|
davebo posted:My wife mentioned that seven people had died so far as a result of the cold and I just had to appreciate how few people that is. Obviously very sad for those seven but it's just going to get so much worse that I want future me to remember this quaint time when the horrible storms caused by climate change killed fewer people than that lovely limo crash that hadn't passed inspection. While Dumbo in Chief is making fun of global warming, you can also look forward to the next drought along with record breaking heat in just a few months, to get yourself warmed up again after these arctic temperatures. This kind of zickzack is going to be increasingly normal in the future. First people freeze to death, then they overheat to death, some may even dehydrate to death in the future, esp in the west.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Lies, God Trump told me this is cold cold cold, Earth is getting colder, pump that CO2 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I'm not sure how accurate it is because I thought I saw something like 15 people died in Chicago alone. I didn't check the source or verify so that could be bullshit but keep in mind the people that are dying are going to mostly be homeless and forgotten and unless people are looking for them and reporting them dead/missing they're not going to end up in those counts until they're found. A fair point, but looking back from 2100 on a century of drought, famine, and war, even 150 people dying in a climate change-induced event is going to seem nostalgic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
How quickly people forgot the 2003 heatwave in Europe that killed 70,000 people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw the London congestion charge again actually contributed little to public transit, I much rather see some type of progressive fee/tax than a flat fee. Also, the London public transportation system while okay(ish), is actually quite expensive for average people, the underground itself is a bit obscene. Los Angeles deserves credit for having a program for lower income people to get reduced fares as well as a generous discount for seniors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:it's not even feasible to discourage driving how the us is laid out, rural or urban wise In LA you now have a decent mass transit system for most of the population. NYC too of course.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:How quickly people forgot the 2003 heatwave in Europe that killed 70,000 people. Nobody in the US cares about Europeans except to lie and concern troll about how the literal entire landmass of Europe is totally buckling under the weight of Sharia-law-practicing gay liberal transgender non-aryan immigrants from Not Good Places, Not Good. This political post is relevant in the climate thread because the challenge of adequately addressing climate change--as monumental and revolutionary a task it alone may be--is precluded by the challenge of defeating American conservatism, then centrism. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Feb 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Yes! This is the one! Thanks, this will go straight into my veins. Just getting around to looking at this. Oh, my, does it make for a bleak Friday.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:In LA you now have a decent mass transit system for most of the population. NYC too of course. I would say LA has years if not decades away from really being comparable to other international cities, especially since it is still mostly reliant bus routes on already saturated streets. NYC could be doing much better than it is but it is obvious the subway is being suffocated by Albany.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I would say LA has years if not decades away from really being comparable to other international cities, especially since it is still mostly reliant bus routes on already saturated streets. 80% of LA's population is now close to a Metro train station. Yes, it's poo poo compared to most European systems, but compared to 1999 (when I last worked there) it's pretty darn good. Much better than San Diego for example.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:In LA you now have a decent mass transit system for most of the population. NYC too of course. you're not wrong, but both those cities were around before the great car-ing in the first place I can't imagine it's true for LA's outstretched suburbs and the like either, just the main core city.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Gamerofthegame posted:you're not wrong, but both those cities were around before the great car-ing in the first place Metro, Expo lines cover a large area. Add Metrolink and it's even larger. Here's where it will be at in 2028, most of that is already running.  The planned routes are indicated on this map.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 00:45
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:80% of LA's population is now close to a Metro train station. Eh define close, the system is quite skeletal when you consider how vast and unwalkable most of the LA basin is. It is getting better no doubt but it is still a joke compared to other very large cities. Metrolink is very much a commuter system and its prices reflect that. Btw this is even compared to other major American cities with decent transit, not to mention Europe or Asia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
The fact American cities don't tend to have integrated fare systems with one fare for all public transit in a defined area seems pretty user hostile to me. This is a convenience common in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Metro, Expo lines cover a large area. Add Metrolink and it's even larger. Wow, even with the planned lines, that's less than my city has, and we have just about half a million people living here. Never really grasped how lovely American cities are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
The biggest city in Canada has millions of people and only 3 subway lines. It's at over 100% capacity for the entirety of rush hour and there's been very little investment in public transit to keep up with demand. They also occasionally extend the one line (it's shaped like a U) which just dumps more people on to it. Surface transit is plagued by congestion and the street cars are constantly short turning (turning around mid route to try to unfuck the perpetually hosed schedule). People are literally starting to protest getting hosed by short turns over and over by standing in front of street cars. My wife and I literally moved away from that city because of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Also, still using trolley poles instead of pantographs in TYOOL 2019, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wow, even with the planned lines, that's less than my city has, and we have just about half a million people living here. Never really grasped how lovely American cities are. A big part of is that public transportation is considered an "optional" showpiece even when traffic makes cities pretty much unlivable, even the cities with usable systems are in pretty miserable repair all things considered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wow, even with the planned lines, that's less than my city has, and we have just about half a million people living here. Never really grasped how lovely American cities are. Yeah, only NYC's transit utilization rate ranks on an international scale.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
A lot of US transit infrastructure was built with rehabilitation and overhaul expected every 20 to 30 years. Then they didn't do any of that until things started going sideways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Kunabomber posted:A lot of US transit infrastructure was built with rehabilitation and overhaul expected every 20 to 30 years. Then they didn't do any of that Fyfy
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Kunabomber posted:A lot of US transit infrastructure was built with rehabilitation and overhaul expected every 20 to 30 years. Then they didn't do any of that until things started going sideways. Yeah, this was pretty catastrophic for the DC metro which essentially has been only partially functional for years at this point due to the massive maintenance backlog. Then there is the NYC subway, which needs billions in capital investment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
My tactic in LA is to use a folding bike to cover the last few miles to My destination from the subway stations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
If I ever get a real job again I'm buying a foldy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:If I ever get a real job again I'm buying a foldy. Bought it five years ago. Have used it in several cities and the savings over taxis has paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
A few months ago I talked to some guy from LA and he said he actually didn't know that there are subways there at all until he looked it up. I always assumed Americans just love their cars because its their thing, but if it also partly is due to their completely lovely public transportation this is at least an explanation. Obviously there is no way to ever change anything in that regard, so I guess you better get more cars and start fracking or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 01:57
|
|
|
Goons Are Great posted:A few months ago I talked to some guy from LA and he said he actually didn't know that there are subways there at all until he looked it up. this is just lazy half assed rambling, you can at least put in the effort to shitpost if you're gonna mash the button
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, this was pretty catastrophic for the DC metro which essentially has been only partially functional for years at this point due to the massive maintenance backlog. Then there is the NYC subway, which needs billions in capital investment. At least NY has 3 tracks so they can typically keep the trains running both ways during maintenance. In DC they have to single track or even do a total shutdown for repairs that take longer than the 4 hour night shift windows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
Kunabomber posted:At least NY has 3 tracks so they can typically keep the trains running both ways during maintenance. In DC they have to single track or even do a total shutdown for repairs that take longer than the 4 hour night shift windows. It is also why DC really needed to be on top of maintenance in the first place. That said, the NYC subway's signaling system is positively ancient and there is just a ton of general maintenance that has to be done across the system. Both systems have a lot of issues, and usually, the root cause is funding at the state level. Overall, the major improvements in transit that have be happening system to be in smaller cities west of the Mississippi (and I guess arguably LA in a relative sense).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Rising CO2 won't make trees grow more, study suggestsquote:What we bring as a hypothesis is if you don't have the water and nutrients to consume this supplementary CO2, well, you cannot grow faster
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
That's called Liebig's Law of the Minimum and isn't new or novel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Surely various types of hydroponics would benefit though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Green New Deal won't call for end to fossil fuels This is fine, assuming nothing can be done and extinction is certain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Green New Deal won't call for end to fossil fuels Net zero? Let's aim for net negative, please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Green New Deal won't call for end to fossil fuels Even without explicitly having a ban on new fossil fuel development a GND plan would likely have significant positive impacts on our climate future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
It's not a very encouraging sign for the character of the rest of the proposal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
If it calls for zero emissions it is calling for either zero fossil fuels or negative emissions. There's no other way to make that happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 06:59
|
|
|
Trainee PornStar posted:Surely various types of hydroponics would benefit though? Maybe not. More CO2 gets you more vegetative growth in hydroponic operations but the plants are significantly less nutrient-dense. There's also the problem with the chemicals used in hydroponics either originating directly from fossil fuel feedstock (natural gas -> ammonia-based nitrogen fertilizers) or being heavily dependent on fossil fuels for mining, processing, and transport. Modern high tech dirt farming has the same problem, but at least you have the option of increasing your soil fertility by growing cover crops between seasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
The technology to pull carbon out of the air and turn it into fuels exists but it's in its infancy. If developed it would allow us to continue to use fossil fuels but also go carbon negative. I feel like this is the only way we're going to solve the problem and that if we can't pull it off, for reasons technological or political, then we're hosed. We're hosed because we'll never be able to go net-zero if we don't, and we're hosed because at this point going net-zero isn't enough anyway: we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not just stop putting more in. I don't know if that's what they're going on about with the GND (I didn't see anything about it in that article) but I really hope so. But this: quote:“There’s going to be a 50, 60, 75 year transition — it’s not going to happen overnight even if people want it to happen overnight,” McGarvey said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 08:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:The technology to pull carbon out of the air and turn it into fuels exists but it's in its infancy. If developed it would allow us to continue to use fossil fuels but also go carbon negative. The first law of thermodynamics is a bitch. ED: Turning captured carbon into fossil fuels is, down to the conceptual level, pure idiocy. Fossil fuels are widely used because a) they produce energy and b) they very efficiently package this energy. Capturing carbon and then turning it into fossil fuels is not recovering energy - you're spending it - so from the get go you need an orders of magnitude larger non-fossil fuel energy generation infrastructure to feed into the infrastructure that captures then refines carbon. Then comes its use as packaging, but if recovering energy isn't a concern then you're utilizing fossil fuels purely for logistical reasons in critical processes (ie jet fuel), and extraction should meet that demand essentially forever. Now, I'll grant that there might be a case for doing this in a timeline where we discover ecologically-friendly endless free energy. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Feb 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 08:19
|
|
