- 31 Posts
- 93 Comments
14·3 months agoThe medieval warm period was warmer than present and society flourished during that time. This period lasted from 900 to 1300 AD.
https://est.ufba.br/sites/est.ufba.br/files/kim/medievalwarmperiod.pdf
https://www.scmp.com/article/700638/china-gives-history-lesson-warming
Chinese scientists say that Chinese society prospered during warmer times.
From the prosperity of the Shang dynasty 3,600 years ago to the ruin of the Bronze Age, the cultural peak of the Tang dynasty in the seventh to 10th centuries and the subsequent ravages wrought by horsemen from the north, Chinese civilisation has reached its highest points when temperatures have been warmest and its lowest points when they have cooled.
Wang Zijin , an environmental historian at Beijing Normal University, said the relationship between temperature and success was no coincidence. When the weather cooled, agricultural output fell, wealth contracted, discontent rose and China became more vulnerable to invasion from the north.
‘In the long term, warming may not be a curse but a blessing [to China],’ he said. ‘According to what happened in the past, if the temperature continues to rise in the future we may not see the return of elephants, but it will be very possible that rice and bamboo can again grow along the Yellow River. Xinjiang , Gansu and Inner Mongolia will become much more habitable than they are today.’
2·4 months agoThanks for the criticism.
However, the greenhouse effect is supposed to work by absorbing outgoing infrared, not sunlight which the experiment measured. The absorption of sunlight is not much compared to the absorption of outgoing infrared. Therefore I still believe the experiment is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect, while the part of my comment you quoted might be wrong.
8·4 months ago20,000 in 30 days. They expect the total force (French + allies) to equal 60,000 according to French General.
Changes in the climate might decrease yields, however CO2 concentration directly increases them. This should recover 60% to over 100% (wheat increased, soybean fully recovered) of the losses due to climate change depending on the crop from 2000-2080 according to NASA.
So if you take the 50% loss of corn due to lack of moisture stated in your report, recovered by 60%. It should be ~20% decrease (time period probably starts from 2020s in the report, so this calculation is off), while wheat will increase by 10% overall according to NASA.
Farmers may switch to the more productive crops to compensate.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops/
Edit: Downvoters please reply. For clarification, I am just arguing against the claim that climate change will “kill us all” in the literal sense.
Cold weather still kills way more people than hot weather. Warming has decreased the overall temperature-related deaths. 650,000 fewer people die per year than in the 80s and 90s. 18 million die per year from cold weather, 2.2 million from hot weather.
Interestingly, during the 2000-2019 period examined in the study, while heat-related deaths rose, deaths from cold exposure fell. And they decreased by a larger amount than the increase in heat-related fatalities. Overall, researchers estimated that approximately 650,000 fewer people worldwide died from temperature exposure during the 2000-2019 period than in the 1980s and 1990s.
World population has grown (4x) but natural disaster deaths have decreased to a fraction (less than 1/10th or less than 5,000 per year). This is because we are better prepared. A 40+x increase is required to reach 1920 levels per capita. And that 50,000 per year would still not be able to beat the 650,000 fewer people dying from temperature per year.
I’ve heard many people say they’ll vote Putin till he’s gone and then vote KPRF. Rally around the flag effect seems huge at the moment. Still there was one good aspect that stood out to me:
Communists delivered 26 million copies of their program across the country (for the first time not skipping a single subject) which the other candidates severely lacked, a win regardless of the electoral result.
https://kprf.ru/activity/elections/225109.html
Machine translation of Kharitonov’s belief in its immediate implementation:
“Our program will make its way literally from tomorrow. In all regions, in all territories, it was received favorably, and people hope for its implementation. And we will implement it directly,” Kharitonov noted at a briefing on Sunday evening.
In his opinion, the current head of state, Vladimir Putin, has taken on enormous responsibility.
“If he wins, one can only wish for one thing: to justify the trust of his voters,” he emphasized, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports.
Let us remind you that Putin is in the lead with 87.26% in the presidential elections based on the results of processing 60% of the protocols. Second place goes to Kharitonov, who received 4.18% of the votes.
In quotes is a good response from ChatGPT on the matter, she did not discover the greenhouse effect, only the absorption of energy.
Her experiment on it’s own would support a cooling effect (she showed that CO2 absorbs solar radiation, not the greenhouse effect (which is based on the absorption of outgoing infrared radiation):
If carbon dioxide (CO2) simply absorbed energy, including sunlight, without re-emitting it, it could lead to cooling at the Earth’s surface. This is because the absorbed energy would not be radiated back to the surface, resulting in a net loss of energy from the Earth-atmosphere system.
Greenhouse effect described:
However, in the context of the greenhouse effect, CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) not only absorb incoming solar radiation but also absorb and re-emit infrared (IR) radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface. This process traps some of the outgoing IR radiation, preventing it from escaping into space and thereby warming the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. This trapping of IR radiation is what contributes to the warming effect known as the greenhouse effect.
5·4 months agoYeah the first thing is a problem, but do we support Scottish independence?
13·4 months agoThere’s several people within a ~5 meter radius (as I showed in my reply above, they are barely cut off from the image in the post) and the UUF shown first in the banner is a banderite organizaton.
There’s another one in the same rally and the cry Heroaim Slava. They also want to disclude Russia from the olympics. Finally the first logo on the bottom left corner in the image provided by OP is of the UNION OF UKRAINIANS OF FRANCE which is sympathetic of Stephan Bandera https://uduf.fr/
A new thing was him talking about the entire left bank of the Dneiper being historically Russian, this includes Poltava, Chernihiv, Sumy and Kiev in the north. Recently before this he was talking about creating a buffer zone to prevent Ukrainian attacks on Russian cities.
Oh alr nice, I see how it fits in the broader context of your post.
As to the OP mentioning, “I like how Putin clarified that Soviet Ukrainianization and indigenization of other areas of the USSR was not a bad policy in principle” I think this is best read as reactionary nationalist stuff. Basically that people of a culture should stick together, that there’s a duty to blood there, to preserving culture, to a commonality. You hear the same stuff from many reactionary thinkers.
How is it reactionary and nationalist to have a shared Belarussian, Ukrainian and Russian space where each national identity flourishes but is also interconnected? If Putin wants to live in harmony with Belarus or pre-maidan and to some extent post-maidan Ukraine instead of devouring them, where’s the issue?
In the interview he also admitted the superiority of China and it’s economy to Russia. He said that Russia is not much of a threat to US hegemony but China is. Having a population of 1.4B to Russia’s 140m and growing at 5%, having the largest economy.
He said that it was a good idea in principle to promote the indigenous languages and culture of the Soviet Republics (Ukrainianization) around 18:55. Im not saying he’s a leftist, just that he’s abandoned the vocal anti-communism.
KPRF critiqued his speech of February 2022 saying that it was Lenin who united the territories of the empire which were divided by local nationalists. What he said is similar and clarifies whether he believes Lenin made a mistake in shaping Ukraine vs just how things played out in the long run.
He said this time that the Soviet Union lived as a unified state with harmony between Russians and Ukrainians and the fault lied to the governments of Yeltsin, Gorbachev and himself for tearing off Ukraine from this shared space.
I believe he’s a right-wing conservative, what in particular makes you say he’s a fascist?
Russia will take more territories and whatever they choose to leave over (that also doesn’t fall to Poland/Hungary/Romania) will be occupied and denazified for a couple years with a favourable government.
The work I linked is not a study. It cited many studies on the Medieval Warm Period.
I think you are basing him being a denier on what he said in 2013, it’s about the haitus and he’s acknowledged warming in the 1900s. (“Global warming ended in 1998. […] There has been no global warming in 15 years.”). This was said at the end of the 15-year hiatus (1998-2014). The hiatus was even acknowledged by the IPCC in its 2013 report.
And here’s Chinese climate scientists acknowledging a decrease in temperatures in North America during that time period in a peer-reviewed journal. So there was some substance to what he was saying at the time. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000443
Edit: I’ll respond to the first part too in a later reply.