I actually watched that episode last night, so that post was kinda jumping at me. What are the odds…

Sagan, a real teacher. Not only smart, there are quite a few smart people. But also able to make something complicated easily understood. To make something abstract sound straight. To make something minds can’t grasp comprehensible. A beautiful ability!

One of those articles that make you feel disgusted about the world we live in.

Thank you to all those scientists trying to throw the rudder around, that get bullied, while trying to save fellow humans.

As far as I understood, it’ll leak into the atmosphere, where it’ll cause 80 or 100 times more warming than CO² for a decade or so, before breaking down into good, old CO², causing further warming for centuries / millennia.

Not sure, but I think I’ve also read that in the process of breaking down into CO², the ozone layer gets damaged.

But if CCS operations leak, they can pose significant risks to water resources. That’s because pressurized CO2 stored underground can escape or propel brine trapped in the saline reservoirs typically used for permanent storage. The leaks can lead to heavy metal contamination and potentially lower pH levels, all of which can make drinking water undrinkable.

Can someone explain this to me in a easy way?

As a layman I would be worried of large amounts of CO² suddenly leaking near where people live. But how does it make water undrinkable? I thought some people like their drinks with CO². And where do the heavy metals come from?

I recently read somewhere that it’s actually just very few bee species that die after stinging, among them honeybees. They have a barbed stinger that gets stuck while most bees have flat stingers and can sting repeatedly.

Read the Wiki and well, I dont know. It may be a climate agenda, but in my opinion being green isn’t necessary being bold.

Bold would be meeting at least what scientist recommend: halving emissions by 2030. I know, that’s very much to ask for any country in the world. That’s why it’s called bold.

What green parties all over the world are doing is: turn the rudder away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy. Which is a step in the right direction, but I think that’s not bold. It’s the least one can do.

Who are these candidates with a “bold climate agenda”? I don’t know any political party in any country, where I’d say ‘they’ve got a bold climate agenda’.

Regarding solar electricity: does that mean to mirror the sunlight to a solar panel? If so: ignoring, that one would constantly need to adapt the mirror’s position, I think I also read somewhere that solar panels decrease efficiency with heat. So my question is: could one increase solar panel output by bundling light or would heat related inefficiency cancel that out?

I don’t know where you live. But where I live, styrofoam costs next to nothing. In fact, you get it for free, if you don’t mind looking through another man’s trash. You can also probably get some for free if you ask a company, that gets stuff sent, that need cooling. Like a supermarket.

For environment: styrofoam is a kind of plastic, so there is that. On the plus side, it’s quite little plastic inflated with air.

I assume it’s way better than getting a replacement fridge, especially considering the electronics and maybe the coolant gas (I don’t know if that’s still an issue).

I wouldn’t be surprised if the electricity saved alone offsets the environment damage (assuming not fully green power used to run the fridge).

It’s not any snake, but some species that are adapted to living on trees. It’s also not really flying. Gliding would describe what they do better. As they jump, they flatten their body and make slither movements through the air, gliding maybe at a 45 angle downwards.

I wish I had been old enough during the time we could’ve still made changes to make a difference.

Why? When you cared back then the frustration must have been at least the same it is now. The hope might have been bigger, but at the same time, you would have been part of a very small minority. And I think it would have been hard to endure that almost nobody you know thinks similarly. You might have been the only doomer they know. And how fast we manage to screw up our planet, you would have likely gotten old enough to come to the same conclusion you came to now: we won’t make it.

I assume that the submarine producer gives stats like empty weight from which the current weight can be calculated.

However, weight isn’t the important thing in a sub. It’s the weight to volume ratio, or buoyancy.

A sub sinks when buoyancy is negative and rises if the buoyancy is positive.

There are three common ways to achieve the changing buoyancy: the most simple one is a vessel with positive buoyancy adding droppable weights until the buoyancy is negative.

Other ways are a neutral buoyancy vessel that uses it’s engine power to push itself up or down. Or a vessel that can change it’s buoyancy by filling up tanks with water (to reduce buoyancy below neutral) and blow them out with air or other gases lighter than water (to raise buoyancy above neutral). A combination of several methods is also possible.

As always I will keep reading about every year’s COP. However, by now my expectation is, that there won’t be much, if anything at all, that I need to know about the COP.

Aren’t these changes, because there are just have bones to look at, so skin properties etc are a guessing game?

But how did that jaw bone double in length in 2001? Was the skull a missing part until then?

Sorry, I am not from the US. So this guy consumed porn. And what? Relax people!

Might sound weird to prude people, but most politicians had sex before! Some may have kinks! Why do people care about other people’s sex life, if they aren’t attracted to them?

And what has this to do with a community called politics? I don’t get it.

Edit: wow, many replies! Thank you all for educating. If this man is saying people shouldn’t consume porn, then yes, you are all right and it’s a controversy that makes sense to shine some light on. I didn’t think about that.

As I understood it, the dashed line is just the 35°C wet bulb temperature line.

I think it’s the “old assumed border of survivability” and don’t know if it is based solely on mathematics or on other experiments as well.

I also don’t know on how many individuals the new line is based and what age group the older people one is.

The article is about an experiment, where people are exposed to 35°C wet bulb temperatures, but in different settings. Sometimes lower temperatures but higher humidity, sometimes vise versa, but always 35°C wet bulb temperature.

So far the assumption was, that humans can’t survive a 35°C wet bulb temperature for longer than 6 hours. And at current warming this is unlikely to be naturally the case within this century.

However the experiment gives hints to believe that humans can’t survive at lower wet bulb temperatures either. It looks like with lower temperatures and higher humidity, humans can get very close to that 35°C wet bulb temperature, however people seem to struggle more with higher temperatures and lower humidity.

A possible explanation could be, that while more sweat evaporates in lower humidity, the body has a limit for how much sweat it can produce. And if you keep raising the temperature, that the human body simply can’t produce enough sweat to cool itself.

That’s pretty much what I took away from the article. They mentioned they experiment with several people, however the article was mainly about on person in the experiment, a 30ish year old, athletic male.

Edit: add some graphs from the article. Sorry for low quality, but as you said, the layout is quite atrocious and on my phone it keeps jumping around on it’s own, so I lost patience.

Uh, damn! I had the impression that a lot of governments around the world rely on the theory that talk is enough!

If it had a stable orbit before and then slowed down, I thought it’ll get a more elliptical orbit, being both closer and further, or fall into Earth.

My logic was that a stable orbit closer to the center needs higher speeds to counter higher gravity and vice versa.

So if the moon would get hit in a way that makes it slow down and get pushed further away from Earth at the same time, it could keep a roundish orbit, or not?

What’s with that specific timeframe? Is it due to the orbit never being perfect? Or random slight influences from other not too far, heavy objects?

Thanks for the explanation, the moon being a little fast for it’s orbit and therefore slowly spiraling out of Earths gravity makes sense to me now.

It would not, though. I assume your glasses to have a larger surface than your eyes. Additionally, eyelash do are real good job in filtering the air in front of your eye.

Source: was wearing glasses for 25 years before I got my eyes fixed 7 years ago.