Nuclear winter is the only quick, effective, and cheap solution to global warming. The left strongly suggested Trump would launch the nukes and I feel let down.
Look, we had plans to take over the cities full of landlubbers but then we saw some hot sailors and got distracted. So it's not our fault.I've been hearing that [cities being submerged] since I was a kid and I'm not even close to being young anymore. Are we going to kill ourselves already or is this some kind of multi-century-long cock-tease because I'm tired of waiting to embrace death. Drop the goddamned bass already I'm getting bored.
lol how does carbon taxes stop companies from polluting? They just shrug and pass the cost to the consumers to eat the tax. Until oil and coal run out, humanity will pollute, because it's human nature to choose the path of least resistance, it's the nature of corporations to lower overheads and maximize profits. These companies will also attempt to block any other avenues of energy, because they aren't going to let people destroy their market share.The 'global warming is a scam' scam was perpetrated by wealthy oil and coal conglomerates in order to protect their business, much like how cigarette companies bribed and mislead doctors.
Before studies showed that cigarettes caused cancer, tobacco companies recruited the medical community for their ads.www.history.com
Get double conspiracy'd, fag.
I wanted to dig a little deeper into this citation because of the noted lack of clarification, and what I found was a very interesting measuring system for tracking CO2 emissions and natural CO2 sinks., which... didn't appear to have the purportedly cited information, or anything about averaging the carbon dioxide content of fresh air. That, and the information does appear to be outdated considering the new 415 ppm figure.We're a long way from that.
CO2 levels have to go up a hell of a lot before it becomes acutely toxic
Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km (19 mi) altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.041% (410 ppm), depending on the location.[clarification needed]
It's a 415ppm now. 10,000 ppm makes the room feel stuffy. 70,000 to 100,000 ppm is toxic
and fortunately, the Wikipedia page also does go into some more detail about harmful levels of exposure to CO2 below 1%:OHS said:
- 250-350 ppm: background (normal) outdoor air level
- 350-1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange
- 1,000-2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air
- 2,000-5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air; poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
- >5,000 ppm: This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
- >40,000 ppm: This level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.
10,000 PPM seems to go a bit beyond making a room feel stuffy, and even smaller changes of ~500 ppm or so seem like they can have adverse effects on those exposed to them. Suffocating to death isn't accurate, but we definitely don't need to hit a CO2 level of 10,000 ppm to see some negative widespread effects!Wikipedia said:There are few studies of the health effects of long-term continuous CO2 exposure on humans and animals at levels below 1%. Occupational CO2 exposure limits have been set in the United States at 0.5% (5000 ppm) for an eight-hour period. At this CO2 concentration, International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption. Studies in animals at 0.5% CO2 have demonstrated kidney calcification and bone loss after eight weeks of exposure. A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2 likely due to CO2 induced increases in cerebral blood flow. Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.
So this graph is definitely interesting, as it doesn't seem to support your interpretation that change occurs by one degree per decade. Judging by the Lowess Smoothing, it looks as if the temperature increase has been increasing at a steady rate since ~1995, with the temperature increasing by over half a degree Celsius within a 15-year timespan. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not with your interpretation, it just doesn't seem to fit the graph.
This is another really fascinating indicator, as it measures the global sea level as compared to regional sea level increases. (Weirdly enough, it doesn't tell you that on the sea level page, but can be accessed by clicking on the "Global Mean Sea Level" tab on the main page.
So comparing global and regional sea level increases is more vital than it first appears, and I have to say that I'm disappointed in NASA for not properly labeling their dataset. If the difference is so striking, I would argue that they have a responsibility to not contribute to their inappropriate conflation!The National Ocean Service said:Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.
So reading through the source provided, it looks as if the primary hypothesis made within the article is that the data obtained from the balloon and satellite datasets provides the most accurate and non-skewed data possible when it comes to observing temperature changes:None of this is catastrophic and the models that predict catastrophe have overestimated warming
by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger Perhaps the most frank example of the growing disconnection between forecast and observed climate change was presented by University of Alabama’s John Christy…judithcurry.com
View attachment 757964
The comments section goes into a bit more detail about some of the problems regarding the acquisition of this data and the discrepancies which arose from the foundations of their findings. More contemporary analyses of satellite data seem to suggest that the trend is more deleterious than ascribed above, although still not to the same extent as most climate models.Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger said:The temperature of the mid-troposphere can also be sensed from above, by orbiting satellites that measure the vibration of diatomic oxygen, which turns out to be a much more accurate thermometer than, say, a standard mercury-in-glass instrument.
I think this really does come down to perceptions: how likely are China and India to scale back their emissions and pursue greener policies? It looks like India is taking proactive steps to try and mitigate their impacts, and China is now examining climate change as deleterious enough for them to revise their security policies in preparation for tackling it. How likely are India and China to mitigate their emissions to a meaningful extent? I'm not really sure about that, but at least they are taking proactive steps, which should hopefully be a good sign.Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz] The new dataset shows more warming than most similar datasets constructed from satellites or radiosonde data. However said:Given we can't do anything to stop it, and living with it seems highly possible, I'd say living with it is the best option.
Or you know, we could elect AOC and do the Green New Deal. Which will do nothing to stop global warming because any decrease the US manages will be dwarfed by India, China etc increasing their emissions. However it will tank the US economy and leave China with all the industrial capacity. And that means all the military capacity in the long run. I'm sure that will work out fine...
How the hell did rooftop solar panels get a kill?
The safety issues with Rooftop solar installations
Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights.
Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths.
Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers.
In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh.
$4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007.
The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.
Yeah I think he said it best.Climate change isnt a scam, but the way it’s pushed as the single biggest threat I think is incorrect. The biggest environmental threats are linked to environmental degradation - us fucking up entire ecosystems. Water / system pollution, human encroachment on previously pristine areas, biodiversity loss, etc. Pushing everything on CO2 alone is the wrong way to make the public concerned IMO. It touts a huge, doom scenario with no positive actions and it cannot be definitively measured in terms of projecting out what will actually happen, because we don’t know.
If people were focusing on smaller local issues that CAN be improved (like: let’s not let industry x vent waste products into this area of wetlands, or how can we manage the amazon basin to preserve water flow and biodiversity so that whatever plant has a miracle cure for cancer isn’t wiped out) then I think we’d see more progress. People feel powerless in the face of climate change but they can and will fight to have their local wilderness areas kept nice places to hike and camp in.
That's probably why I'm such a space sperg. If we have thirty Earths, then losing one isn't as bad as if we had one Earth and lost it.We live in what is in essence a closed system. You can’t have infinite growth in a finite system. We don’t have a spare earth if this one gets too fucked up. We do need to take much better care of the planet - fewer of us would be a start. Lower pollution/more sustainable industry is what’s needed though.
The Earth's like a box of chocolates. Sure it's nice when you get it but sooner or later it will be gone and you'll need to chuck the waste in the trash and get another one.That's probably why I'm such a space sperg. If we have thirty Earths, then losing one isn't as bad as if we had one Earth and lost it.
China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.Shame we're all going to die because China and India belch out more nasty shit into the environment than the rest of the world combined. Embargo the shitholes until they shape up? Nah. Where would we get our cheap shit.
I'd be all for workable solutions instead of whatever the absolute fuck you'd call the Green New Deal.China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.
I mean, when your slaves and untouchables cannot afford automobiles, you're going to see shit like that. Another reason why globalization is suicide - you don't want five billion rice niggers to suddenly rise out of poverty and start increasing the energy demand.China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.
CO2 is wonderful stuff. When concentrations in the atmosphere were really, really high the earth turned it into the delicious coal that allowed us to become what we are. It also gave us dragonflies with three foot wingspans, which is really fucking cool.lol how does carbon taxes stop companies from polluting? They just shrug and pass the cost to the consumers to eat the tax. Until oil and coal run out, humanity will pollute, because it's human nature to choose the path of least resistance, it's the nature of corporations to lower overheads and maximize profits. These companies will also attempt to block any other avenues of energy, because they aren't going to let people destroy their market share.
If people as a whole truly cared, it would've been nipped in the ass decades ago, but collectively, they don't. Gonna die anyway, let the next idiot deal with it. Sure they'll blame me, but if they were in my position they would've done exactly the same thing.
Maybe people will just start suffocating to death and we'll get some real population control happening.