An essay in futility, too long to read :)

yor_on · « **Reply #67240 on:** 25/05/2025 04:55:49 »

It all depends on how you count, averages. But the two year average has now passed 1.5C closing in to 1.6C

yor_on · « **Reply #67241 on:** 25/05/2025 05:22:14 »

Unforeseen effects

Glitter

https://theconversation.com/glitters-sparkle-hides-a-darker-side-it-can-change-the-chemistry-of-our-oceans-255155

yor_on · « **Reply #67242 on:** 25/05/2025 05:26:40 »

And this is all too conservative, it's not only about temperatures. Take another look at 'glitter'. While you're doing it you also can take a look at the last two years.

https://theconversation.com/overshooting-1-5-c-even-temporary-warming-above-globally-agreed-temperature-limit-could-have-permanent-consequences-255523

yor_on · « **Reply #67243 on:** 25/05/2025 05:30:22 »

You can also test to search the Conversation for "Global warming"

when I did it, it was only this that came up for 2025. the link under it 2018, and the one under that coming from 2014

Didn't bother to search using "climate change" instead. It was all too obvious

yor_on · « **Reply #67244 on:** 25/05/2025 05:30:54 »

Do you even know yourself Mr 'scientist'?

yor_on · « **Reply #67245 on:** 25/05/2025 05:35:32 »

Yes, it's true. What exist is 'climate change'. Like you needing an umbrella to shade yourself as 'nature' does its thing.

spelling

yor_on · « **Reply #67246 on:** 25/05/2025 05:36:05 »

I mean, can you get it any dumber?

yor_on · « **Reply #67247 on:** 25/05/2025 05:43:12 »

Then again, it seems that the site is American those days? The 'official site' that is? And thinking of USA's new Emperor and cohort it might be one reason?

So how about the origin? Which if I remember correctly was Australian? Searching on "global warming"

https://theconversation.com/au

yor_on · « **Reply #67248 on:** 25/05/2025 05:52:41 »

Ouch

Seems like global warming disappeared somewhere around 2018?

yor_on · « **Reply #67249 on:** 25/05/2025 05:53:28 »

Good news for you, isn't it?

yor_on · « **Reply #67250 on:** 25/05/2025 07:23:38 »

So we have less food available for us, and food productions, leading to more deforestation and declining aquifers. even though we use machines, artificial fertilizers, gene manipulations and pesticides, trying to produce it in as 'industrial' and large scale manner as possible, all of it following the conveyor belt principle and of course, finding 'profits'. Destroying topsoil, and forest by it.

yor_on · « **Reply #67251 on:** 25/05/2025 07:25:10 »

Arthur C. Clarke, can see your dreams fulfilled? mono farming a world.

yor_on · « **Reply #67252 on:** 25/05/2025 07:27:27 »

We can always produce more of the same, up to a limit, where deforestation, topsoil etc moves us over the cliff. So looking at statistics over food productions only, won't tell you the truth

yor_on · « **Reply #67253 on:** 25/05/2025 07:28:49 »

That's another study I haven't seen

yor_on · « **Reply #67254 on:** 25/05/2025 07:33:03 »

Funny isn't it? how your presumptions and state of mind locks you into a destructive pattern

yor_on · « **Reply #67255 on:** 25/05/2025 07:34:40 »

You want sustainability?

First you need to learn how this world interacts, with itself and us.

yor_on · « **Reply #67256 on:** 25/05/2025 07:36:11 »

The simplest thing back to a sustainable world are my recommendations. But those recommendations also the last solution you ever are going to consider.

yor_on · « **Reply #67257 on:** 25/05/2025 07:36:58 »

So you're stuck.

stuck stuck stuck, in your mind and in your beliefs

yor_on · « **Reply #67258 on:** 25/05/2025 07:37:52 »

They won't come until it's too late.

yor_on · « **Reply #67259 on:** 25/05/2025 07:39:58 »

Where they also will be forced upon us, by 'forces' out of our control, and by that time you only have one option left. The one where you're betting on that someone, somewhere, will survive it.