The concept of winter pretty much stopped existing where I live. It's just colder autumn. The ground doesn't freeze. Snow doesn't accumulate. No amount of meandering is going to compensate for the fact that the mountains do not hold water. Something needs to feed the springs and rivers. And the source is gone. Europe is shifting into a different climate, where water primarily comes as rainfall, causing floods. I imagine it's similar to Asian countries, and we will have to learn to deal with that.
I get what you are saying. I think I mentioned that I am not really all that optimistic that the process has not become irreversible in the near term, but the way I see it the only way that you could try reversing it is to effectively try to retain as much water as possible, which would require things like flooding flood plains with river water when it is available in the near term, planning for "wilding" river flows back into historical flood plains over the medium term, i.e., 50 years, and making policy that would move people out of flood plains to expand the wilding, using channels and dikes to lead river water into meadows and plains and dissuading populations in flood plains, and reversing the population growth of a population that is about 4x the size of what it was in 1800.
It sounds drastic, but all I keep hearing is that we need drastic actions, but those drastic actions seem to always be based on diffuse, abstract, and really rather meaningless and insignificant things like reducing energy use, while at the same time driving tens of millions of more people from low energy consumption regions into relatively high energy consumption regions.
But to address your point too, yes, Europe seems too be shifting into a different climate, but it's because based on my theory, Europe has effectively drained it's water cycle of the very moisture it needs. Sure, climate change has warmed things everywhere, but don't you think if Europe had the moisture it drained into the oceans that could evaporate under the higher heat into clouds that both would provide ray reflection/shadow/cooling, and deposit rain into the alps in the form of snow in winter; things would likely look a lot different?
The thing is that the source does not have to be gone, because it is actually not in Europe at all, but you have to kind of "kickstart" the cycle again if that is even possible. The source of European moisture in the European water cycle is effectively the USA and the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean area. The Gulf Stream then drives that moisture by way of the energy in the water towards Europe, where it then is driven inland from the north through the cooling at the poles.
What I am saying is effectively, if you drain your lawn with elaborate drainage systems that suck all the moisture out at a faster rate than you can even water it, you should not be surprised that it still will dry up and die.
There are clearly things going on, e.g., the US has not really had anywhere near the number of hurricanes that keep getting predicted, but I can assure you that the heat is generating a lot of storms and clouds. It's a bit anecdotal, but I am actually oddly surprised at how "cool" the ocean water is this year in particular compared to the past. I hope it's not the other wild prediction scientist have made that he AMOC seizes up and you guys end up wishing there were more global warming, but that's for another day.
I had a similar observation this year. In 2015, I was in California, was doing some hiking on the weekends, and I found it very unnatural how all the grasses were dry, trails dusty, on the hills/mountains. I came back to Slovakia, and I was happy to see the green grass. Fast-forward to 2026, and our grasses are equally dry and trails are equally dusty. Water management seems to be more important than ever, because this is only going to get worse. Maybe we need to build massive reservoirs, to retain the flood water somehow, if we want to keep living here in the next 100 years.
I'm not sure if Clarkson's farm has much of a following outside of the UK. Last year they had several crops fail due to the drought over summer and honestly this year was far worse. I believe he may not have even bothered planting the normal cash crops, so it will be interesting to see how that works out. That said, the year before I think it was so wet early in the year that farmers really struggled to get crops in the ground.
In areas like Valencia there are ancient irrigation systems and water rights controlled by water councils older than many countries. I wonder if the UK will need to do similar, irrigation ponds, flood control structures and canals to control the flow of water through the landscape.
This is the challenge of extreme weather, it's either drought or floods, and wild swings from the one to the other. As a kid growing up in Australia, we heard many such stories, especially if the rains came on too suddenly, since then the ground can't absorb the water, and you get flash floods.
> I'm not sure if Clarkson's farm has much of a following outside of the UK. Last year they had several crops fail due to the drought over summer and honestly this year was far worse.
The Clarkson who ran a popular car show and for years mocked Greta Thunberg and called her an "idiot" that deserved a "smacked bottom" for raising the alarm on global warming?
Oh, noe, I feel so sorry for him. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
> Oh, noe, I feel so sorry for him. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
In reality he now has the most popular show on Amazon. Even his brewer is probably a bigger contributor to his income than the "farming" side of his farming.
The difficulty he faces though is very common amongst British farmers but most don't have a camera crew producing 4k video of the entire growing season.
I don't know if it is gloating so much as it is recognition that unlike most injustice that happens in the world the people most responsible for it are going to suffer at least some of the consequences along with the hoi polloi.
A refreshing change of pace, even if the end result is horribly tragic for everyone.
As someone who hope global warming is man-made becuase that woudl be FIXABLE at least in theory, this is EXTREMELY deceptive report and graph and for the sake of humanity these scientists should be doing MUCH better.
Comparing sample rates during the spike to sample rates for the rest of the graph? Hidden inside those sample rates can be dramatic changes (some of which we know if that ARE NOT IN THIS GRAPH) for example the little ice age and the volcanic warming periods of europe as recently as the last 1000 years which dramatically changed the climate.
Im not arguing against human-climate change, I'm arguing that this type of junk science does no one any favors.
The little ice age is in the graph, it was just completely insignificant on a global scale, as opposed to global warming which as you can see from the graph is extremely significant on a global scale. You are expecting to see the little ice age on the graph because you think that was a comparable event to global warming, but the fact is it wasn't.
Local changes due to global warming are even more significant than the global average shows, for example the arctic has, on average, warmed more than 3 times as much as the global average.
This chart shows direct measurements where available (generally like 1800 to present), our best estimates for earlier temperatures, and expected future temperatures based on what we've seen so far.
Here is Google's AI description of DPG:
> the German Physical Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, or DPG) is held in exceptionally high regard and is recognized globally as one of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world
That's the organization whose work you refer to as "junk science".
We are discussing aridification in europe, a specifically local event? Also one that can happen regardless of global warming and has happened severalt times in the last 5000 years.
Do you not even track what conversation context you're in before going off?
edit: im editing here to respond to the absurd response below. The reponder, while lecturing rabidly missed several things like the difference between aridification and heat, local vs global, and europe not being the world.
I want to point out that its poeple exactly like this poster who ruin global warming debates with demonstratably false, confused, or foolish comments. Is polution bad and causing warming, yes most likely. Has the commentor below proven that? no. And in fact repeated danced around proving it while insulting me. This person is not the ally you need.
> missed several things like the difference between aridification and heat, local vs global, and europe not being the world.
I didn't miss any of that. I have already pointed out that difference in earlier comments, like when I informed you that the little ice age was local and that the arctic is warming much faster than most other places. Europe has also warmed more than many other places. And obviously the aridification is a direct result of the warming and prolonged heat waves. This article comes right after Europe experienced it's hottest summer ever recorded.
You haven't demonstrates that anything I've said is false. You referred to the article I linked as "junk science" despite the fact that it's from a very well respected organization, then you went on to just move the goal posts entirely and now you're just slandering me.
And I have in fact proved, as well as reasonably possible in an internet comment section, that the planet is warming. That was the very first thing I did, by linking an article that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt, and highlighting a chart that visualizes the severity and clear cause of the issue in a way any moron could understand if they weren't willfully ignorant.
Calling people morons is again the wrong move. You are the problem.
In fact I believe that global warming caused this but was trying to illustrate that YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
The proper response would have been explaining that 1540’s comparable drought by tree ring analysis lasted only 1 year and our samples yearly from church grape harvests help us understand direct correlation and magnitude change.
Compared to the recorded 11 month 1540 heat wave with corresponding small rings, early harvest and a dry Rhine river; 5 year consecutive heating acts as a vapor lock which then compounds aridification.
This is causality not correlation.
Instead you used a correlative and foolish argument of “line go up so you’re a moron”
Stop and think man. You are using the wrong facts and junk science to prove your point and you look foolish doing it.
What are you even talking about? At no point during this conversation have you brought up a 1540s drought, yet the proper response from me would have been to address this event you never mentioned?
An isolated freak event is not relevant to our current situation, this is not an isolated freak event. This is a trend that has been going on for centuries and for Europe it has severely worsened in the past decade or two. That straight line in the chart I showed isn't this year, it starts in the 17/1800s corresponding with the industrial revolution and continues to today. The point i am highlighting is that natural variance looks like what you see before the industrial revolution, whereas anthropogenic global warming looks like the straight vertical line you see after the industrial revolution. This makes it extremely clear that the burning of fossil fuels are having a severe effect on the climate, as soon as we started doing it you can see the temperature goes vertical, contrasting strongly with the lazy meandering it does before. In shorter-term charts it is less obvious how drastic this change is, which is why I think this chart is a good way to really show the severity of the situation.
Courtesy of the Copernicus junk science organization. They do this dumb junk science thing where they measure temperatures and stuff and report their findings, total baloney. The chart shows that the warmest years on record have all been the past few years, and this year is on track to set yet a new record. But sure let's talk about some 1540s freak year instead I'm sure that's more relevant to the current situation.
A local event that is closely related to the unprecedented anthropogenic global warming that is indisputably responsible for the half decade of back-to-back-to-back heat record breakage streak we're currently on yes. And no, as far as we know this has never happened before unless you count mass extinctions millions of years ago where nearly everything on the planet died. That's what breaking a record means, we have never seen these temperatures before and now we're breaking those records every. single. year. And for the record, in those mass extinctions the global warming happened over thousands of years. This global warming is happening over decades.
Also I forgot to address this point in your earlier comment:
> As someone who hope global warming is man-made becuase that woudl be FIXABLE at least in theory
The fact that I am able to shoot you in the face does not imply that I am able to fix you afterwards. We are in no way capable of removing all the carbon we have added to the atmosphere within a reasonable timeframe, it would probably take about a thousand to a few thousand years if we really went for it.
And as I've shown you with the graph, global warming is indisputably, without a doubt, anthropogenic which means man-made.
Arguing about whether this heat wave is related to the severe global warming we are currently is experiencing is absolutely asinine, there is literally not a single fucking thing about the climate on our planet right now that wouldn't be different without climate change. The heat wave in Europe would be less hot, and/or it would be shorter, or it wouldn't be here at all. The general severe warming Europe has seen over the past decade would not have occurred.
The reduction in biomass at the boundary was possibly much greater. For example, no coal was formed for 10 million years, and the shell part of marine sediments was reduced by 97%.
My friend that show is legendary. Not on the same watchers level as original Top Gear (who can surpass 300 million), but its extremely good and literally eye-opening to millions about woes and challenges of modern agriculture.
I must admit I was utterly clueless before watching that show, what an eye opener. I hope Jeremy will be OK regarding his health, he is a national treasure.
He used to mock global warming and its advocates but thats visibly thing of the past once he got off his high ego horse behind the wheel and proverbially smelled the grass/coffee out in the countryside.
He might be a treasure, but's he's also a prick. He has a long history of letting his on-screen persona leak into meatspace (or maybe it's the other way around) and that's not a good thing.
Edit - since people seem to not believe me, at minimum, he punched his producer [1]. Which wasn't the first time he turned violent - he punched Piers Morgan [2] for letting Clarkson's extramarital affairs go public. Oh, he also had poorly concealed extra-marital affairs.
And I'll admit I watch his shows. The first two seasons of Clarkson's Farm were good TV. And with May and Hammond, he provided years of entertainment for car enthusiasts. None of which should excuse his boorish behavior off-screen.
Same here. Watch it, it's good entertainment, he's still an asshole that uses people. In fact, even in the current show, where he used that insult on one of his employees who someone said she looked like pre-transition Caleb — that's exactly the kind of thing he does and he found that funny so couldn't help himself but use it.
I don’t know, in a world where dictators bomb whoever they want, if punching someone is the worst thing you can do. People continue to follow and fangirl the politicians who enact violence, so why should one go on a crusade against a tv star who gets a little hands on?
I wasn't conversing in the first place, I'm just bored of reading through exchanges where at some point someone says Aha! That's a fallacy! Got you, I win!
I know you weren’t. Which was my point: the conversation was not shut down. If pointing out someone’s manipulation is not OK to you, then you’re probably better off trying a different discussion board.
Well, parts of it are naturally a desert. But plenty of forest and wetlands too. In fact there were even more wetlands before we channelized many of the rivers.
Current research is that it would get a lot drier than it is currently. Also the AMOC collapse process would play out over many decades (~50-100 years) it will not be a sudden event.
Warm oceans, as they are, would surely bring rain? Hence why the UK is so rainy. The ocean is warmer than the land, it's like warm water in a cold room, you get the moisture coming off it. If the ocean isn't warm any more, I reckon (as an amateur engineer not climatologist) that would reduce the rain we get.
That is one part, the other part is that you would get more persistent high pressure blocking patterns over Europe due to reordered atmosphere circulation which will lead to more intense droughts. That is what happened this summer.
People are not scared of individual droughts. They are scared of the patterns. Here in Slovakia, the last real winter with proper snow depths we had was in 2018, if I remember correctly. There is pretty much no snow anymore. All the water comes in form of heavy rainfall, causing massive floods, and the water goes straight to the sea. Nature depends on the water accumulating on the mountains during the winter, and that just doesn't seem to happen, at least in this part of Europe.
Programming asynchronous code is hard. Execution is split up, you have extra state machine to handle, extra resources to manage that need to survive across async boundaries. And by asynchronous, I mean either callbacks or manually checked completions from some event system. Modern languages hide that under async/await, which is much better from DX perspective, but still leads to split in the ecosystem, and it's hard to optimize across async boundaries.
This is an example why Go is such a successful language, in my view. It hides the async complexity and allows you to pretend you have a simple continuous thread of execution. It's just cheaper than system threads. Imagine if operating system threads and the blocking syscalls were this efficient.
I've spent the last year building a similar runtime for Zig. Purely because I want my applications to forget they are using things like io_uring in the background.
One problem is that a large part of Europe doesn't understand the concept of public domain. I'm not legally allowed to not own my creation, except by transferring it to someone else. That's why licences like CC0 exist.
This is is already possible with Claude Code. I use a setup where I have one instance monitoring a local queue, I have a web app for receiving webhooks from various sources and pushing them to the queue. Plus email for things that don't have webhooks. That instance then decides what to do with each input, sometimes it can spawn additional agent to investigate/prepare, sometimes it creates a ticket assigned to me and then waits for me input. All of that just uses the monitoring tools built into CC. The dispatcher loop doesn't need to be extremely smart, so I might experiment replacing it with a local model like this.
If you are willing and not too busy, What model do you use and what is your cost? (If using subscription would you be able to check with 'npx ccusage').
I run this on a side of the Claude Pro subscription that I use for other purposes. My main motivation was root cause analysis of production issues. I have a solo project and unfortunately my mental state has been degrading over the last years. I would avoid looking at production issues, because I didn't have the energy to focus on the investigation. So I automated this, setup the loop, setup metrics/logs access for Claude to use and now whenever something goes bad, I have a single report that I can act on easily, and if I don't, it will ping me in a way that's not spammy like automated alerts. But I'm finding more uses for it.
Of course they do. They have such a huge parameter maps. You need to be able to guide it through the map, so it starts making the right connections. Even in the Sonnet 3.7 days, it became clear to me, that if I have want efficient code out of it, I need to really take care of the context. If I just let it research a problem, it will mess up most of the time. If I tell it to study A, B, C and then present problem D, it will solve it perfectly. And it's true even with the current top models.
That was their headline for Opus 4.8, I guess the invested into some post-training to get them to write this, and I like it, it's a great way to identify AI posts from Claude.
In the future, I expect different models from different firms behaving differently will become as obviously normal as different humans behaving differently. Those of us that have used agents a lot have already noticed this, but the general public still seems to consider AI to be plug-and-play.
The Opus 4.8 infatuation with being honest genuinely drove me nuts (honest take). The constant need for me to decipher and decide on something after its final message was tiring too.
GPT-5.6-Sol is refreshing that its replies start with "understood." instead of flattering me for my steering prompt. Now ... after a few weeks, will I get suck of "understood"? I dunno :)
