Climate Change: How to turn the Earth into Venus, redux.

Big Phoenix

Baron of the Realm
16,363
24d 3h 2m
Reactions
13,049 1,475 0 0
Uhh it looks like its just a wind turbine that powers a refrigeration unit.
 

Aaron

<Donors Crew>
3,515
10d 6h 25m
Reactions
3,299 273 0 0
Surprisingly little has been posted on these boards about the latest Climate Change report released about a week ago. Both the local news, and my FB have been "woke" about this these past few days. I find it especially amusing seeing some of my FB friends talk about how everyone needs to "do their part" to combat this by walking or biking to work, eating less meat and shit like this, while their same FB profiles are full of pictures they take of themselves during their 2-4 annual vacations abroad. Considering each one of those flights leaves a larger carbon footprint than my entire non-vacationing abroad lifestyle does, I can't help but laugh.

Someone actually mentioned the impact of flight and tourism in one of the threads. The reactions were laughable. God what a shit show.
 

Himeo

Trakanon Raider
3,085
Reactions
2,492 729 0 0
One flight across the Atlantic has a larger carbon footprint than 5,000 Westerners do for a year.

Man made climate change is probably bullshit. Twelve thousand years ago Chicago was under a mile of ice. We didn't change that shit. It's probably variations of the temperature of the sun.
 

gshurik

<Donors Crew>
1,829
7d 18h 9m
Reactions
2,734 974 0 0
Trump: Climate scientists have 'agenda'

"US President Donald Trump has accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda" as he cast doubt on whether humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.
But Mr Trump also said he no longer believed climate change was a hoax."
 

sadris

<Donors Crew>
13,560
40d 3h 17m
Reactions
46,327 3,889 0 0
Surprisingly little has been posted on these boards about the latest Climate Change report released about a week ago. Both the local news, and my FB have been "woke" about this these past few days. I find it especially amusing seeing some of my FB friends talk about how everyone needs to "do their part" to combat this by walking or biking to work, eating less meat and shit like this, while their same FB profiles are full of pictures they take of themselves during their 2-4 annual vacations abroad. Considering each one of those flights leaves a larger carbon footprint than my entire non-vacationing abroad lifestyle does, I can't help but laugh.

Someone actually mentioned the impact of flight and tourism in one of the threads. The reactions were laughable. God what a shit show.
world's 15 largest shipping tankers account for more pollution than all cars on the planet combined.
 

Wingz

Being Poor Sucks.
<Donors Crew>
3,942
9d 5h 39m
Reactions
14,380 767 0 0
When I was growing up it was all about the "Ozone hole" then it moved to global warming and now climate change.

Looks like the ozone hole is healing itself as it were....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html

The decline in CFCs in our atmosphere as a result of those measures now mean the ozone layer is expected to have fully recovered sometime in the 2060s, according to the report by the UN Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, European Commission and other bodies.
In parts of the stratosphere, where most of the ozone is found, the layer has recovered at a rate of 1-3% per decade since 2000, the authors state.
 

koadic

Knight of the Realm
8
1d 3h 2m
Reactions
2 2 0 0
When I was growing up it was all about the "Ozone hole" then it moved to global warming and now climate change.

Looks like the ozone hole is healing itself as it were....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/health/ozone-healing-scli-intl/index.html
Your post appears to have the intention to lead people to think that the ozone hole is healing itself while the article you quote mentions that it is by a the result of a global ban (a human intervention) on CFCs that was instituted under the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Now you can believe whatever the hell you want, just do us the favor of linking to an article that supports your thought, not one that potentially undermines it :)
 

Wingz

Being Poor Sucks.
<Donors Crew>
3,942
9d 5h 39m
Reactions
14,380 767 0 0
Your post appears to have the intention to lead people to think that the ozone hole is healing itself while the article you quote mentions that it is by a the result of a global ban (a human intervention) on CFCs that was instituted under the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Now you can believe whatever the hell you want, just do us the favor of linking to an article that supports your thought, not one that potentially undermines it :)
I quoted the article at that key point.

The decline in CFCs in our atmosphere as a result of those measures now mean the ozone layer is expected to have fully recovered sometime in the 2060s, according to the report by the UN Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, European Commission and other bodies.
In parts of the stratosphere, where most of the ozone is found, the layer has recovered at a rate of 1-3% per decade since 2000, the authors state.

So it is healing itself. If that's due to the lessened amount of CFC's as it states that 's just fine or if it would've happened naturally despite anything else, that's fine too.
 

1987

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,315
8d 19h 35m
Reactions
439 36 0 0
I quoted the article at that key point.

The decline in CFCs in our atmosphere as a result of those measures now mean the ozone layer is expected to have fully recovered sometime in the 2060s, according to the report by the UN Environment Programme, World Meteorological Organization, European Commission and other bodies.
In parts of the stratosphere, where most of the ozone is found, the layer has recovered at a rate of 1-3% per decade since 2000, the authors state.

So it is healing itself. If that's due to the lessened amount of CFC's as it states that 's just fine or if it would've happened naturally despite anything else, that's fine too.
1-3% per decade since 2000 seems like a small sample set. That could mean 2% in 18 years.