LibertyBell

I mean if we existed like indigenous people live (or rather used to live), at one with nature and the planet, we would all be a lot better off. They appreciated not overhunting, not overfishing, not overlogging, all the things that modern society has abused to the point of no return.

Thats why I am so adamantly opposed to the so-called "green" revolution (it wasn't green, it destroyed the environment with chemicals that didn't belong there)....we're just now starting to learn of the damage caused by industrial agriculture and farmers in the third world are finally turning back to more sustainable organic farming. The problem all along was that new technology was only going to temporarily treat a symptom (like a pain killer only treats the pain) the disease all along was that there are simply too many humans on the planet.

Soil and water depletion, overuse of pesticides, the devastation of world fisheries—collective will is needed for these problems, too, and, unlike the problem of carbon, they’re within our power to solve. As a bonus, many low-tech conservation actions (restoring forests, preserving grasslands, eating less meat) can reduce our carbon footprint as effectively as massive industrial changes. In Santa Cruz, where I live, there’s an organization called the Homeless Garden Project. On a small working farm at the west end of town, it offers employment, training, support, and a sense of community to members of the city’s homeless population. It can’t “solve” the problem of homelessness, but it’s been changing lives, one at a time, for nearly thirty years. Supporting itself in part by selling organic produce, it contributes more broadly to a revolution in how we think about people in need, the land we depend on, and the natural world around us. In the summer, as a member of its C.S.A. program, I enjoy its kale and strawberries, and in the fall, because the soil is alive and uncontaminated, small migratory birds find sustenance in its furrows. There may come a time, sooner than any of us likes to think, when the systems of industrial agriculture and global trade break down and homeless people outnumber people with homes. At that point, traditional local farming and strong communities will no longer just be liberal buzzwords. Kindness to neighbors and respect for the land—nurturing healthy soil, wisely managing water, caring for pollinators—will be essential in a crisis and in whatever society survives it. A project like the Homeless Garden offers me the hope that the future, while undoubtedly worse than the present, might also, in some ways, be better. Most of all, though, it gives me hope for today. Thats from that article I linked to earlier, it's excellent for a broader perspective on changing humanity on a fundamental level to achieve sustainability.

It can be used for some very positive things, but I'm also thinking how it was used to drive so many species to extinction even before the industrial revolution (like spears being used on Wooly Mammoths and the destruction of forests with intentionally set fires going back 800 years); the ultimate goal in addition to more sustainable technology should be a more sustainable mindset for humanity to not abuse what the planet offers.

I've always wanted that....if there was a way to communicate all across the universe....get out of that damned light speed barrier problem (maybe with wormholes or sterile neutrinos, which are supposed to be able to travel "outside" the universe)....see how different sentient civilizations handled it and who made it past the Great Filter and who didn't and how many there are in the average galaxy (my amateur guess would be less than a handful per galaxy, and that would mean more than 99% failed and either went extinct or were reduced to a pre-technology state.) And the other thing I've always wondered about is if a technological species does go extinct what are the chances that millions of years later a different one develops on the same planet? Maybe even finds the relics of the one that came before them? Millions of years after us, what would be there to find of us if we went extinct, by the next technological species that may eventually evolve?

There's a saying I have had for years now Chris, and I am going to use it here again, because I think it's appropriate. "Evolution has a beautiful irony, and it's a tragic conundrum, that evolution eventually leads to the destruction of the evolving species." It can be taken in many ways-- one is that as it evolves the original species is replaced by one that is more successful, which in our case has led to a point of where we have become TOO successful (which I do agree with in the article.) But the statement can also be read in another way, like with the dinosaurs (which were going to go extinct with or without the K-T event) and that is that when evolution reaches a certain point, it becomes a dead end for the evolving species (for a variety of different reasons)....and this can apply to different kinds of evolution....biological evolution, societal evolution, and of course technological evolution. At some point we reach the point of diminishing returns whereby evolution actually seals the fate of whatever it is that's evolving.

Here's another article to read (I just posted the first paragraph, read the rest there, it's a long one.) https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending What If We Stopped Pretending? The climate apocalypse is coming. To prepare for it, we need to admit that we can’t prevent it. By Jonathan Franzen September 8, 2019 Illustration by Leonardo Santamaria “There is infinite hope,” Kafka tells us, “only not for us.” This is a fittingly mystical epigram from a writer whose characters strive for ostensibly reachable goals and, tragically or amusingly, never manage to get any closer to them. But it seems to me, in our rapidly darkening world, that the converse of Kafka’s quip is equally true: There is no hope, except for us. I’m talking, of course, about climate change. The struggle to rein in global carbon emissions and keep the planet from melting down has the feel of Kafka’s fiction. The goal has been clear for thirty years, and despite earnest efforts we’ve made essentially no progress toward reaching it. Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable. If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it. If you care about the planet, and about the people and animals who live on it, there are two ways to think about this. You can keep on hoping that catastrophe is preventable, and feel ever more frustrated or enraged by the world’s inaction. Or you can accept that disaster is coming, and begin to rethink what it means to have hope.

Actually the first species we drove to extinction happened way before climate change occurred, it was when we developed tools like spears and drove the Wooly Mammoth to extinction. There were many others we did the same too before we ever started using fossil fuels....so again the problem with human society goes far deeper than fossil fuels and all that has to change for us to be a sustainable species.

When it comes to living organisms changing Earth, humans are not fundamentally different or special. This has happened before. Not with the type of artificial technology or lab created chemicals before or the concerted conscious effort to upend the existing sustainable system by creating a new unsustainable one that destroys biodiversity (one which will trigger the planet's self-regulation tipping point- and it won't be pretty for humanity when it happens, actually it's happening already.) This is about a lot more than just climate change, it's about the fundamental wasteful ways in which humanity exists in modern societies.

Also worth noting that in the planet's history, whenever a species becomes too dominant, it eventually gets beaten down.... the planet has a tipping point, and when it gets tipped, the planet will self-regulate against the dominator....to bring back biodiversity. This is precisely why we should be working with Nature (biomimicry) rather than against it.

Yes, we can make a distinction between humanity (which I refer to as technological civilizations) vs individual human beings. Individuals humans can and have been sustainable in the past, it's just at this point in time we currently live in an unsustainable system.

Technology has been part of the problem and it's a fool's wish to think that technology is going to provide endless solutions, at some point technology will run out, as the amount of resources available on a finite planet are.....finite. We're already almost at that point already, with a crowded planet using up more resources than we are putting back into the planet by a factor of 1.7x. This is not sustainable. The part mentioned about "venturing out into the universe" is interesting, and these problems being faced by other civilizations in other parts of the universe. The most reasonable explanation is that in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases these species never get to colonize space (the reason why we haven't seen any signs of any), because the problems they cause lead to their own extinction or at the very least reduction to a pre-technology state. The Great Filter lies ahead of us, folks, and it's a massive one indeed.

But humanity is a force set against Nature- by humanity itself! And the depiction of humanity as an overpopulating virus is entirely accurate-- because humanity has singlehandedly started the sixth mass extinction event in the planet's history. And this isn't just about climate change, although that gets the most coverage, this is also about the unsustainable way we farm, destroying precious forests via logging and burning (something that actually started hundreds of years ago, way before we started using fossil fuels), the chemicals we use and abuse that destroy the environment and kill pollinators like pesticides and fertilizers, and the plastics and other trash we dump into the environment. Climate change is only one of many many problems caused by humanity.

yeah I like to use LGA or JFK for snow measurements they seem to undermeasure the biggies both Feb 1961 and Feb 1969 were undermeasured at the Park and some would contend so was Jan 1996. So Jan 1836 may have had more snow than March 1888? Was that the below 0 snowstorm or was that a different one Uncle? Maybe that was Jan 1857

It has been traditionally, but I think that's changing. Before 1996, big January storms ( > 10 inches) were few and far between. I think if you compare double digit events we're seeing a transition towards them occurring in January more often, especially the really high end events ( > 20 inches). Before January 1996, I can't find any 20 inch January events.

it actually has been evolving in that direction, it used to be February but our largest snowstorms have been happening in January over the past few decades (with a couple of exceptions- but the largest snowstorms that covered the widest area- like Jan 96 and Jan 16 were, as labeled, in January lol.)

thats a great reason to keep it at 2 weeks until we get that next big technological paradigm shift (AI, like you mentioned.) Actually the best type of AI is AGI and if that ever happens, it would be a real game changer in every aspect of society (not just science and technology.) https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-artificial-general-intelligence/ What is artificial general intelligence? An Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) would be a machine capable of understanding the world as well as any human, and with the same capacity to learn how to carry out a huge range of tasks.

why do so many ignore the nao in their forecasts? long range forecasts are USELESS because nao forecasting isn't reliable. astrology is more accurate-- the point being how accurate a long range forecast is is no higher than one would expect from randomness

January is our most reliable month for cold and snow

Actually looks close to Rockaway Blvd/Tpke

Right, so is this why they're usually marginal in early season snowfall events while even JFK might get all snow in late October or November? Do you have a similar map for JFK, Chris, I think their sitting is actually near the Nassau county border?

Oh if you mean cold air damming that's different, it's not a downslope wind, it's wind being blocked by the mountains so the cold air "piles up" near the foothills

One would think a downslope wind would actually cause warming not cooling. I think you mean CAA (cold air advection)

Just a two day warm up now, lol two days in the 50s weekend of 4-5. And 20s for highs and teens for lows at the end of the run? That looks like a snow signal in there with both the high and low at the same 28 temp at the end of the run

Did you see how places in the south like Atlanta, Savannah and Tallahassee are getting their first freeze right now too? How is it colder in Tallahassee (28) than it is here?! Doesn't the cold air have to pass over us before it gets down to them? Also I saw it mentioned yesterday that over the last 25 years the average date of first freeze has moved 9 days later.....from 11/11 to 11/20