final copy.

    2. Hill,
      This post is not helpful. Cathartic, perhaps, but it does not open the door to any kind of fruitful conversation on addressing this complicated issue.

      Trump’s desire to get companies to manufacture within our geographic boundaries might actually help deal with the issue of pollution (which, arguably, affects the climate). People will be more inclined to address pollution, presumably, if their own health could be at risk.

      Also, a massive shift in cultural behavior would have to occur. People would need to be okay with getting by with fewer things and spending more on those things. Food expenses and clothing expenses would take up a larger share of people’s budgets, leaving less spare money for extras. Anyone willing to give up the phones we are reading these posts on?

      How can we reconcile people’s desire for small government with the community-wide need to deal with pollution (particularly that of the oceans)?

      Too many big, important questions need to be asked and discussed than to waste time, energy, and relationships on finger-pointing and ad hominems.

      1. Rose, here’s the key sentence in your reply: “How can we reconcile people’s desire for small government with the community-wide need to deal with pollution (particularly that of the oceans)?”

        To begin with, ‘people’s desire for small government’ is the political ideal of conservatives. But does it represent the majority of Americans? If you have polls supporting that, feel free to post them. I have never seen polls that say the ‘majority’ of Americans favor small government.

        Nevertheless you pinpointed the precise reason Republicans deny Climate Change. To acknowledge Climate Change would be acknowledging the need for central planning by the Federal government; a view totally at odds with small government doctrine. A party that has preached the virtues of small government for the past 40 years, cannot possibly admit that central planning is necessary to deal with this crisis.

        Therefore Republicans are leading us on a tragically mindless course where denial of reality is essential to uphold conservative talking points. As though a perfect storm of natural disasters is actually preferable to federal planning and regulations.

        But the question you need to ask, Rose, is “Will the Koch Brothers be around to clean up the disasters ahead?”

        1. false, Republicans advocate central planning of the economy in the form of Federal Reserve Policy, pensions (SSA) , the military, and a host of other problems

          HIll, this is more “blame Republicans” cant that is not helpful

          also it ignores how planning works in the US, indeed in most modern states, over the many decades, whichever party is “in charge” at the moment.

          A lot of planning emanates from quasi-academic, quasi-governmental committees that look into details and make recommendations. this goes for everything from screw-hole-sizes to standards for setback in house construction.

          “blame republicans’ is a nonstarter in making any sort of positive change on complicated issues. you almost guarantee a fail from step one.

          I still don’t know who the Kroch bros are other than your bogeymen and it’s annoying that they are always supposedly to blame as well. I am sure they are obnoxious characters but perhaps you give them too much credit?

          1. also, “CENTRAL PLANNING” has had a lot of failures. Such as ,CHERNOBYL

            there’s an environmental disaster for ya

        2. Hill,
          “To acknowledge Climate Change would be acknowledging the need for central planning by the Federal government; a view totally at odds with small government doctrine.”

          I disagree. Why does the Federal government have to lead the charge? Why not the States?

          The Federal government does not know the especial needs and local issues of every locale. They could help support dissemination of local information. Also, by having a top-down requirement, that will diminish people’s intrinsic desire to effect change. It’s the difference between motivating someone and requiring someone (what is the difference between being sentenced to community service and requiring students to participate in community service in order to graduate?).

          I am not saying there isn’t any place at all for the Federal government to look at its own policies. For instance, should U.S. companies manufacturing products overseas still have to abide by U.S. environmental manufacturing requirements (which, in many cases, may be more stringent than the host countries’)?

          My question: “How can we reconcile people’s desire for small government with the community-wide need to deal with pollution (particularly that of the oceans)?”

          Small government allows people more agency in their decision-making. Small government, paired with education, presents an opportunity for people to make the best decisions for themselves and their communities. When government gets too ‘big’ and the people feel that their concerns are ignored, in favor of large donors or corporations, how is that democratic?

          The ‘lightbulb’ bill is a good example. The bill phased out the standard Edison lightbulb in favor of the CFL–all to ‘save energy’ and be ‘environmentally friendly’. Low and behold, the GE CFL has mercury and essentially requires HAZMAT clean-up if it breaks (not to mention, what to do when they burn out?!). The LEDs that seem to have come after the CFLs are not much better. The light they emit is odd–too much blue wave-length or something–they bother my eyes. I question whether they really are ‘better’ for the environment (or people) than the old bulbs. I suspect the bill was a windfall for GE, though.

          1. Solar cells won’t ever get “green”, the efficient ones depend on arsenic, so they’re hazardous, carcinogenic waste at the end of their life cycle. Same for LEDs. The rare earths required to make efficient wind turbine generator magnets are mined from strata which also have thorium in abundance. Of course, that would be good trouble if the Left and the Oil Lobby every got away from their allergy to nuclear power, but that’s never happening. It might be interesting to do some forensic accounting on AOC and the other authors of the Green New Deal for contributions and outright bribes from Big Oil.

      2. The issue isn’t going to be solved in the comments section of JT’s blog. Others should have their say, be able to vent, etc.

        1. Anonymous,
          It does not have to be solved, but fruitful conversations need to happen so there is better understanding of a complex issue. Without sufficient understanding, we might as well be tilting at windmills. Poorly considered “solutions” can end up worsening the problem.

          Before any of us go running off to our elected representatives, we ought to understand the issue, the various solutions, and the pros/cons of said arguments and ideas to solve the problem at hand.

          1. “Before any of us go running off to our elected representatives, we ought to understand the issue, the various solutions, and the pros/cons of said arguments and ideas to solve the problem at hand.”

            And one isn’t going to find the answers, etc. in the comment section of a blog.

            1. Are you foolish enough to assume the one’s writing about the affairs of the nation are any more capable than some of the members on this blog? Many of them that are commonly read aren’t very bright so if you wish you can include yourself among them.

      3. “Too many big, important questions need to be asked and discussed ”

        Renewable energy is great in the right places and at the right time. One thing, however, we cannot forget is that renewable energy requires infrastructure and and energy resources to create it. For instance minerals have to be mined which uses energy and causes pollution, the products have to be built and assembled etc. A lot of energy is used creating renewables and that creates a lot of pollution. Then one has to recognize the life span of the renewable and how when its lifespan ends it is a major source of garbage and pollution. The Chinese are great at producing solar cells, but their costs are low in part because of all the pollution created when making the renewable.

        This is not an argument against renewables rather an argument to put things in their proper perspective. Think of all the fish killed in rivers polluted by Chinese industry including renewables.

        I guess when one thinks about it, there is no such thing today that is truly renewable energy and broad sweeping comments like the ones made by Hill don’t help in either determining the problems or solving them.

        1. Allan,
          Case in point: I live in a region that is one of the top ten cloudiest in the US, so solar energy is not a great idea here.

          Regarding biofuel energy, ethanol has long been made from corn, even though it is very inefficient. Hemp and switchgrass are far more energy dense and are ‘greener’ biofuels. Used fryer oil also piques my interest.

          There is a corn lobby, I am sure, one must contend with to change the biofuel industry…

          1. Corn lobby, do you mean the mega farmers that support the rethuglican party. Grassley is complaining now about biofuel waivers.

            1. Ynot,
              An actual conversation could be had about lobbyists and or biofuels and how to wean corn farmers off biofuels, yet you throw in a tiresome and unhelpful ad hominem.

              It isn’t just mega farmers that support Republicans or produce biofuel. Yes, smaller farmers are having financial struggles.

              Iowans have historically been very balanced politically-speaking, having both Democrat and Republican representation. Farmers, being pretty practical people, are interested in fixing problems. Based on your throwaway ‘rethuglican’ comment, you are not.

              1. P.S. I’d enjoy an actual conversation that was aimed at understanding or examining possible solutions, that would be great.

              2. Prairie Rose – as I am sure you have noticed TONY specializes in ad hominem attacks. I do not believe I have seen him/her/it/zer engage in an intellectual discussion with anyone since I have been a member of this blog.

                1. Paul, TONY engaged in nothing intellectual while you were gone. Whenever the sewers back up he posts.

        2. Renewables only produce useful amounts of power when the wind’s blowing or the sun’s out. We can’t count on that during peak energy usage. There are new gadgets for storing energy from renewables, like electric trains which haul heavy loads up hills when renewables make power, then act as dynamos when rolling downhill, and electric cranes that stack concrete blocks during renewable generation cycles, and similarly act as dynamos putting power back in the grid when lowering the concrete blocks. Those aren’t that efficient, but they’re the most efficient electrical energy storage close to working right now.

          Nuclear power works all the time, except during refuelling cycles – buit molten sat thorium reactors don’t go down for refuelling.

          You can gauge how serious AOC and her “policy wonks” are about actually ending global warming by their absolute refusal to consider nuclear power. It’s not about global warming for them. It’s all about power over others.

          1. should be “molten salt thorium”, which can be continuously refuelled during operation and can even burn nuclear waste from other reactor types.

          2. Loupgarous, I think OAC’s former chief to staff already provided the answer. It wasn’t about green, it was about changing the economy.

            All that you say is true and the solution to the power gaps in wind and solar is to duplicate energy source provision using fossile fuel or nuclear.

    3. climate change, warming, is very real. Peter, you annoy and harass your audience. This is counterproductive, but apparently you cant resist. Just blaming it on trump and republicans, that makes no sense.

      it is caused by complex factors which probably include human made carbon emissions to some degree. also, solar activity

      whatever the causes, we need to move to adapt to rising sea levels fast, and that means civil engineering, mostly. boring stuff like improving infrastructure, dikes, levies, waterways, etc. and also updating coastal land use and development regimes.

      boring stuff, not sexy like blaming Republicans and Trump for all evils worldwide.

      1. Kurtz, here’s the key paragraph in your reply: “Whatever the causes, we need to move to adapt to rising sea levels fast, and that means civil engineering, mostly. boring stuff like improving infrastructure, dikes, levies, waterways, etc. and also updating coastal land use and development regimes.

        Yes, yes, absolutely!! We need to move as fast as possible on infrastructure projects with rising seas and warmer weather in mind. And the first step in that direction is acknowledging Climate Change.

        1. Hill, how much has sea level risen in the past 10, 100, 1000, 10000 years? Has the rise been linear, exponential, etc.?

        2. i have no problem acknowledging climate change or that there are anthropogenic causes among the many

          however, the various major nationally sponsored climate prediction models out, vary in their predictive accuracy. over time, the one that’s been the most accurate is the Russian one that is predicting the least amount of change

          NONETHELESS a small amount of change, combined with foreseeable increases in solar activity, and whatever human causes, may be enough to hit a tipping point that causes more rapid tundra and deep sea floor ice methane melt and gas release. this could accelerate the process quickly.

          if you sit around and insult and blame Republicans, Trump, etc., then you’re not going to do very well at informing anyone. you’ll just be tuned out.

          we can’t control the sun, we can’t control how much the major carbon polluter China is dumping into the atmosphere, and we probably cant do much to affect what is being produced even here from necessary human activities of agnricultre and industry.

          but we can focus on predictable problems which will occur, from weather related disasters

          but what is our track record at this? not good

          “Further facilitating a return to the familiar are the completed safety improvements and further work underway. New Orleans will be somewhat safer, but not so safe as it could be. It will surely be flooded again in the future reflecting the threat of even greater or more threatening storms from the multidecadal cyclical period of high hurricane frequency (48). Furthermore, the intensities of these storms are probably being exacerbated by global warming (49–51) and by sea level increase and continued subsidence of the land. Hazard research offers five major types of adaptation that could be used to lessen such risk (1, 2). Adaptive actions taken or planned to make New Orleans safer address three of these: rebuilding of the levees, a limited effort to make buildings flood and wind resistant, and preparation of a new evacuation plan. [HERE COMES THE PUNCHLINE FOLKS:] No actions have been taken to change land use or even to restore wetlands.”

          now that paper was from 2006 but probably that was enough time to ground that assertion in fact. very troubling!

      2. Kurtz, the GOP and Trump have uniformly and purposefully pretended there is no problem and have rolled back efforts which most Americans support to counter climate change. Of course they’ll get blasted, and well deserved. If time wasn’t important, we could laugh it off as the last gasps of a modern day Know Nothing movement. We can’t. You’re not funny.

        1. educating anybody about ecology or weather or civil engineering or land use and development requires a positive tone that is not polemical and out to blame the other guy or party

          Sadly the fake news organs which could educate the general population rarely succeed. Mostly they exist to sell eyeballs to advertisers. Often their biggest advertisers are campaigns and so they cater to their customers.

          In California, I wonder, is it just Republicans emitting carbon or do Democrats exhale and engage in industry and commerce as well?

          Maybe they even have offended the existing laws about the environment.

          i will give you a little example. there is a fine old gentleman in California who is a major donor to CA Dem party. He was a developer and embroiled for years in lawsuits concerning the negative environmental impact of his developments. First name Angelo. Doesnt really matter precisely who it is, I don’t want to run the guy down, by all information, he was a good person and a tremendous philanthropist of many worthy causes. but he had to make his bread. and he was a developer.

          There was not a lot of news coverage about these environmental suits. Some, but not much., Probably because he was a kingmaker and bankroller for the CA Dems and his six figure a year donations that went on and on and on buy a lot of goodwill.

          To pretend that these things are easy to fix, just elect Democrats, which is something like what I have heard many times before, is simplistic and DOA for progress. No, good land use and development benefits everyone, so there can hardly be a more bipartisan source of support than that. Potentially, at least.

          I will give you a suggestion for a cultural movement that gets into the details and has a good record of addressing issues without blaming people and alienating either party. it’s called the New Urbanism. This is a school of land use an development that has many great ideas on improving our human geography.

          Listen to the positive tone of this lady who did not run Trump down but suggested new positive possibilities

          New Urbanism is nonpartisan. I will name some Democrat support for it from out here in flyover. The Democrats who have run South Bend Indiana since long before Pete Buttigieg was mayor did a redo of downtown and the area adjacent to Notre Dame, that was long in the planning before it was finished by Pete B’s administration. Likewise, in Chicago there are exponents of it as well, going back to Daley Jr days. Not sure the progress but it has clearly been behind some positive developments. New Urbanism has many friends among architects, developers, lawyers, and academics, who might be considered right wingers. It is just smart.

          New Urbanism can have a positive environmental AND social impact if it advances, because it reduces reliance on automobile transportation.

          One guy you may have heard of., Howard Kunstler, cant quote his blog name it will get screened, but here’s a good book from a couple decades back

          1. New Urbanism – I’m very familiar with the concept and have attended talks by on be of it’s leading proponents, Andres Duany – will only impact environmental concerns if accomplished with high densities justifying public transportation. Otherwise, it’s only a style and living conditions option.

            1. PS The GOP’s purposeful and argumentative resistance to the science on this issue will not be fixed by a “pretty please” invitation, especially as looking backwards is it’s ideological position on a number of things. When they lose elections over it as the conditions worsen, they may wake up.

              1. the GOP is not resisting science. this is your characterization. it’s about as useful as when prolifers say that proaborts are resisting science (biology) because they fail to recognize a fertilized gamete as a “person” which is in the strictest biological sense, true. but what is a person for social and legal purposes is more complicated, isnt it? just as a range of opinions on climatological conditions and predictions is actually a range and not one precise answer. so there is a reasonable range of debate, which you reflexively dismiss in your polemical way

                last time you said it was the Kroch bros. They are a few men with money but just a few men. there are plenty of other billionaire philanthropists monkeying around to tikkun olam the world into a shape of their own imagining.

                the GOP like the Democratic party is mostly concerned with winning elections. Doing that is imagined by the candidates. Candidates respond to donor dollars and local concerns which stimulate the electorate.

                People will work at the grassroots level for things like changes to zoning which makes their communities more livable and reduce the need for long commutes.

                They won’t get excited over abstractions. That’s part of the failure of policy wonks, to understand normal people’s concerns

                its why i try and do something constructive like introduce people to New urbanism and talk about it in a way that responds to daily hassles for normal folks.

                but what do I Know. I’m just a nobody in flyover flapping my gums anonymously on a blog

            2. it is not just a style and living conditions option, it is a wholly different approach to zoning and development codes which if implemented on a massive scale could radically decrease the need for automobile transportation in cities of any size

              read Road to Nowhere and the companion book Home from Nowhere

              mixed use development is key to making things walkable


              1. kurtz, as I stated, I am very familiar with New Urbanism and agree that if it resulted in less automobile usage – to be significant that would mean higher densities and public transportation – it would affect environmental factors like CO2. In fact, that is not really happening anywhere yet – and doesn’t seem on target to in places i know about – while the style is being adopted with pleasing if environmentally ineffective results. There are “new urbanism ” shopping centers – now called “town centers” – out on the suburban fringe that everyone drives too. You’ll notice the parking spaces are plentiful.

                If only it was otherwise I would be excited with you.

                1. PS kurtz – the real movement in this direction is the revitalization of some old downtowns, though except in limited places (California for some reason – probably the weather?) they tend to be limited to entertainment, restaurants, and antiques but no significant retail. Supposedly young people are more drawn to actually live in these places – no kids yet. Until people have to abandon autos for some other reason like high fuel prices, parking costs, or traffic, we’ll probably stick with them and not the walking except maybe on weekends.

                  1. I was just out in Chinatown in New York and they had tons of retail on the street mixed up with food and professional and service. But I get the sense that they don’t worry too much about the zoning code there. Or maybe they buy off the officials to be ignored. The same thing one sees in ethnic neighborhoods in Chicago. There are tons of people without cars shopping right where they live.

                    In small town USA, and medium towns, there are plenty of small successes too, even if the general trend remains in the direction of exodus.

                    My views are ground level and anecdotal. I read, I participate in some things as a lawyer, I talk to people who are interested in these things, but I am no social scientist out there measuring the big numbers. But i can see an idea that’s been catching on for some time and finding tangible results.

                    oh, also: people are abandoning cars too. On a measurable scale. young people are not buying them on the scale earlier generations did at all. uber and all that. renting bikes and scooters and what all. it’s all over now.

                2. it has a definite influence on the trends in zoning and development codes. walkability is a word that people understand and it’s more in the talk than it used to be. people whining about long commutes is a huge issue. the influence of New Urbanism is like the influence of Friedman and the Chicago boys. Things take a while to trickle into the places where the ideas will find tangible results.

                  I assert that it’s a powerful influence from Shanghai to flyover USA. I am not speculating, I know this, from participation professional matters with land use and development discussions with developers, professors, city planners, architects, and citizens. I am excited, i have been excited about it for decades, and it’s actiually a really positive trend in thinking, for once, which is catching on in many places.

                  I am not going to write a book on the actual implementations, if you’re interested there are tons of things out there.

                  If the green hand wringers and pundits don’t find it compelling, maybe it’s because it’s too slow for them, they think like you on that point, and more likely, they’re too focused on their scheme of a carbon tax. which would fetch them more patronage opportunities.

                  1. New urbanism was a thing and still is with progressives, but I’m a realist and unlike you – a minority in America – I don;t live in the middle of a big city. That’s not the problem. I did live in NYC a long time ago and I assure you, China Town then was exactly like it is now. It is not an example of new urbanism, nor is Chicago. That is old tried and true urbanism. I didn’t own or want a car when I lived in NYC – pain in the ass. But growth is on the perimeters of big cities, and even those living in downtown Miami or Los Angeles own cars. Chicago and NYC are unlike any other American cities and have decent to good public transportation.

                    If you like no zoning – I do – go to New Orleans where a grocery store will be mid-block among houses.

    4. several katrina type events coming into play near in time is going to happen i believe and the climate change will be a part of that. I doubt taxing Republicans will stop it.

      What could help, is civil engineering to make infrastructure more strong and resilient, and updates of coastal land use and development codes.

      Boring stuff, less fun than blaming Trump.

      We do also need to “build the wall” because the tiny invasion of now, will become a huge invasion when central america gets swamped.

    5. when anarchy sets in, if and when it does, the anarchists will be the first to get the shiv, because nobody can stand them

      that’s sort of a silver lining but not much

      remember the old rule: looters shot on sight

      that’s not been followed here in a long time, but it will make a comeback, out of necessity

  10. So dumping 30 Billion tons of carbon dioxide into atmosphere every year has no effect on the climate?

    1. 30 Billion? Nahhhhh it is actually 300 trillion…

      hmmm or was it 3,000,000 Quadrillion?

      As if Westerners really cared about the future considering how we treat each other today

      Get over it and act today like it matters for tomorrow

        1. Always the warrior, always on alert while squirreled away in his bunker scared of his fellow Americans and a changing world. Whites will survive as long as the habitat does so there is a real issue for white survival.

          1. sure sure think what you like. Im greasing my gun–barrel behind a stack of mre boxes right now, counting bullets readying for the collapse. whatever. now you may return back to the medicinal pot ynot

  11. The glaciers are growing in Glacier National Park. The NPS is slowly replacing the signs.

      1. Al O’Heem – this make come as a shock to some, however that great soil in North Dakota is the result of a massive glacier.

        1. While some ice melts and new ice is created I am still waiting for the Polar Bears to become extinct.

      2. The Earth at one time was covered in ice known as the Ice Age.

        The Iceland glacier and others will return as life is cyclic like a sine wave. Our existence is but a blip on the timeline so take courage!

        1. Ted, the earth will survive. The questions are will our civilization and even our species.

          1. Violent, hateful, abortionists like you do far more to extinguish our species in a millennia than any geological age could in millions of years

            1. For the record I’m not an abortionist or violent. I admit to hating fools like the anonymous above.

              1. good for you. it’s good to admit your feelings at times even Hate. let’s all be a little more sincere, helps one relax

        2. Glaciers may return but species going extinct do not, regardless of their courage. I’d rather prolong our existence than shorten our blip.

    1. No Paul. From the National Park Service:

      “In 1966, the park had 35 named glaciers large enough to be considered active. By 2015, only 26 named glaciers remained. The average area reduction was 39 percent, though some lost as much as 85 percent. This trend of glacier retreat is expected to continue as temperatures rise…..”

        1. Not a legitimate source just a denier making a buck. The schulteacher is not a scholar nor a rational thinker.

  12. One reason the public knows less or little about climate change is the policy of the media to hide real words and meanings. They avoid some things a person does for example. They will not even use pig latin to perhaps gloss over a slang word or cuss word. So when Trump cuts an artFay and I say that on here the word artFay may get printed but if I used the American word it may get censored. Trump artFays cause climate change and heat indexes. Look at the dead palm trees in Mar-A-Lago.

  13. But, but, but the repugthuglicans say it’s all a hoax and there is no such thing. Even dear leader says it’s a hoax and China did it. Why faux (not the) news says it’s a hoax everyday so it must be a hoax.

    1. Sgtsabai,
      It is not clear to me that you actually care about this issue since you prefer to fingerpoint and use ad hominems.

      1. Mr. Kurtz,
        Is it obliquely still us, since a boatload of products sold here are Made in China?

        I agree it is not Trump or Republicans. Clinton was part of the WTO allowing China to join. It is bipartisan.

        I do still think a huge element of the problem is unseen: water and soil microbiome. Chemical pollution, insufficient numbers of herbivores spreading manure as they graze, acid/plastic rain, round-up and other pest/herbicides: how do such things affect the carbon sequestration of the water and air? How does the draining of wetlands affect weather and pollution?

        1. OI course we’re all interrelated but I will be the first to stand up for my own kind “Westerners” and reject any sort of blaming of white people. I am not specifically blaming Chinese either. If the collective wisdom of the Chinese and “Westerners” can’t address this difficult problem then I doubt anybody from Africa is going to figure it out either.

          Sorry but the productive resources of the world are mostly concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere and is under the private or public control of Asians and white people.

          These are facts. Don’t get lost in the weeds of political correct trends which oblige constant abuse of “Westerners” would be my advice.

          1. Mr. Kurtz,
            You missed my point. Race has nothing to do with it.

            A huge share of the products we purchase are from US companies, but are Made in China. We are sending our pollution overseas, as far as I can tell.

            Are US companies required to abide by US standards of manufacturing to prevent pollution or are they allowed to abide by rules of the country in which the products are made?

              1. With Kurtz race is alwaysx a factor not a problem

                Race is as plain as the reality of 100,000 years of evolution stamped on every face. It’s a factor like a lot of other factors, and not in need of special ignoring and rules to prohibit us from thinking about it. It’s only one factor among a multitude, but one that plays a role however small, constantly

                I find it hard that a nation of people who can understand that some dogs like pitt bulls are more liable to bite than others, or some dogs like yorkies are more liable to yap constantly than others, or some like to chase squirrels and some do not…….. how can a nation of people in America who are so tuned into how a few generations of purposeful breeding can affect a dog, how can people believe that 100,000 years of environmental factors pressuring the reproduction of human breeds, have no significant affect on behavioral tendencies?

                I guess that would be the Politically Correct thought police like YNOT out here trying to teach people how not to think. Maybe some PC apparatchiks like YNOT are doing that because they believe they are the shepherds and we the cattle, eh?

            1. Rose, if you’re saying US companies contract out manufacturing to polluters in China, yes obviously they do. Like NIKE I suppose.

              Benjamin Disraeli the great Victorian British statesman, said “All is Race”

              that was his opinion not mine, but, I would not be too quick to dismiss an informed opinion of a man who helped manage an Empire that spanned the globe


              there is an effect. if you go to any nation in scandanavia, you see they pick up garbage. if you go to certain equatorial nations, you will see they don’t pick up garbage.

              if you follow communities those people have created in different parts of the world, afar from their origins, you will see the tendencies to pick up garbage, or not, pretty obviously lying there on the street. so yes i dare to think maybe race is a factor in how nations handle waste, pollution, and the like, just as they differ in how they may handle garbage

              garbage is the microscopic incidence of pollution, an undesirable discarded physical bybroduct dumped on the commons at someone else’ expense

              I know i’m treading on taboos here. but like i said when i introduced you folks to Madison Grant, I am not the first.

    1. And just think we’re in the beginnings of a cold weather mini ice age predicted to give us one centigrade less over 300 years.

Comments are closed.