I skipped 2 and landed on the 3rd audio piece and loved it. I dunno why. It is totally my jam for the time being. lost the wiki link, but here is the youtube link. "lil pants" :)
This is not true. The last slaves in the United States were set free by the thirteenth amendment in Delaware, IIRC. Emancipation Day could make sense as the last slaves freed by the emancipation proclamation took place on that date.
A common misconception holds that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves in the United States, or that the General Order No. 3 on June 19, 1865, marked the end of slavery in the United States. In fact, the Thirteenth Amendment, ratified and proclaimed in December 1865, was the article that made slavery illegal in the United States nationwide, not the Emancipation Proclamation.[6][7][8][9]
Another common misconception is that it took over two years for news of the Emancipation Proclamation to reach Texas, and that slaves did not know they had already been freed by it. In fact, news of the Proclamation had reached Texas long before 1865, and many slaves knew about Lincoln's order emancipating them, but they had not been freed since the Union army had yet to reach Texas to enforce the Proclamation. Only after the arrival of the Union army and General Order No. 3 was the Proclamation widely enforced in Texas.
Regardless, people have been calling it Juneteenth for over a hundred years, it was made a national holiday as Juneteenth, I'm gonna keep calling it that.
In Texas and maybe celebrated in other places(I haven't done the research) this is true. For a large swath of the United States it was obscure or unknown. Most of us learned about the Emancipation Proclamation though. Making Juneteenth a holiday rather than the Date of the Emancipation Proclamation is odd to me. It is as odd to me as say, celebrating Independence Day on the date the last colony got word of the signing on, hypothetically, July 5th.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed very few slaves. The order did not apply to areas of the Union which still had slaves, nor did it apply to areas of the Confederacy occupied by the Union. Although, it did apply to unoccupied areas of the Confederacy. The government of the Confederacy was unlikely to follow an order issued by the Union during the Civil War.
It may have encouraged some slaves in the Confederacy to flee, if they found out about it.
>The last slaves in the United States were set free by the thirteenth amendment
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You may be surprised to learn that, coincidentally, America has more people in prison than anywhere else.
There are alternatives to taxation. With enough attention and disposable income, citizens can privately fund amazing things. Like the polio vaccine was.
The Jonas Salk research and development of the first polio vaccine that saved many lives is what I am referring to. See quote and article below.
>There was very little government funding for any kind of biomedical research. The polio research was privately funded through the March of Dimes,” explained Randy Juhl, Dean Emeritus and Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in the School of Pharmacy.
The same March of Dimes that was founded by Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he was President? Technically the money didn't come from government coffers, but it's very silly (and incorrect) to suggest that the effort was independent of the government.
Precisely. Regardless of your political leaning, Congress has been playing hot potato for a long time. Instead of actually creating rules or regulations, they do nothing and let the administration or courts decide. That way they can go to their constituents and beg for votes or contributions to fight the same branches that they relinquished power to by not doing anything.
A large part of the Republicans' strategy is to appoint partisan judges & let them legislate from the bench for the rest of their lives. Talking up thread about "the biggest problem", this is probably it. In the context of climate change, recently we can see SCOTUS shooting down environmental protections. This happens in lower courts too, but those don't make national news.
> Nor the water vapor producing volcanic eruption either.
The article referred to the "first study" but did not mention which study that was. According to the Wikipedia article, initial thoughts were that cooling would happen, but a later study disagrees. Trust the science you agree with.
There are two components, 'regular' SO2 and HCl and 'unusual' high magnitude H2O (water vapor):
From the NASA interview linked here:
And the first paper that came out about the volcano, they said, no, no, the normal cooling volcanic pollution is still bigger than the warming water vapor component.
From the wikipedia article you didn't link:
One study { of this specif eruption ) estimated a 7% increase in the probability that global warming will exceed 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) in at least one of the next five years, although greenhouse gas emissions and climate policy to mitigate them remain the major determinant of this risk.
Another study estimated that the water vapor will stay in the stratosphere for up to eight years, and influence winter weather in both hemispheres.
More recent studies have indicated that the eruption had a slight cooling effect.
FWiW the AGU Letter you did link was an early one (published less than six months after the event, sumitted earlier) and it's inconclusive talking about possibilities such as:
Unlike previous strong eruptions, this event may not cool the surface, but rather it could potentially warm the surface due to the excess water vapor.
'may not' and 'could potentially'
Either way, according to the NASA interview neither marine fuel change, the El Nino event, nor the eruption combined are sufficient (as modelled, given their error bars) to explain the global increase observed.
According to the NASA interview linked here there are still other factors at play.
Likewise, the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha'apai eruption resulted in a large amount of water into the stratosphere. Water is far more an effective heat trap than co2. We do not know exactly how long the effects of this eruption will last.
I find quite interesting the consequence this failing coffee crops reality brought to us: the rise in aromated coffees. Caramel coffee, tiramisu coffee, dark chocolate with cherries coffee, anything works if it can salvage an otherwise bad crop.
PS coffee like many other plants can't be farmed "just 100km higher up" or something. There may be easier solutions for some crops, but the reality is, the climate is not simply shifting a few kilometers up, but just changes completely so finding another suitable spot - geographically politically and all, is a real challenge.
Sure there will be localized events, but on average, rising temperature and co2 will improve farming world-wide. Hence:
For the 2024-25 financial year, India has exported 2.2 lakh tonnes of coffee, up from 1.91 lakh tonnes in the same period last year, showcasing a 15 percent increase.
Most plants have a range of acceptable temperatures. Drought is also an issue, which is downstream both literally and metaphorically of rainfall and its interaction with climate.
I find it hard to reconcile that the entire world is going to be going through cycles of drought and flooding over and over due to a moderate increase in temperature and co2. Where in earth's history is the basis for this? We have had far higher temperature and co2 levels during periods of great animal and plant growth.
Well with more CO2 you have more convection, the higher atmosphere is actually cooling because of the nice CO2 blanket that keeps heat trapped lower. (Which by the way prooves that it's not the sun's natural variability that's the cause, otherwise the higher atmosphere would also get warmer)
This temperature differential between low and high atmosphere then means more convection, more evaporation, more movement of air and water. Look just read up on this ok, it's not that hard.
So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?
> Human civilization and agriculture depend on a very narrow range of conditions.
I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
> So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?
Only in the sense that it's not the fall that kills you, it's the rapid deceleration at the end.
Evolutionary time (for us and our crops) is much longer than the "approximately one human lifetime" in which it will have become necessary to have adapted substantially. Genetic modification for humans and crops might work if you don't care about the entire rest of the ecosystem.
Ice core measurements go back 800,000 years, which is longer than humans have been human (about 300k). In all that time, up to the industrial revolution, CO2 only varied been about 170 and 300 ppm, its now about 420 ppm and rising so fast it's a vertical line on any graph that shows all the ice core data and is less than 8000 pixels wide.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Figure 5, primary production spacial map and graph of temperature and precipitation vs output.
> So the levels aren't the problem, it's the rapidity?
Not what I said. You argued it has been hotter before and it wasn't a problem. I had to explain to you that temperatures haven't changed this fast before, which is a strong argument for the antrhopogenic nature of the current change. It also illustrates the danger of the current phase, since the thriving ecosystems of millions of years ago didn't have to deal with such sudden change.
> I'm in Ohio, USA. Are you from the Arctic by any chance? Maybe Australia? How about Mongolia? Perhaps Brazil? Mozambique? We live and thrive in all of those unique areas. Very narrow conditions indeed...
Don't conflate narrow global conditions with narrow set of landscapes. The holocene has been remarkably stable in terms of climate and civilization thrived due to this stability.
You're clearly arguing in bad faith and I feel no need to engage further
...that is not how any of that works, to the point that it's literally a coal-mining company talking point I remember from like, the 2000s (from a video made in the 90s).
Which should be trivially resolved by examining whether a temperate region undergoing a drought is "benefiting from increased temperatures".
It raises my heartrate as well. I know my bladder is full many times due to the heartrate rather than feeling my bladder. I'm not sure if others notice this. I assumed without looking at the anatomy that the arteries to the lower extremities are under pressure from the bladder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxcXVqgKd9c
WTF: That link landed me on something else after this comment that I am totally loving as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPu4XfWkRvc&list=OLAK5uy_kNl...
Never know what rabbit hole you'll find yourself in with HN. Bless y'all.