Last May the globe set a new record at 430 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere as you know, Epimetheus. Of course there is a dither in the curve as more land in the northern hemisphere and the growing season releases CO2 from plants. But the overall trend in that graph shows the overall curve is going up faster now. In January CO2 concentration hit 428.62: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Study the dither. We are astonished when a new record is set yet in about two and a half years one can say we will never in our lifetimes see such a low number again. I think this is the meaning of inevitable. Where is there evidence that humanity is getting ahead of the problem? So I think doomsters are the realists and everyone else (for various reasons) are delusionists.
James Hansen, the granddaddy of climate scientists on the early return of El Nino: https://substack.com/home/post/p-187095366 Among his conclusions is 2 degrees C global warming is likely to occur in the 1930s, not mid century.
I've now read this comment twice; I recall having had an airport diner chat with a fellow who turned out to have been a biologist or the like, and when the topic came up to 'CO2 is good for plant growth', he said that it's true, but 'bigger plants doesn't equal more nutrients' or the like. Yet, nutrient content appears to be trending downwards for decades now (mainly due to, I'd surmise, artificial fertiliser overuse).
I've also read a recent paper about methane-'eating' microbes in permafrost regions (will post about it soon), and that too, while highly interesting, is quite irrelevant for the point you raise: 'humanity' is currently transforming what we call 'capitalism' (profits from growth) into pick-your-term (profits from decline), and while this may take a few decades to filter through the current population, the future is going to be smaller, numerically as well as concerning the impact of human populations on earth's systems; I dunno if 'we' as a 'modern' society make it through that phase unscathed (I'd rather think we won't), but I'd also submit we'll find out as we march into the future. I do tend to think that we'll end up having to confront our befouled home planet well before we'll reach the end of modernity™, which will re-activate evolution as a concept (which the former has, to a very large extent, de-activated).
(Something golden ring something sow's snout something.)
As a passus, isn't it telling that modern English doesn't really have a straight eq. to the Swedish word "Vett"? ("Vernunft" in German acc. to translation software) The word is ur-Nordic in origin, the closest German I can find in Runeberg's Etymology is from Middle High German and Gothic: witi, wizzi, and (ge)witt.
It's one of those words that you wind up using an entire sentence to translate. Sometime, wisdom is correct. Sometimes wit, sometimes discretion, sometimes knowing, sometimes understanding.
Which the climateprolapsologists lack. Wit-ness:
1) All birds lay eggs
2) Roosters are birds
3) Therefore, roosters lay eggs
It's simply logical, it's inevitable. Any day now, my roosters will lay eggs. Because it is logical.
Fraulein Eiermann would I think benefit from working with her hands, for a couple of years.
I maintain my hypothesis that "higher studies" ought to be preceded by a minimum of one year of working a manual job. Precisely to increase the chance of building character and instilling vett.
I'd merely add that, not unlike some of the crowned heads of eras past, one should go through trade school before being permitted to attend university (I know that some of the Habsburg emperors had to do it e.g., Francis Joseph, r. 1848-1916, trained as a carpenter).
As to your rooster logic, it's the same nonsense we see with the seeming inability of people answering the question, 'what is a woman?' (and if your answer revolves around something like, well, I'm not a biologist or the like, that should immediately disqualify anyone for anything).
Last May the globe set a new record at 430 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere as you know, Epimetheus. Of course there is a dither in the curve as more land in the northern hemisphere and the growing season releases CO2 from plants. But the overall trend in that graph shows the overall curve is going up faster now. In January CO2 concentration hit 428.62: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/ Study the dither. We are astonished when a new record is set yet in about two and a half years one can say we will never in our lifetimes see such a low number again. I think this is the meaning of inevitable. Where is there evidence that humanity is getting ahead of the problem? So I think doomsters are the realists and everyone else (for various reasons) are delusionists.
James Hansen, the granddaddy of climate scientists on the early return of El Nino: https://substack.com/home/post/p-187095366 Among his conclusions is 2 degrees C global warming is likely to occur in the 1930s, not mid century.
Thanks for the link!
I've now read this comment twice; I recall having had an airport diner chat with a fellow who turned out to have been a biologist or the like, and when the topic came up to 'CO2 is good for plant growth', he said that it's true, but 'bigger plants doesn't equal more nutrients' or the like. Yet, nutrient content appears to be trending downwards for decades now (mainly due to, I'd surmise, artificial fertiliser overuse).
I've also read a recent paper about methane-'eating' microbes in permafrost regions (will post about it soon), and that too, while highly interesting, is quite irrelevant for the point you raise: 'humanity' is currently transforming what we call 'capitalism' (profits from growth) into pick-your-term (profits from decline), and while this may take a few decades to filter through the current population, the future is going to be smaller, numerically as well as concerning the impact of human populations on earth's systems; I dunno if 'we' as a 'modern' society make it through that phase unscathed (I'd rather think we won't), but I'd also submit we'll find out as we march into the future. I do tend to think that we'll end up having to confront our befouled home planet well before we'll reach the end of modernity™, which will re-activate evolution as a concept (which the former has, to a very large extent, de-activated).
Well this was a laugh:
"It’s simply logical, it’s inevitable’, says Sibylle Eimermann"
(Something golden ring something sow's snout something.)
As a passus, isn't it telling that modern English doesn't really have a straight eq. to the Swedish word "Vett"? ("Vernunft" in German acc. to translation software) The word is ur-Nordic in origin, the closest German I can find in Runeberg's Etymology is from Middle High German and Gothic: witi, wizzi, and (ge)witt.
It's one of those words that you wind up using an entire sentence to translate. Sometime, wisdom is correct. Sometimes wit, sometimes discretion, sometimes knowing, sometimes understanding.
Which the climateprolapsologists lack. Wit-ness:
1) All birds lay eggs
2) Roosters are birds
3) Therefore, roosters lay eggs
It's simply logical, it's inevitable. Any day now, my roosters will lay eggs. Because it is logical.
Fraulein Eiermann would I think benefit from working with her hands, for a couple of years.
I maintain my hypothesis that "higher studies" ought to be preceded by a minimum of one year of working a manual job. Precisely to increase the chance of building character and instilling vett.
witty indeed ;-)
I'd merely add that, not unlike some of the crowned heads of eras past, one should go through trade school before being permitted to attend university (I know that some of the Habsburg emperors had to do it e.g., Francis Joseph, r. 1848-1916, trained as a carpenter).
As to your rooster logic, it's the same nonsense we see with the seeming inability of people answering the question, 'what is a woman?' (and if your answer revolves around something like, well, I'm not a biologist or the like, that should immediately disqualify anyone for anything).
The logical follow-up to "What is a woman?" and someone replying with pomo-blather, is this:
"What is a human?"
Because if someone starts on the usual spiel, they have also un-humaned themselves.
And if they're not a human, then no rights or other considerations apply to them.
Of course.
Have you read Mark Curtis' Unpeople?
https://www.markcurtis.info/2007/02/04/unpeople-britains-secret-human-rights-abuses/
collapsology: ADHD version of Fukuyama's 'End of History'.
Ah, I love that kind of snark (and it's spot-on).
you, sir, just made my day, thank you. plodding on :-)