|
the nukes come after the wild sulfate spraying
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
call to action posted:Expulsion to Puerto Rico. I looked at this website and in less then ten seconds I found something about cooking to death by a ridiculous low temperature. That kind of hysteria deletes all good of whatever science could be found there, I'd recommend ignoring this "source"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
i dunno i think 105f and 95% humidity would prolly gently caress you up if you just sat outside for a few hours
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i dunno i think 105f and 95% humidity would prolly gently caress you up if you just sat outside for a few hours An air temperature of 105F will produce a dewpoint temperature of 98F if the relative humidity is at 80%, and when the dewpoint temp reaches your internal body temp, you cannot cool off by sweating anymore! So you would die within the hour I would think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:An air temperature of 105F will produce a dewpoint temperature of 98F if the relative humidity is at 80%, and when the dewpoint temp reaches your internal body temp, you cannot cool off by sweating anymore! So you would die within the hour I would think. http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/heatindex.shtml according to this it's a heat index of 222F sounds pretty fatal
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
self unaware posted:just lol if you think the countries of the world are going to do anything
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I looked at this website and in less then ten seconds I found something about cooking to death by a ridiculous low temperature. That kind of hysteria deletes all good of whatever science could be found there, I'd recommend ignoring this "source" I was gonna get mad at this post but then I realized a post this stupid couldn't be made in earnest, like there can't actually be climate deniers that don't even understand the basic physics of how heat transfer works
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
anyone who unironically uses the words "alarmist" "doomer" or "hysteria" is going to be a moron fyi
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
In Lagos temperatures sometimes reach 105F with average humidity >80%. It's not uninhabitable. And that's happening in "the jungles of Costa Rica", at +7C. Yeah, if it warms radically more than the worst-case scenario expects it will, Costa Rica is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:21
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:In Lagos temperatures sometimes reach 105F with average humidity >80%. It's not uninhabitable. And that's happening in "the jungles of Costa Rica", at +7C. Yeah, if it warms radically more than the worst-case scenario expects it will, Costa Rica is hosed. "it's not uninhabitable" lol neither is antarctica
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
*puts on my envirosuit rated for a heat index of 200 and proper Co2 ventilation* see guys it's fine, this is actually a growth opportunity
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
self unaware posted:i dunno i think 105f and 95% humidity would prolly gently caress you up if you just sat outside for a few hours "Wet Bulb" Temperature of 35ºC (95ºF) or higher will kill you. And we've come close. When the wet-bulb temperature reaches 35 degrees Celsius the human body can not remove heat sufficiently so undergoes thermal runaway of core body temperature leading to rapid death. Near coastlines where water temperature has recently reached 33 degrees Celsius, we are nearing this. Two degrees away ... good, I thought we were in danger or something. Anyway it's just people we don't care about, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
self unaware posted:"it's not uninhabitable" lol neither is antarctica It's not uninhabitable in the sense of being the largest city on earth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:"Wet Bulb" Temperature of 35ºC (95ºF) or higher will kill you. And we've come close. People generally die when you leave them in water, yes. That says close to nothing about climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
call to action posted:I was gonna get mad at this post but then I realized a post this stupid couldn't be made in earnest, like there can't actually be climate deniers that don't even understand the basic physics of how heat transfer works Additionally you can tell they are too slow to even keep reading to where it actually traces out real world times that temperatures "this low" have already been proven to kill over 30,000 people in the EU heat wave of 2003: https://www.unisdr.org/files/1145_ewheatwave.en.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
 I love how I post about how the language used on that website made them sound like hysterical idiots and every single post in answer reads like old school teachers reliving their dreams of teaching againJust so you know, you morons, my argument was that the website is bad, not that too high temperatures plus humidity is totally harmless. Yikes. If that's how you react every time someone says something you don't like, we're truly doomed because you can make a Captain Planet villain out of even the meekest environmentalist with that attitude And I say this as someone who hates Thug Lesson's political opinions with the fury of a thousand suns, so it's not like I'm with him on this because I love him
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Just so you know, you morons, my argument was that the website is bad, not that too high temperatures plus humidity is totally harmless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:People generally die when you leave them in water, yes. That says close to nothing about climate. Did you major in any sciences? Where was this even implied? 95ºF Wet Bulb doesn't imply 100% humidity unless the air temperature was also 95ºF. And 100% humidity isn't being immersed in water. We see 100% humidity all the time. You know it as rain. Maybe an explanation? The wet-bulb temperature is the temperature read by a thermometer covered in water-soaked cloth (wet-bulb thermometer) over which air is passed.At 100% relative humidity, the wet-bulb temperature is equal to the air temperature (dry-bulb temperature) and is lower at lower humidity. Examples: The 2015 Indian heat wave saw wet-bulb temperatures in Andhra Pradesh reach 30 °C (86 °F). A similar wet-bulb temperature was reached during the 1995 Chicago heat wave. A heat wave in Iraq in August 2015 saw temperatures of 48.6 °C (119.5 °F) and a dew point of 29.5 °C (85.1 °F) in Bandar-e Mahshahr, Iran and Samawah. This implied a wet-bulb temperature of about 37.2 °C (99 °F). The government urged residents to stay out of the sun and drink plenty of water. During the 2017 Australian Heat Wave, wet-bulb temperatures at Badgery's Creek in Western Sydney reached 31.5 °C (88.7 °F) on Feb 11 and 32 °C (90 °F) on Feb 12. VideoGameVet fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Hey it's no big deal, 95F wet bulbs? It's totally survivable. People in Lagos do it every day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Did you major in any sciences? Where was this even implied? No sorry, that was a misreading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Hey there, meltdownailures, I was laughing at the fact that the author thought that people dying from excessively high wet bulb temperatures is bad, I wasn't disputing the fact that it's true. Owned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
call to action posted:Hey there, meltdownailures, I was laughing at the fact that the author thought that people dying from excessively high wet bulb temperatures is bad, I wasn't disputing the fact that it's true. Owned. High temperatures are terrible, especially in Lagos, and they're only going to get worse as the planet warms. That's why tropical countries need more AC. But the areas that might become uninhabitable in a high-warming scenario are in places like Saudi Arabia, not California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:The reason you appear to be giving for thinking the website is bad is because it is saying too high temperatures plus humidity is harmful. quote:In the jungles of Costa Rica, where humidity routinely tops 90 percent, simply moving around outside when it’s over 105 degrees Fahrenheit would be lethal. And the effect would be fast: Within a few hours, a human body would be cooked to death from both inside and out. That's what I would expect to read on Cracked, not something I'm supposed to take seriously. The only thing missing is some sort of ridiculously morbid picture
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That's what I would expect to read on Cracked, not something I'm supposed to take seriously. The only thing missing is some sort of ridiculously morbid picture How about you contact New York Magazine's editorial board and let them know you have Very Serious Issues with their tone, and shut the gently caress up otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
call to action posted:How about you contact New York Magazine's editorial board and let them know you have Very Serious Issues with their tone, and shut the gently caress up otherwise? Good thing that I posted a bunch of climate scientists doing that, to the point that NY Mag published a version of the article with their annotations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Libluini posted:That's what I would expect to read on Cracked, not something I'm supposed to take seriously. The only thing missing is some sort of ridiculously morbid picture
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:High temperatures are terrible, especially in Lagos, and they're only going to get worse as the planet warms. That's why tropical countries need more AC. But the areas that might become uninhabitable in a high-warming scenario are in places like Saudi Arabia, not California. Maybe Florida eventually. But it won't matter because a good part of that state will be uninhabitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I do, you're just not listening. The reason is because we've been over this before. In the 1960s we heard the famines were coming in books like Famine 1975! and The Population Bomb. President Carter addressed the nation about in a primetime address warning of the dangers of peak oil, which would set in in the 1980s and devastate the country if reliance on petroleum was maintained. The famines never came, and the oil supply never dried up. And it turns out when you look into it, these prophecies of doom go all the way back to Malthus, and arguably well beyond, with a very poor track record for accuracy. Very real problems like broad-scale ecological catastrophe become repositories for the human penchant for apocalyptic fervor. It's interesting - but only because it says something about the culture and warped psychologies that produced it, not because it says anything about the future. Do you seriously not understand that this post is an outright admission that your beliefs are not based on science, as you so vehemently insist, but on the ideological position that humanity cannot ever do irreparable harm to the planet, and that the concept of sustainability is actually a fake idea that doesn't apply to us because we'll always invent something to fix our problems? Those famines and peak oil did not simply "never come", we got lucky enough to have someone figure out a way to fix them. Your entire reason for thinking that global human civilization is invincible is based on a couple of times that someone came along and figured a way out, rather than having any scientific reason to believe that the same thing will happen now and every time in the future. The idea that someone was wrong about something happening in the 1800's holds literally no scientific value or relevance whatsoever, it simply supports your faith-based nonsense argument that human civilization is definitely eternal and undying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I guess you're right dude, the infuriatingly ignorant people who think we've had nearly double the warming than we've actually had are just reviewing the trends and science. Anyone who disagrees is a traitor. 'Infuriatingly ignorant' person here still wondering why you are just dismissing a paper in one of Nature's journals out of hand by using a Northern Hemisphere chart to say something about Global temperatures. Oh, and just a note on that image you posted from the IPCC:  68 years ago at an average rate of +0.17°C,/decade +1°C would be about +1.15°C from 2017-2018 over 1950. There's probably a reason why it's still just a draft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
tsa posted:lmao, you know you are in crazy land when owl of loving cream cheese manages to be a voice of reason. Yeah I'm not the one so skullcracked as to read "You can't fly or u should hang" into a post on "Poverty isn't defined as an inverse of conspicuous consumption and it's pretty sick/privileged if you think it is." TL would actually be the first to point out that goods consumption isn't as significant a contributor to anthro emissions as energy essentials like conditioning, lighting, and transit; I was calling OOCC a myopic fat cat on a thread subject tangent because "poverty" and "austerity" actually mean something other than "if I consume less I'm poor." Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
nymag is a good website and no for the record I haven't flown in years. we don't need to ban flying, we just need to more accurately price it (and in doing so greatly reduce it).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
I'd be ok with a carbon cost associated with everything based on its actual impacts (somehow) that then got funneled into renewables and some sort of sustainable zero carbon societal structure, but I'm guessing that'd get hosed up somehow. Would be nice!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
The NY Times has a long article about agricultural land use and "carbon farming", some key quotes:Can Dirt Save the Earth? posted:... The article is a little fluffy but at least provides an overview of "carbon farming" practices and some of the related issues for dumb people like me who have only heard of it as a buzzword. Also a Hansen quote! Aside from there being a lot of hype, the main problem I see is the complexity in mandating these practices across the entire agricultural sector. Unless the financial benefits are significant widespread adoption seems unlikely ie it has the same scaling problem as any other form of mitigation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
That's interesting. Economically integrate countermeasures into existing practices. We need to do that anywhere and everywhere we can and ^that^ looks like a big one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
lol "if" soil has a carbon saturation point. I'm no scientist, but I'm guessing there is in fact a limit to the amount of carbon a finite amount of a physical substance can absorb.Accretionist posted:That's interesting. Economically integrate countermeasures into existing practices. We need to do that anywhere and everywhere we can and ^that^ looks like a big one. Well, it's thirteen percent of current carbon emissions. Which need to get to zero. Which then need to get to net negative as the aerosol effect dissipates. "Big" isn't the word I'd choose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:The NY Times has a long article about agricultural land use and "carbon farming", some key quotes: Animal Agriculture contributes to climate effects at about the same level as transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 16:56
|
|
|
call to action posted:"Big" isn't the word I'd choose. Unless someone invents a 'Silver Bullet,' I think stuff like this is what will pass for big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
call to action posted:Well, it's thirteen percent of current carbon emissions. Which need to get to zero. Which then need to get to net negative as the aerosol effect dissipates. "Big" isn't the word I'd choose. ASSUMING we decarbonize humanity must still sequester a minimum ~5Gt CO2 per year going forward if we're seriously trying to avoid catastrophic warming, which is ~10% of current emissions. This is actually on the same scale for the amount of negative emissions required after achieving zero emissions, and doesn't require building a crazy pie-in they sky subcontinent-scale BECCS farms or other tech-oriented solutions. So in that sense it's "big". Of course it doesn't last indefinitely as the soil saturates, but I thought it was interesting how relatively simple changes in agricultural practices could very optimistically achieve this scale of sequestration. Unfortunately it requires farmers + investors to think about land other than as a means to profit, which is not business as usual.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's not worth pursuing, but ultimately it not only has small extractive potential, its effectiveness literally declines to useless over time. Remind me how long we're going to need to extract those five gigatons per year? Like, if these are the solutions that James Hansen is throwing his name behind, I really have to question his issue with 'doomist framing' because he clearly accepts the scale of the solutions required and yet points to this as a component
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Animal Agriculture contributes to climate effects at about the same level as transportation. That might be true worldwide, the estimates vary, but it's definitely not true in industrialized countries. In the US agriculture makes up 9% of human emissions, which is less than 1/3 that of transportation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2018 18:43
|
|