Another day, more evidence of rising levels of insanity, courtesy of 'journos™' inadvertently spilling the beans about the power grab/scientism grift masquerading as 'Climate Catastrophe™'
You will know this of course but there are entire paid-for retreats where journalists get to learn about the ‚correct‘ way to report about the climate:
This is in serious need of a critical update. The Chinese government since 2014 has known about the discovery that the dust from the Taklamakhan is a critical component to western USA rainfall events.
The continuation of desert reclamation in this area by China is a threat to the national security of the USA in terms of sustainability of human settlements hydropower, irrigation and biodiversity..It further is in general violation of a number of the Stockholm Declaration Principles.
Going on since 1978. (a time period the U.S. Senate was considering an international treaty to address environmental impact review of major technological' industrial changes) The Taklamakhan shelter belt work continues to 2050. Good from China's technocratic POV but a full on catastrophe in the making for the western USA. by SAV. Geography minor UCONN.
IF: Local climate conditions can affect and be affected by global climate conditions/factors
THEN: the difference between local and global is an arbitrary definition based on other factors than climate itself
Calling something "the Roman Warm Period" or "the Little Ice Age" is applying arbitrary definitions (which doesn't mean it is bad to do so, on the contrary, it is necessary for any study or conversation to be delineated and have cut-offs) which in turn affect the material and the conclusions.
I'd wager that languages from the Equator lack words for "Ice Age", or how Germanic languages such as Swedish uses "öken" (meaning "stony infertile wasteland" originally) to say "desert". Small wonder our ancestors lacked a word for desert, no?
Same principle apply to climate: where's the cut-off point? Why that point? Et cetera. I'm noting writers such as the one you quote and many others under 50 years old no longer seem to even be aware of the arbitrariness of definitions et c in any field of science.
Just listening to historians debating how to and when to mark the end of "the Stone Age" can be hilarious, especially if they come from different continents. A colleague of a friend of mine claimed she got a migraine every time she heard or read the phrases "paleo-diet" or "Stone Age-diet".
You know, the weirdest 'arguments™' are those that presume 'global' effects based on, at best, local/regional information.
(My funniest example from my professional life is the 'Little Ice Age', which was precipitated by the 'Crisis of the 17th Century', which was radiating outwards from the 1590s onwards--see, e.g, Geoffrey Parker's eponymous book, written some 30-odd years ago; less than decade ago, he published a book, with Yale UP no less, bearing the preposterous title 'Global Crisis'.)
As to if-then proposition you mentioned, perhaps the Roman Warm Period wasn't that special?
We assign - naturally so - importance to events as they impact us or are meaningful to us. Roman Warm Period was certainly important to European civilisational development; to Maya-Inca-Aztec (f.e.) it had no real significance at all.
If not for the social effects of warm/cold/other periods, we wouldn't bother with the process of definitions et c. Notice we have zero words, terms or concepts for local climate periods of Siberia/Mongolia, for the past. Yet, weather/climate over time there must have had effects of importance:
Hunic and Mongolian migration West and South, as well as the ancestors of the Sámi moving West along the North coast, crossing the Urals eventually.
But for Rome the Eternal we do.
Simplest explanation would be the lasting impact of Rome, compared to the temporary and very brief impact (culturally speaking virtually non-existent) of Huns and Mongolians.
Oh, I agree; these notions are a bit like the proverbial drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp (i.e., we have more sources for, e.g., Rome than for, say, the Huns, Mongols).
That said, I suggest that modern climate science has not established a credible link between local measurements and 'global average surface temperatures'.
We as a species only know what we uncover. It's why we need to always be cognizant of the precautionary principle. Lacking it's application, it is also the Achilles heel of AI imo.
You know, I'm all for that precautionary principle, don't get me wrong, but what these doom cultists are saying doesn't make much, if any sense (beyond their material well-being, hence the grift).
Perhaps you wish to read up on this cautionary tale:
Climate is always changing and our adaptations to it is an issue. Building solar arrays and wind generator farms hundreds of miles away from human settlements is nuts as you lose 7 to 10% in line heat losses alone. As for the precautionary principle, though necessity is the mother of invention, the grandparent's favorite admonishment comes to mind. "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."
Re the wind/solar farms: I'm with you, it's nuts (as was/is the 'Desertec' project, a veritable 'castle in the sky'). The main problem I see is twofold: first, we must grow or die (no, this isn't about 'capitalism' but the associated notions of betting on growth by importing more people to keep the present system going = a Ponzi scheme, if there ever was one); and, second, having less 'stuff' isn't necessarily 'bad' for people, but it's certainly bad news for the extremely over-leveraged, extra-greedy oligarchs running the financial system…
You will know this of course but there are entire paid-for retreats where journalists get to learn about the ‚correct‘ way to report about the climate:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/11/billionaire-funded-green-churnalism/?highlight=Climate%20journalism
Harr, I do know about this; in fact, I've written about its Austro-Covidian aspects:
https://fackel.substack.com/p/meet-the-climate-inquisition-courtesy
Want drought?
-
Comment feedback SAV
New World Encyclopedia 12/12/2024
This is in serious need of a critical update. The Chinese government since 2014 has known about the discovery that the dust from the Taklamakhan is a critical component to western USA rainfall events.
The continuation of desert reclamation in this area by China is a threat to the national security of the USA in terms of sustainability of human settlements hydropower, irrigation and biodiversity..It further is in general violation of a number of the Stockholm Declaration Principles.
https://www.hcn.org/issues/46-22/the-dust-detectives/
----------------------
Addendum
Going on since 1978. (a time period the U.S. Senate was considering an international treaty to address environmental impact review of major technological' industrial changes) The Taklamakhan shelter belt work continues to 2050. Good from China's technocratic POV but a full on catastrophe in the making for the western USA. by SAV. Geography minor UCONN.
https://www.indiatoday.in/environment/story/china-is-turning-its-largest-desert-into-a-forest-heres-how-2641694-2024-11-28
Wow, that's some food for thought, thanks a lot!
Isn't it even easier?
IF: Local climate conditions can affect and be affected by global climate conditions/factors
THEN: the difference between local and global is an arbitrary definition based on other factors than climate itself
Calling something "the Roman Warm Period" or "the Little Ice Age" is applying arbitrary definitions (which doesn't mean it is bad to do so, on the contrary, it is necessary for any study or conversation to be delineated and have cut-offs) which in turn affect the material and the conclusions.
I'd wager that languages from the Equator lack words for "Ice Age", or how Germanic languages such as Swedish uses "öken" (meaning "stony infertile wasteland" originally) to say "desert". Small wonder our ancestors lacked a word for desert, no?
Same principle apply to climate: where's the cut-off point? Why that point? Et cetera. I'm noting writers such as the one you quote and many others under 50 years old no longer seem to even be aware of the arbitrariness of definitions et c in any field of science.
Just listening to historians debating how to and when to mark the end of "the Stone Age" can be hilarious, especially if they come from different continents. A colleague of a friend of mine claimed she got a migraine every time she heard or read the phrases "paleo-diet" or "Stone Age-diet".
You know, the weirdest 'arguments™' are those that presume 'global' effects based on, at best, local/regional information.
(My funniest example from my professional life is the 'Little Ice Age', which was precipitated by the 'Crisis of the 17th Century', which was radiating outwards from the 1590s onwards--see, e.g, Geoffrey Parker's eponymous book, written some 30-odd years ago; less than decade ago, he published a book, with Yale UP no less, bearing the preposterous title 'Global Crisis'.)
As to if-then proposition you mentioned, perhaps the Roman Warm Period wasn't that special?
We assign - naturally so - importance to events as they impact us or are meaningful to us. Roman Warm Period was certainly important to European civilisational development; to Maya-Inca-Aztec (f.e.) it had no real significance at all.
If not for the social effects of warm/cold/other periods, we wouldn't bother with the process of definitions et c. Notice we have zero words, terms or concepts for local climate periods of Siberia/Mongolia, for the past. Yet, weather/climate over time there must have had effects of importance:
Hunic and Mongolian migration West and South, as well as the ancestors of the Sámi moving West along the North coast, crossing the Urals eventually.
But for Rome the Eternal we do.
Simplest explanation would be the lasting impact of Rome, compared to the temporary and very brief impact (culturally speaking virtually non-existent) of Huns and Mongolians.
Oh, I agree; these notions are a bit like the proverbial drunk looking for his lost car keys under the street lamp (i.e., we have more sources for, e.g., Rome than for, say, the Huns, Mongols).
That said, I suggest that modern climate science has not established a credible link between local measurements and 'global average surface temperatures'.
See my comment above.
We as a species only know what we uncover. It's why we need to always be cognizant of the precautionary principle. Lacking it's application, it is also the Achilles heel of AI imo.
You know, I'm all for that precautionary principle, don't get me wrong, but what these doom cultists are saying doesn't make much, if any sense (beyond their material well-being, hence the grift).
Perhaps you wish to read up on this cautionary tale:
https://fackel.substack.com/p/climate-change-as-paradigm-shift
Climate is always changing and our adaptations to it is an issue. Building solar arrays and wind generator farms hundreds of miles away from human settlements is nuts as you lose 7 to 10% in line heat losses alone. As for the precautionary principle, though necessity is the mother of invention, the grandparent's favorite admonishment comes to mind. "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it."
Re the wind/solar farms: I'm with you, it's nuts (as was/is the 'Desertec' project, a veritable 'castle in the sky'). The main problem I see is twofold: first, we must grow or die (no, this isn't about 'capitalism' but the associated notions of betting on growth by importing more people to keep the present system going = a Ponzi scheme, if there ever was one); and, second, having less 'stuff' isn't necessarily 'bad' for people, but it's certainly bad news for the extremely over-leveraged, extra-greedy oligarchs running the financial system…
And merry Christmas my backward looking friend!
Harr, same to you.
Also, do ponder the question: what have ze Romans ever done for us?