General observation with several 'science' communities here on Lemmy: plenty of bare posts dropped on top, but the layers accumulate without stirring (replies), how to nurture more worms and air bubbles to digest the soil?
benjhm
joined 2 years ago
Indeed, good try ... without soil, we'd have nothing to eat (OK, still fish and seaweed ...), so then no girls or music. Long ago, studied environmental chemistry, including some research on fluorescence of "humic acid", but then time to choose where to specialise next - reckoned the atmosphere was too simple (small molecules, no biology), the soil too muddled (empirical formulae, rather than derived from fundamentals), so ended up in the ocean as a compromise. But maybe soil science evolved since then, please enlighten us...?
Articles submitted to Nature are obliged to be relatively short, concise, globally significant and accessible to a less-specialised scientific community. The advantage is that it reaches many, and publishes (relatively) fast. So it makes sense that to fit those criteria they focused on fewer factors, but the same authors could presumably re-do this analysis with more factors and publish a longer article with more complex conclusions elsewhere, later. The more popular version could help draw attention to the more nuanced one. Regarding wildfires, of course there are diverse factors driving trends, it can be both true that climate made it significantly worse, and also true that more could be done to reduce other factors. What bugs me, is when certain politicians and media always seek to find some individual 'arsonist', to fit their 'tough on crime' worldview, ignoring trends in the underlying combustability.
Could add a small personal observation from three who came to our village: The oldest - retired - saves money (that she receives from govt here) to invest in a new appartment in the corner of ukraine as far as possible from russia (although she was a russian speaker, from the opposite corner). The middle one stayed here for a complete school year for her kids, then returned to join her husband and help reconstruct their region, left broken as the invaders retreated. The youngest works in tech sector and brought a baby and a man with another nationality (so, free to leave), they seemed more optimistic about the opportunities from this situation - maybe will stay west.
Thanks for link (end with /intro to make it work). I'm contemplating such maps for the purpose of defining a ±1000 region set for an interactive integrated assessment type model running timescale ±1750-2250 - so it needs to span multiple dimensions - political, demographic, climatic, landuse/ecosystems, for multiple end-purposes - for example exploring climate -migration - socio feedbacks, including being able to represent both historical and future changes, (although not such long timescale as PAGES).
How can russian teachers coordinate quietly, to discuss responses to this? And the older students too? Could the fediverse play a role, as it's hard for the state to shut it down? I'm recalling how, in the 1980s, samizdat (self-printing of books) and later magnetizdat (self-copying of music), as well as anekdoti (complex jokes...), helped to crumble the general trust in the state propaganda (especially after chernobyl).
The key question is how many of the younger women will return home - they, and their children, are key to demographic future of Ukraine, but they can also more easily find jobs in the west. The older women are more likely to miss their roots and depend on host country financial support, so are more likely to return.
Isn't it rather, that our most popular variety could disappear, but there are others to develop? Seems my son survives on bananas ...
Nice maps and interactive tool. However it seems to me, this definition doesn't sufficiently account for mountains, which have quite different ecosystems from their neighbouring plains. Also, will you recalculate this to show how these regions move over time, with climate change ?
Plenty of beavers here by the river Meuse in Belgium (Namur-Dinant), they found their own way recently. They are fun, emerge mainly at night when few people are looking. But they do fell big trees on the riverbank - I read that lets them eat the bark in the winter.
I'm here only a week or so, subscribed to about 100 communities that look interesting, but most have enough good posts yet very little discussion. Yet the top 'world news' and foss/fedi/prog topics get all the attention, it's not balanced. I hope the new 'scaled/best' ranking algorithm will help, if I understand correctly this is ready but not yet released? People should make more effort to find, upvote, comment on smaller communities (note- to find communities I recommend search-lemmy.com - you find more than from own instance).
Regarding Mastodon - as there are many more users there, it could be a gateway to Lemmy (that's how I got here). Now Mastodon 4.2 has better search, if you follow a lemmy community or account from mastodon, it may show up in such search. However Mastodon new search is opt-in for non-hashtag text, so I suppose Lemmy has to specify whether our posts / replies are searchable - anybody know how this works ?
What's to achieve by saying we've blown it - that people spark a revolution, or give up trying ? Some of us have been trying for decades, others have been denying for decades, doubt either set gives up.
The original goal the UNFCCC (Art2) was defined in terms of concentrations, so in 1990s diplomats were arguing about 350, 450, 550ppm - 350 being the arbitrary level at the time of the first global climate conferences. I am partly responsible for pushing the shift towards a temperature target, arguing that it would reduce the uncertainty for climate impacts (although increasing it for emissions pathways), but it was extremely hard to get US, China, India to sign up even to <2ºC (COP15). As climate impacts projections got better quantified the most vulnerable countries (mostly African and small islands - together they are many in UN... ), later joined by EU, insisted on trying for a lower number, but we had already passed 1ºC, so we got 1.5º as a compromise in Paris. That 0.5ºC might make the difference as to whether we save Greenland and WAIS, or many ecosystems and food systems. Nevertheless the decimal places are still arbitrary (also influenced by choice of base period, and negotiating in ºC not ºF ), no study quantified impacts vs efforts sufficiently to distinguish a threshold at 0.1ºC accuracy. What matters is that people understand the huge inertia in the systems, in heat and carbon transfer in the ocean, ice and biosphere, also in demographics and social systems. I made an interactive model - SWIM to help explore this. We have to keep trying.