Drought 2022

[matrixmann]

Europe dries out this year...
Thank you, people! Thank you for traveling to Majorca every summer, for traveling to Turkey, Egypt and all the other Mediterranian areas, thank you for every cruise trip you ever joined in the last 20 years, thank you for producing and buying all the short-lived stuff and throwing things away before their expiration, thank you for outsourcing and globalized economy, thank you for all the wars in the Middle East, thank you for all the babies you had to get in the last 20 years, thank you for all the crap you've thoughtlessly thrown into nature, than you for all the stuff you have thoughtlessly taken from nature, thank you for valuing everything in money and rating it higher than matter - thank you for coming up and never getting enough!
That's what everyone gets from it!
And there's still way, way, WAY more to get!

Comments

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

"Thank you, people! "

It seems, Europe is near to Africa, so draught sometime is alright...
Anyway, if to look narrowly on our planet we could see many interesting things, for example, it will be clear that not so long ago Africa was not a desert but a tropical paradise, were growing oak forests at Syria. All the terrain at Egypt, mentioned by you, is cut with former rivers, this gets very obvious when you flying on a plane above it… So, Africa was like Europe not so long ago and we don’t see many land which had got under the water with ice shield was constantly reducing for, it seems, last twenty thousand years when our planet has last poles change with mammoths frozen at our Russian North…
So, yes, cows are damaging our climate according to Greens very hard but you better tell me where the information about the previous civilizations living here if even for tens of thousands of years not to tell millions of years because what we have now is laughable… If to assume that this planet is habitable for millions of years and animals are living here were capable to survive here all the possible disasters when why humans or other civilizations had left so little information about themselves? Looks like some owners are cleaning out all what is possible… or this planet is cleaning out itself very regularly. So, yes, let’s blame our babies or any our demands for global climate change and right this moment to put out forest fires with the help of our planes but this planet, it seems, much more capable to help itself than we are thinking about it. How old is our science now? Hundreds of years? And we are thinking now that we could destroy this planet with burning something, this easily, after millions of years of evolution… or… of course, if we will cut out all our cows planet will survive!?

[matrixmann]

A couple of years ago, I read an article about them having discovered that large parts of the Sahara desert area once has been a large sea at around 800-1000 years ago. (For sure they found out through typical fossils they found on a large stretch of territory.)
So... it is very well possible that Africa once looked quite different than today. (Egypt's area near the Nile river also counts as "proven to have had a very different look at the times when the pyramids had been built".)
Other areas in the world too.

Humans have fucked up their environmental living conditions before in the past. For example, through monocultures in agriculture, doing that every year again and not realizing when the point of no return had been passed in order to be still able to change something.
But before the globalized world of today, those mistakes didn't make it to reach further than limited extents of terriroty.
One kind of culture and its people died out (or maybe mostly), but humans as a species continued to exist because they had already spread to other areas in the world.

That is quite different now.
The cutting down of trees in Siberia and the Amazon area in Brazil cause their share of consequences in Europe, in North America and so on. Biggest aspect of it being "oygen production".

Regarding the cows... I think there you have a misconception of how I think in this overall topic. I'm not one of these who cry "the cows are to blame". No.
The cows have to be blamed (or say, for better correctness: the ones who let them be bred to make profits through them) if you cut down large forest biotopes which are many thousands of years old and if you breed the world supply of beef in just a hand full of countries.
If the cows would be kept chewing grass on domestic fields everywhere around the world who wanted to eat some of them (or drink their milk), then, structurally, the whole matter looked differently, I think.
It's only that bad because they're bred in large masses in countries where it's common to just cut down forests to make space of artificially-created pasture.

And - let me put this straight: The planet can survive without humans. It did so for billions of years, and it did that very well.
So, it'll be more a question whether humans want to stay alive and if they want to keep a lifestyle comparable as to what the richest countries of the world can afford by now.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“Regarding the cows... I think there you have a misconception of how I think in this overall topic.”

My point is not your misconception or some eco conception but that the whole our knowledge about our planet is nearly one big misconception and cows are the smallest and more illogical part of it…
Just think about the fact that all our planet could be covered with water if it is not the highs, with kilometers of water… If you will start warming the planet with such big amount of water a logical answer should be more evaporated water, more rains, more lakes, rivers, swamps, more forests but we have the different – the draughts… Forests need CO2 and when you are burning fossil fuels you add more CO2 to our atmosphere and hence we should see more intensive growth as surface greens as oceans green and more animals as fish as grass eaters – reality different is different – we don’t see no effect of our hundreds of years of activity if only not at China where they are dropping so much fertilizers into the ocean that there is actually some anomaly sea weeds activity… And so on… Scientists are not sure what is going on as here on Earth as on the sun as well. All their schemes are not working in the time we are looking on them.
So, again, I like all good and I am against all bad.
I would like to get the forests back and I am sure they are working hard to suck in on a mainland the fresh rain water by using low pressure and forests as the living creature is holding water on mainland as long as possible or necessary but… I doubt, our forest could mean something to the processes going on at oceans. I doubt, forests could stop the visual nowadays poles changing. Could forests affect anyhow our star? I doubt it.
And of course if oceans are warming right now, with no matter what reason – sun activity, poles changing, magnetic field change, activity of anaerobic bacteria at oceans which are feeding on plastic or on the oil which Americans has spilled at Mexican bay – no matter, if oceans are warming when situation will get to a point of a total disaster with gas methane is rising up from the bottoms and with acceleration of the process…
So, yes, I like science, I like movies but as I know, our science no nothing what is going on. And we have no one working model of our climate changes.

[matrixmann]

All I can say here is: I guess, neither one of us is from a scientific discipline which has to deal with these problems and measured data daily.
Also, it's still not as if the knowledge of all scientific disciplines which have to be involved regarding this climate topic is cast into stone completely. There should still be some gaps in everything.
Although, I would think, the bigger part had been sounded out in the previous decades long before any Twitter-climate-activist even got interested in what's going on in their environment. (Predictions of the climate changes that happen now already existed in the 70s when just mere glimpses were detectable of it and calculations were truly still just estimations about the future.)

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“(Predictions of the climate changes that happen now already existed in the 70s when just mere glimpses were detectable of it and calculations were truly still just estimations about the future.)”

Again, we humans are very easy to manipulate when all our history is hidden… again, if we look on our planet it is obvious that the ice shield had been covering nearly all the Russian territory not so long ago and all the people were living where now the waters of seas and oceans are flashing, so where the previous predictions are, I want to ask!?

You know, here is my prediction which will comes true in any global case – we all die and we all die soon – every now living human will die approximately in more, less but fifty years! ))

[matrixmann]

No-one hides history - outside of political chapters that don't suit the current rulers.
Otherwise, a lot is already known, you only have to dig deep for it, it doesn't get much public attention.
And you have to rely on sources that actually do science, not conspiracy theory combined with neo-religion and false conclusions because the people who make them have no profession in the matter, not even to speak of a proper common knowledge ("Allgemeinwissen") sometimes.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“A couple of years ago, I read an article about them having discovered that large parts of the Sahara desert area once has been a large sea at around 800-1000 years ago.”

800-1000 years?! No, never heard about this… All our planet surface was sometime a sea bottom, I had dig down to the former sea level right under my site… where there are levels of sedimentary oceanic rocks covered with level of ice shields crashing work materials… But it certainly was much more than 1000 years… Again, at Egypt all terrain covered with former rivers beds, so no ocean was there for sure. At least in last tens of thousands of years…

[matrixmann]

It wasn't completely covered with water. More like a large lake in the middle with landmass all around.
How deep it supposedly was, if it was a pretty flat lake or even went a bit deeper, I don't remember (and I don't know if they could even tell that).
At around the 12 century, it supposedly started to dry out or eventually dried out from reasons they couldn't evaluate at the time yet when I read that.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“And - let me put this straight: The planet can survive without humans. It did so for billions of years, and it did that very well.”
I am thinking that our planet did this – I mean surviving for billions of years with other start as well. I always thinking that it is not possible without outside help to keep so many different animals on our planet… and again, in several historical stone documents is written clear – humans were made after the last global flood, so maybe the animals had been made as well?

“So, it'll be more a question whether humans want to stay alive and if they want to keep a lifestyle comparable as to what the richest countries of the world can afford by now.”

We could think about this question as long as we like and American companies will cut forests at South American Amazonia further more as they did for, it seems, eternity. Chinese will be burning coal to produce goods for all other planet… and of course no rich country will never willingly will reduce its level of life… Surprisingly and again, out of logic the fact that the more poor the country the more childbirth rate it has… why people are producing poverty is out of my comprehension…

[matrixmann]

"Not possible without help" - you think so because you come from an area of the world where atheism isn't society's standard.
I say it that bluntly.

Poverty tends to multiply itself because fucking requires no capabilities of complex cognitive thinking. It's instinctive behavior.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“Poverty tends to multiply itself because fucking requires no capabilities of complex cognitive thinking. It's instinctive behavior.”
With all my respect I do think the problem is deeper. I doubt the poor people at India are less thinking than an average American and instead, middle Asian or specifically Indian much more alive with brain it seems – I’ve heard that India now has more the child prodigies than any other country. The interesting thing is that at communists China alike as at Soviet Russia were conducted the experiments under society with changing of way of life, changing the national traditions, changing cultural directions, with direct prohibition to make children at China and this changes had led to dramatic consequences as at whole post Soviet territory as at China and strangely poor people at Russia and at China don’t want now make children… again, the near countries of Muslim traditions are prosper with popularity, India – Chinese neighbor – prosper and China couldn’t get back on a track… I think, that the most problem is how people live, I mean, their way of day to day life. Industrialization gives not much to person but takes all his time with no place to child at a plant while not so long ago the peasants were producing all they had needed – clothes, food, houses – yes, productivity was extremely small but sufficient - and were able to spend all day long together with children around as many tropical countries are doing right now sharing the global achievements such as pants as well…

[matrixmann]

Admittedly, okay, the structures of society also play a role. How it works in itself.

I think... regarding Muslim countries, for example, I also often call people to not get euphoric too quickly about the idea "education and wealth makes people want fewer children".
It's not as self-evident that people take the same path there like the Christian and the European world and reduce the numbers of children couples have if they can get all of them to survive and grow into adults.
The Muslim world also has strange cultural customs/thoughts like this: "If I get richer, I can afford myself more wives and even even more children".
And therefore it shouldn't be thought of as "a safe deal" if Muslim countries get to accumulate more material wealth.
People can indeed think and function every different about this topic.

My guess is... Getting Islamic culture to understand the fact that they can't have dozens of children with several wives because overpopulation of the world with humans is a serious problem that may bring the base for a living into danger for everyone around the world (e. g. because the natural resources all have to share don't get more in masss) - I think this is going to be a real challenge.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“The cutting down of trees in Siberia and the Amazon area in Brazil cause their share of consequences in Europe, in North America and so on. Biggest aspect of it being "oygen production".”

With all my respect and love to trees and forests I wouldn’t compare the forests at Siberia to Amazon or African three level forests – they are very different. Amazon trees grow for hundreds of years, if not thousands, and some our North Siberia trees are growing for decades. Plus, our forests could very easily recover due to semi-annual water collection and sleeping period of nature during the winter season and , as I read, some Amazon trees and some other equatorial zone forests could not recover at all without help because of very intensive sun activity and absence of water… Yes, all forest are very important but it is possible to count the impact of square kilometer Amazon forest with according sun activity during the year and our Siberian square kilometer of forest activity according to fallen sun energy… Yes, Siberia is big but Europe also was not so long ago covered with huge forests. Africa was covered with huge forests as well, America was covered with forests, so if to start from something then it is necessary to start from yourself…

[matrixmann]

For that example, I was rather thinking of size and of larger areas which are counted together under one name than of going to have to name half a dozen world areas.

[maadmike.livejournal.com]

“For that example, I was rather thinking of size and of larger areas which are counted together under one name than of going to have to name half a dozen world areas.”
Of course, yes. I have no problems with what you are saying but with the direction of “developed” European thinking – they - Europeans were stealing all the possible resources and even humans from around the world for centuries, they had got through the industrialization to rise productivity when they had cut out all the forests and burned all their easy to get resources out and now, the European mass media is daring to declare that the Indian or Chinese wish to live as the citizens of “developed” countries are living is to blame in global warming… It is just one big unbelievable manipulation in my point of view… Get back your own forest at first to blame in anything the South Americans, get the fuck out your dirty with blood hands from Libyan, Iraq and Syrian oil first to tell any bull shit about global warming or it looks comical when USA is destroying the whole countries to steal their raw material and fuel resources with one hand and with the other is writing articles to all world mass media blaming others with industrialization and warming anything even their own houses as it is in Europe…

[matrixmann]

I know, this rhetoric now is deeply unfair... and this is already a reason why it's not going to work if wanting to get the nations who now make their rise to material and technological wealth into the boat to work on the task "don't make the man-made portion of the climate change even bigger than it already is".
You can't tell someone to not show a certain behavior which you did yourself for decades and even centuries...

I also have no idea how to make this work in a reasonable and fair manner...

Though, I don't think the data that now receives more attention from the public is factually incorrect.
Mankind has a serious problem of having overextended itself, and part of it has allowed itself the sweet life for a long time while suppressing the rest of their world.
Factually it would have to be like this - stopping to consume all the energy -, but you can't get to pick a moral together which could pose a plausible reason to the ones who had been suppressed before to not claim their portion of that sweet life in the coming century.
This is the bitter consequence of longstanging one-sided-ness...

By the way, I have once seen couple of numbers of CO2 emissions.
China is currently at an equal level with the United States - well, but herein lies the twist, if you're knowledgable.
The United States have a population number of ca. 330 million people.
China has a population number of 4 times (!) the number of the US.
So... who's the one who's burdening the global environment more in this case?
If the more than 1 billion Chinese people manage to get along with about the same mass of "dirtiness" like just 330 million humans, then they seriously do a pretty good job.
Meaning: It's the US who should better lower its emissions.