Page #1
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#31|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
It turns out the chance of that is 0.0017%. It will get lower, with more accuracy.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I guess you forgot, because you were distracted by the next fear inducing story.
That's the media distracting you from real problems, with outrage and panic 24/7.
Scientists were not panicking, the media was. Their intent is to lower your confidence
in science, for when scientists are actually sounding the alarms, ..... which they are!
only registered users can see external links
So the earth is farting and killing it's self
only registered users can see external links
Where's it going to land no one knows!
It just requires more science to determine the actual size and the the actual risk.
It's 7 years away. That's more than enough time to plan a mission to change the trajectory, if that's needed. They will know more certain if it's needed, in a few years time.
A risk of hitting Earth of 2.3% is still very low. Then there's still a 70% chance it hits water. This rock is pretty big, but not so big that it will cause very destructive tsunamis. It can also just hit a desert or a forest. Unless it hits a populated area, the damage is manageable. They could calculate what would cost more, the mission to change the trajectory or the maximum damage it can possibly cause. What would it cost to rebuild, if it, by a ridiculously small chance, hits Monaco, Hong Kong, Singapore, London, Amsterdam or New York. That would only be material damage, because they can calculate exactly where it hits, enough time upfront to evacuate the area.
Of course the value of the destruction of a highly developed areas isn't just financial. People losing their homes, even when they are rebuild, is a human disaster. There would always be irreplaceable losses. Humanity should never choose to let a meteorite hit, if they chance of it hitting is very high, just to save some money. If the chance goes up, humanity should come together to fund the mission to prevent it.
Then there is a third consideration; this asteroid is still small enough to consider the damage of the impact acceptable. But, at any time in the future could we discover an asteroid that would cause massive or global devastation. Then humanity has no choice but to prevent collision with Earth. The experience from deflecting this smaller rock from hitting could be vital for the future.
By the way, this has almost no relation with climate change, other than that
it's a big problem that science could prevent.
The one you were talking about would have an impact of about 15 megatons of TNT.
A difference by a factor of 5 million smaller.
Not fun to have it land on your head, but not a planet-killer either.
If it's one with an iron core, you can forget about that.
It would require landing on it and drilling into it.
It's way more reliable to just nudge it into anther trajectory.
only registered users can see external links
(and mass, if it has the same density as Earth).
Additionally, that will nudge the Earth out of it's stable orbit around the Sun,
probably on a collision course with Mars or Venus. Or if we don't hit any other planets, either move the Earth away from the Sun altogether or burn up in the Sun.
If you want to push the Earth North or South, we might move outside the ecliptic plane around the Sun, possibly into the orbits of lots of comets. It would also make Elon Musk unhappy, because it would make it more difficult to reach Mars.
Even if you expected to break again after we avoided that space rock, the energy needed to do even a fraction of what you proposed would be way more than all the energy stored in all the reserves on Earth and even all carbon stored in life on Earth. It would be more lethal to life than the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs.
And how do you want to do it? Fly a rocket with a tow rope into space and pull
the Earth away? If you are doing it in atmosphere, you're pushing against the air,
which is also in orbit around the Sun. It's like pushing a truck, with a propeller,
from the inside of the container.
I hope you were joking.
if you watch the movie,they build rocket engines in antartica and tap into the natural gas and oil to burn to move the earth a bit, we loose the moon, but we are saved from the space rock. it's mostly meant to be a joke that i mentioned it.
We might need to directly tap into the energy of the sun, with a Dyson Sphere,
to even have the energy to move Earth any significant distance. It has a mass of 1.31664252×10^25 pounds. When we could do that, we would be able to move asteroids of that size like ping-pong balls. We are talking about 2032, not 3032.
Seeing how you lot are running things, you can forget about those scifi ideas, because you need humanity to still be around for that and organized as a big global civilization. A hand-full survivors on Greenland are not going to cut it.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Scientists understood "the greenhouse effect" very well 40 years ago.
when that didn't pan out it became global warming, now it is climate change, so rather or not if it is snowing or scorching outside your door they are covered in their little charade.
And it wasn't about CO2, but about aerosol air pollution, which is actually causing an about 0.7° F (0.4 °C) lower global average temperature, than otherwise would be.
That effect is just completely obliterated by the global warming from the CO2.
Climate change IS global warming, but with the secondary effects included, which are much more than just warming. It's a term for people who don't understand why a few degrees higher GLOBAL AVERAGE temperature would matter.
You still have never explained the record high CO2 concentration.
A higher CO2 concentration will increase the temperature of a planet, that's just physics.
Without greenhouse gasses, Earth would have an average surface temperature of 0°F.
Humanity would be fucked without CO2 and with too much CO2.
That's nature; it requires a careful balance or it goes astray.
--------------------------------------- added after 14 hours
Aerosol particles also shape the climate as they circulate in the atmosphere. Some of these particles can reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. Other aerosol particles absorb heat from sunlight, causing the atmosphere to warm.
Aerosol particles affect the Earth's climate by acting as the seeds on which clouds form. Clouds reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere. More aerosol particles can lead to more, but smaller, cloud droplets. This may reduce the rain that falls from that cloud.
All of these effects make climate change more difficult to predict accurately, but that doesn't retract from the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared light, which results in heat being trapped in the atmosphere instead of it being emitted back into space.
“ I see more people sitting at home, cranking up the air conditioners. no one seems to be able to stand 1 degree of discomfort anymore, this is what I see... all these protesters gluing them selves to the street don't really get the message across, only that theyre a bunch of disruptive uni students trying to get their faces on the tele... the world on a whole is so wasteful when using its finite resources and not a great deal is invested in making things from recycled materials to stop waste..
every generation blames the one before and no one wants to pick up the tab of cleaning it up and stopping it from happening.. crikey, grown educated humans still cant sort waste from recyclables in bins ... yet they can claim fame to being the most intelligent generation of all time??? how is this so??? *Lix*‘
I agree, but what do you think it would take, to make our politicians listen to them?
I carry my own garbage to the dump because the 3 different trucks that come by operated by the same company won't take a occasional tire or a few pieces of wood or whatever but 1 day a year. 3 truck come by,1 company has the contract, a monopoly, charge way to much and won't take everything you need to chunk. plastic bottles in 1 can, paper in can, and other in the other can. 3 trucks .and if you follow them to the dump, 2 go into the landfill as it is cheaper to just bury the shit that recycle it. tax money only goes so far in cost .and when county officials can vote themselves raises, no money left to melt the plastic.
Now,with that 1 problem of plastic bottles, a simple affordable idea is to reuse containers made of GLASS that returned to the store and credited to your bill. No extra fuel to haul them, no melting the shit and remaking a object, just a simple haul it back to where it came from,wash it,refill it. a empty truck goes back to the dairy or the drink company, it could haul the emptys back.
Oh, I am sorry, we used that idea for decades and some dumbass thought it was easier to melt plastic and stink up the air!
that's a example of why people like me don't pay folks that glue themselves to the street any attention. Alot of good ideas have been pushed aside by their kind and replaced with "recycle" instead of reuse,rebuild,refurbish,
Computers work fine long after the "software" is out of date, that should stop. imagine having to build new cars and buses every 10 years because the roads suddenly are no longer maintained and supported? stupid.
Affordable is relative. If the alternative is death, any price is affordable.
That's also a reference to your healthcare costs, which are the highest in the world, because you leave it up to the market to decide how much profit you can make on desperate people.
I also think a lot of people get further away from listening to a message, if it's given by people who annoy people who just want to get to work. That's why I would not join such actions. My party does political activism a lot, but we always make sure to bother the people who create the problem and not the rest of the public. It's politicians who are not doing anything, so it's politicians who should be bothered every single day, until they start listening.
Think of this; if they really think inaction is going to kill everyone, than why are they still doing nonviolent protesting? You can say about MAGA whatever you want, but they are not afraid of using violence. "You won't have a country anymore!" is enough persuasion to get them up in arms. It wasn't even true, but they scared the pants off
all politicians. Luigi Maggioni alone showed insurance CEO's that people are fed up.
Did Extinction Rebellion learn something from that? Just saying. Your side is not the only side who has 2nd amendment rights. Is your side really willing to step in front of
a bullet, to defend Exxon mobile and Shell executives or oil lobbyists?
As for wealthy oil execs and such, they can afford security. And should have the right to protect themselves.
This is where Extinction Rebellion is effective, and why they do it this way,
but I don't think their attention is motivating people to listen.
The best non-violent activism is what gets people to laugh or like you.
Then of course you need to follow it up with a clear message.
But you should see the reactions that Maggioni has encouraged. Most people acknowledge what he did was wrong, but a large majority shows hate towards the insurance industry and the people leading it to screw people over for profit.
Just today I saw someone calling him The Punisher on Facebook. And don't think those are just lefties and they are certainly not liberals. I think most of them voted
for Trump in this election. I'm sure you are meeting people who are even openly supportive of Maggioni or the idea of killing some of those robber barons.
People are angry, they just don't understand who they need to be angry with.
Of course execs have the right to protect themselves. But if they think they are safe, if the pitchforks are coming, they are kidding themselves. The fact that people are even considering a type like Trump shows that. They think he will destroy the system, but once they recognize he is also just a robber baron and his administration is filled with robber barons, who are just looking out for themselves, watch out, because the fuse is lit and that powder keg will explode. Most people want a better life for themselves and their children, they don't want to be serfs to a king, like you think they want. You know the biggest issue that people were saying made them vote for Trump, was inflation and the ability afford groceries. Even you said so. If Trump ends up screwing them, and makes them suffer even more, and it's looking like he will, people will turn on him, like you've never seen. See that anger flip the other way.
Trump is playing with fire. It can burn down the country and it can burn him.
If people haven't heard about climate change by now, they are deaf,dead or under a very heavy rock.
only registered users can see external links
Tossed out of court. New york was just looking to gouge the big oil companys out of some money
It's true that those oil companies are paying for the propaganda that you gobble up like candy though. Forcing them to pay for some of the damage they are doing wouldn't be that bad. If you still don't accept climate change, at least accept that Texans are breathing toxic air and many people cannot drink the tap water because it's pure poison. You need to suffer a lot for that oil and gas, while the alternatives are so much less polluting and cheaper.
And the water in mexico has been bad for decades, so it is not wonder the water in texas is bad because there is just a invisible line between the 2 spots.
Their water is still poisonous. In some American cities, the tap water was even flammable. only registered users can see external links
"Numerous studies link childhood lead exposure to a range of cognitive and behavioral deficits, including low IQ, impulsivity, juvenile delinquency, and criminal behavior in adolescence and early adulthood."
only registered users can see external links
The price of PV is now 29% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel alternative.
You don't have that cheapest fossil fuel alternative; you need fracking.
Michigan has a law requiring the replacement of lead service lines in homes across the state. This law was passed in 2018 in response to the Flint Water Crisis, a public health crisis that contaminated drinking water with lead.
but it was the fracking that turned the water acidic, devolving the lead.
Oh, by the way, that's a clear example of failing Republican policies.
Pollution from fracking and failing to replace lead pipes are not forces of nature.
Wildfires, because of a drought, in the middle of winter, with 100 mph storms,
are not failing policies. They 'raked the forests' like crazy, but nature cannot
be tamed, especially not with climate change making it more extreme.
California under Newsom invested $2.5 billion to ramp up and implement the Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan. At some point forest management and crisis readiness is not going to cut it anymore. You will need corridors of 10 miles between every patch of trees and they will still all burn downs spontaneously. The only way to prevent wildfires would be to cut down all the forests.
Everything is possible in relation to the start of those wildfires, but a fact is that California was BONE DRY this year, while last year they even had floods.
That's nature, if you accept climate change or not. There is no amount of forest management, that can prevent forest fires, when it's bone dry. There is no fire fighting force that can stop wildfires all over the place, during droughts combined with 100 mph storms.
Next time some red states get leveled by a record hurricane, do you want me to say "Fuck them, they should have built stronger houses!"?
When Florida was in trouble they all came to help. You were crying that they weren't doing enough, which was a lie too. Now you are lying to find a reason
to do nothing for California.
So... You can't build houses in Florida no more?
How about Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. Those are all states that can get leveled by a hurricane.
Maybe even next summer.
If people cannot rely on the government anymore, when a huge 'natural' disaster destroys their homes, they all want to move to places with less risk of 'natural' disasters. What do you think will happen to those states, if there is a mass exodus? And what would happen to those safer states, where all those people want to live? Think of what it would mean to your country.
only registered users can see external links
10 times, hell, they never have to paint or update their plumbing or anything, when it gets old it gets washed away and the gov comes back and makes it new, in the same damn spot???
Even the Bible speaks of not building your castles in the sand but here it shows how folks can get permits to rebuild right back on the OCEAN FRONT. WHY??Just WHY would you invest your life savings into a house that will fall like a deck of cards to water and wind in the sand?'
only registered users can see external links
The current fires in california, they really need to look at their landscape,the chance of more wind, and rebuild accordingly if at all in the same spot. wouldn't you think it would be wiser to move to a area with adequate water and build a house to withstand fires and earthquakes ?
And you can build houses in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, as long as they're hurricane proof and flood-proof.
That's all getting very expensive. And that's just the houses and other buildings. That ancient power grid of yours is very vulnerable to wildfires
and hurricanes too. Who's going to pay for that?
When I told you about renewable energy, to reduce carbon emissions,
to keep climate change from getting worse and worse and worse,
you worried about the costs. I told you not doing it would become
more expensive. Is that already sinking in a bit?
By that time, some middle easterner that woke up with his goat missing and will blast a bunch of nukes or something for revenge against the thief and climate change won't matter any more. besides, the materials to build a more fire proof house, are not that much more exspensive, concrete walls instead of wood, steel roof instead of shingles, steel beams driven into the ground for support instead of concrete footings. wouldn't really be that much of a transition.
I'm moving up North!".
"Reducing carbon emissions is not going to reduce the amount of storms
we have or anything else more than likely, and if it did,it would be years!" Probably decades or longer, depending on how much we reduce carbon emission. At the moment, the world is still INCREASING carbon emissions. That WILL increase storms and everything else.
True, if we nuke ourselves to extinction, climate change won't matter any more. There are many more ways for humanity to destroy itself. It's also possible aliens blow up Earth tomorrow. That's no reason to guarantee our extinction, just because oil companies want to keep making profits. Billionaires can make profits from renewable energy too, if you're more worried about them than humanity itself.
check back again next week ,perhaps we will have some more educational content!
So to what stage of climate denialism will you go in your inevitable reaction?
Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late
only registered users can see external links
You think a cow farts less than a human, even a vegan eating nothing but beans?
A single cow produces between 154 to 264 pounds of methane gas per year.
I don't want to be around the person who beats that.
The feed to meat ratio for cows is between 8-12 pound per pound (or kg/kg).
That means a person needs to fart 8 to 12 times more per pound (or kg) of
plant-based food, than a cow does, to make up for the vegetarian who farts
more than a meat-eater. You're funny, but your math sucks.
There are 1.55 billion cows in the world. You can be sure that they fart a lot more than the 8.2 billion people alive today, even if we all switch to nothing but beans.
Methane is 28 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The current CO2 concentration is 423.30 ppm (parts per million).
The current CH4 concentration is 1932.24 ppb (parts per billion).
That's 1.93224 ppm (factor 1:1000).
That makes CO2 a bigger contributor to climate change, because there is 219 times less CH4 than CO2 in the atmosphere. Even though CH4 is 28 times more potent,
it contributes 7.8 times ( 219/28 ) LESS to global warming.
Scientists have replaced the term "global warming" with the term "climate change", because of all the side effects of higher temperatures, like more extreme weather events (storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, showers, hailstorms, lightning strikes, droughts, heat-waves and even more extreme local cold spells), causing secondary effects like floods, mudslides, wildfires, melting of snow and ice on the oceans and land and rising sea levels (expanding water and melting land ice), dried up rivers
and lakes, desalination of the oceans -> reducing the thermohaline circulation.
"Yes, human-produced methane is significantly harming the climate, as methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes considerably to global warming. Therefore reducing human-produced methane is crucial for mitigating climate change. "
So stop farting!NOW.
Those cows are not wild animals, they are our food.
Methane is indeed a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The CH4 molecule (methane) has more bonds between atoms than CO2 molecule (carbon dioxide), and that means it can twist and vibrate in more ways, while absorbing infrared light, on its way in and out of the Earth’s atmosphere.
Absorbing infrared light -> increasing temperature. It's just plain physics.
In any case; yes every fart you let go is increasing climate change a bit.
The problem is that there's 8.2 billion people farting.
Farting is just not at all the biggest contributor to climate change.
It's the burning of fossil fuels that's the issue, and increasingly; wildfires.
"According to Cathy Whitlock at Montana State University, it "offers us a window into past conditions at high elevations since you won't see Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) growing at this elevation today - that's because the climate was warmer back when these trees grew".
Uh warmer 6000 years ago than it is NOW??? Um, OH, further down it explains VOLCANOS spewed stuff into the air preventing the sun from coming in and cooled off the earth! So i guess climate change activist will be seeding volcanos to make them erupt to cool down the earth next??
at about +0.6°C and slowly decreased to the +0.0°C around 2000 years ago.
That was at least 5000 years for that snow and ice to come back.
We have now seen an increase of the global average temperature between 1.5°C
and 2.0°C IN 50 YEARS!! That's a higher increase, in 1:100 of the time.
The last ice age was at it's lowest temperature -7°C (relative to pre-industrial global average, which is actually 13.7°C (56.7°F) -> 6.7°C (44.1°F)), 17,600 years ago.
At that time, it snowed in the SUMMER, in as far south as Dallas or Chicago.
New Comment Go to top