Hunger stones

[Skybird]

Curious details, and some politically incorrect obervations about low water in rivers, droughs, and climate.



https://translate.google.de/translat...771&edit-text=


The author I know quite well by now, me and my parents have some of his books on our shelves. He is food chemist and head of EULA, the European Institute for Ecotrophology (science of food and eating). His spoken and written publications are usually both of grim humour, deep knowledge and biting provocation. Eating gurus and food calvinists for whom any trace of delicious taste and joy from eating is a sin, react to him like a bull reacts to a red rag. - Yes, I like him very much. Sugar, vegetables, bio farming, acrylamide, salad - you name it, he usually shredders it. I admit I have a soft spot for iconoclasts who are basing not on ideology but competence when they slaughter golden calves. Politically very incorrect.

[Catfish]

It is always fun to listen to jesters
It is only a problem when people take jokes, exagerrations or lies seriously without scrutinizing them, abusing them for their political agenda – all sides.
Yes i know it is boring to listen to reasonable explanations. You can now stop here.


True that the sun "influences" (lol) global climate, of course. It would be quite cold without it. It would also be cold without the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, so the latter is not "bad", by whatever definition. Mars has too few of a greenhouse effect, Venus "a bit" too much. Venus' is the earth's twin in a lot of aspects. It is not hot because of vulcans or tectonic activity alone, but because of the CO2 that does not let the heat escape, from the atmosphere. It is enough to make lead melt, at its surface.
Not that i think the earth would experience such a drastic greenhouse-run-away effect, but maybe enough for another evolutional crisis.


On earth, the last summer and the falling dry of some rivers is within the normal fluctuations, a real draught would have been a much different beast.

But the recent global warming of the atmosphere cannot be explained by the sun, since the average amount of its energy has not changed much (which drilling cores in Greenland and Antarctica have shown).

1. Not much change of solar activity or radiance intensity since 1750 (proven by drill cores, plant growth (oak tree rings etc.) and calculations of the earth's precession and orbit around the sun).

2. No climate model can explain the temperature trend of the time after the industrial revolution, without taking the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases into account.

3. More energy from the sun would show in all layers of the earth's atmosphere. Instead there is a cooling in the upper parts of the latter, while lower layers and the surface have warmed. This can up to now only be explained by gases, trapping heat by reflection and warming themselves.

Yes, how boring, i know.
Fun terminated. Schroeder, i hope you are content with my efforts

[Skybird]

The effects of natural phenomenons, namely volcanoes, and effects of natural meta-cycles, namely astronomical ones, get systematically played own, if not completely ignored. Plenty of financial and ideological interest behind doing so. The human influence is there as well, is one factor for sure.


One factor amongst several ones.

We focus on just one factor, the human one. We ignore the others. That is science at its worst.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We focus on just one factor, the human one. We ignore the others. That is science at its worst.

When you do it becomes a religion. Like ancient man when he saw his first solar eclipse he attributed the phenomena to something he had done wrong. Let the sacrfices begin.

There is much much more to climate cycles than anthropogenic contributions.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

When you do it becomes a religion. Like ancient man when he saw his first solar eclipse he attributed the phenomena to something he had done wrong. Let the sacrfices begin.

2 million odd years later give or take..

Let the drinking contest begin.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

When you do it becomes a religion.

This.

Or a witch hunt.

Both often leads to the same outcome.

However, the article mostly is about that weather extremes of the kind we have seen this summer over here in Germany and Europe, have already been documented in our places several centuries ago.

I often must smile when I read that some volcano somewhere has erupted, and its emissions nullifying emission savings of all industry in Europe of half or even a full year. Puts things into relation a bit. Bad bad nature not playing ball with green politics!

However, I thiunk there is a trend for warmer global climate, and I think man contribtues to it. But I do not thionk that man is the only cause for this. We likely could cut back emissions to the standard of 150 years ago - and still would be faced with a trend climate warming.

Correlations do not prove causality. And irrational beliefs and ideological drives rule strong in man's mind.


Hunger stones - first time I ever heard of it. When reading the headline I thought it was about a fourth Panem novel.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[...] One factor amongst several ones.

We focus on just one factor, the human one. We ignore the others. That is science at its worst.

"We" do not focus on one human factor.
"We" focus on what we can do to reduce the damage we do.

It is perfectly clear that each and every asteroid can finish "us" off in minutes, even if we had decades to prepare.
I remember you saying painting a big cross on your house for the perfect hit. Just do not expect that from everyone

[Catfish]

Not to divert this thread from the hunger stones, although i also thought of the Hunger Games at first

As i said before last summer is part of usual fluctuations, but i cannot let an opinion like "human impact on the atmosphere is negligible" stand when it's clearly violating basics that should be known meanwhile, by everyone who has the faintest idea of physics.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...s-not-the-sun/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ural-cycle.htm

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...kovitch-cycles
"The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle."

Now you can go and explain to me how you rule out the impact of human influence on the atmosphere. Come on, go ahead.
So human influence burning the earth's "batteries" and setting free what has been deposited for millions of years within 200 years, is only a minor influence. "One cause among many", as you said.

So, what are the other causes? We ruled out the sun. We ruled out the oh-so-often quoted "Milankovic cycles". What is it then? Come on, say it. Asteroids? Orgon energy? A supernova far away?
Volcanoes? Some million years ago they indeed had an influence on the earths atmosphere of the time. COmpared to that nothing much has happened since then. If anything major eruptions producing dust and ashes lead to worldwide cooling, if they are big enough, but also not for long.
Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

Problem with you is that you think you can judge anything by your own opinion. You have a right to believe what you want, but i really hope that you will never again make it into government, and the circles of power. Trump is exactly the type, but i am really astonished to see you believing this.

I don't want to add anything, if you choose to ignore what has been found out you should maybe go back to your caves and believe in the godesses/sun's menstrual cycles, or whatever.

[Skybird]

Neither me nor anyone else here said what you put in my or our mouths.

While being a strong defender of scientific approaches and methody, I must admit and have often complained about scientifc everyday busienss, the academic business, is deeply corrupted b unserious methodology, lobby interest, finacial pressure, prestige craving. Especially in climate science, there is a merciless war going on against every heretic daring to doubt the dogmna, with now being dogma what secures this branch the most of possible public attention and financial funding.

I do not go into specific scientific details, for I amdit I do not have all of them always ready in my mind, able to call them up as if reading them out of a book. But what i do remember is the many opportunities when over the past years I have read about it for sure, and saw my questions forming up and my doubts mounting.

Critical issues get most unseriously, even underhandedly dealt with in this branch of science. Propaganda trumps everything, and already since many years before Trump.




A critical book by German. I find this one outstandingly good. Thats why I referred to it severla times before in past years.


https://www.amazon.de/%C3%96ko-Nihil...6ko-nihilismus


Or the IPCC reports. Since many years they have detoriated into tools by which a global financial redistribution scheme gets established, of highly questionable goals and means. The scientific basis for the data they base their yearly reports on is blind on one eye and extremely selective, and the gang behind them has become more and more bigot and intolerant against anyone questioning their dogma, while the figures at the top often are shady and dubious, at least quite some of them.

I have said it many times, the academic business is deeply corrupted and abusive today, and ecology is no exception from this unfortunate rule. And greenish idealism is not holy in itself, in fact it often is as one-sided and blind and unfounded as the lobby and the ideas of those it claims to "demask".

Do not trust them as blindly as you seem to do. The older I got, the more I understood one thing: the louder some messiahs want to save the world, the more they just are about wanting to have power over you and make you do what they demand you to do, to form a uniform collecxtiuve of theirs where everybody must live by their rules. May it be food and health, may it be ecology, may it be social "solidarity", may it be migration activists - you name it. This does not mean the lobbies on the other side of the frontlines are better. They are most likely not. It just means I do not trust any of them all. I look as far as I can overlook my life, I sort what I see, I form an opinion, I make a decison, and I live with its consequences, living my life - and mine exclusively.


We burn too much money for the wrong things when it comes to future security and ecology. For nothing but illusions we do so, to wallow in our self-satisfied emotions over that. And:


WE ARE TOO MANY.



All talking about future sustainability and environmental proteciton is just babbling hot air as long as we have almost 8 billion people crawling on this planet. The biggest problem ther eis - is the mere size of human population itself.


Bring it down to 1- 1.5 billion. Then we can start to be serious. Until then we just kill time, burn money, and do intellectual vademecuum-yoga to ease our conscience.

[Catfish]

It is not that i don't understand what you mean. Tyring to clear this tomorrow, have to sleep now

[Dowly]