191–200 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you noticed how Tesla started electric cars, everybody laughed, and now they're the only way forward? But Tesla was super successful even though ICE cars still aren't banned.
But they're being phased out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. I think the 'science' is junk. I do think pollution is a the number one issue facing humanity, and we're doing nothing about it, because all of our collective energy is being directed at a red herring. Entire ecosystems are being destroyed by chemical and mining industries, not just ones used for batteries. We've polluted every water source on the planet.…
> I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. You can't just say that and not give a reason (unless "the science is junk" was the reasoning needed for any level-headed person to arrive at the same conclusion as you), at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Bit like saying that the sky being blue is just an optical illusion and it's really purple because the science on why it's blue being bog…
They can, because the purpose of the statement is to answer a question I asked about what people believe. There are other drivers of climate change, other seriously impactful greenhouse gases even. In light of their acknowledgment that pollution is humanity's biggest problem, and without more of an understanding of their specific beliefs, it's completely disingenous to compare what they're saying to "the sky is really purple".
On the science-being-junk point, the science on climate change is highly correlative and I don't blame someone for wanting to hold that science to a higher standard. (I understand the arguments why it's ok that the science is less classically scientific, I'm not trying to stake a position here, I don't care, please don't start a flame war with me)
And the rest of their comment is totally reasonable. Ecological collapse __is__ a much more complex and unambiguously serious problem which, depending on your view, is either a bigger risk than climate change or a superset of it. At least with climate change we have silver linings like a possible increase in arable land just as we're hit with a species-threatening rolling food crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. I think the 'science' is junk. I do think pollution is a the number one issue facing humanity, and we're doing nothing about it, because all of our collective energy is being directed at a red herring. Entire ecosystems are being destroyed by chemical and mining industries, not just ones used for batteries. We've polluted every water source on the planet.…
> I personally don't believe CO2 is a driver of climate change. You can't just say that and not give a reason (unless "the science is junk" was the reasoning needed for any level-headed person to arrive at the same conclusion as you), at least not if you want to be taken seriously. Bit like saying that the sky being blue is just an optical illusion and it's really purple because the science on why it's blue being bog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you release the same amount of methane per year for a couple dozen years, the methane reaches a steady state where it has a constant value, but CO2 continues to rise. This is because the methane is being converted to CO2 at a relatively quick clip. The timescale for CO2 is larger-- centuries.
Methane - CH4 - degrades to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A quick clip, however, it is not: it can take 20 years, during which that single carbon atom yields 20x the global warming potential as part of a methane molecule than it does as part of a carbon dioxide molecule.
Indeed, this means most of the warming you get from emitting a molecule of CH4 is after it has decayed to the more stable CO2. Of course, sharp increases in methane are of concern for dynamic effects, from things like permafrost thaw.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are nutrients and amino acids only found in meat. Where do you get the replacement for this, what does that process look like, are they even metabolically equivalent? Supplements are an easy solution, but I think what you're missing is that you don't necessarily need the massive amounts of those nutrients that is reflected by the meat industry. We certainly do not need to eat as much meat as the meat lobby wa…
Maybe things have changed but when I was a bit into weightlifting maybe a decade ago, common knowledge back then was that some forms of protein (ie amino acids mix of specific types and ratios) can't be realistically substituted by normally eating humans. I mean unless you want to prepare all your meals with scales. Its not about theory on paper, but what people actually eat on a given diet and how their body looks l…
uh...
> Its a fact that ie vegans lack: B12,
Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid clinical deficiency by eating foods fortified with B12, including plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals, and B12 supplements
> D3,
The vegan source of vitamin D3 comes from algae, produces the most body-ready form of vitamin D3, cholecalciferol.
> iron,
Plant sources of iron include lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, kale, dried apricots and figs, raisins, quinoa and fortified breakfast cereal.
> taurine,
Nori, the papery-like seaweed product used in making sushi, has up to 1,300 milligrams of taurine per 100 grams.
> creatine,
Supplements are sufficient.
> iodine,
Sea vegetables such as kelp, nori, kombu, wakame, and arame provide more than enough daily iodine. Common vegan thickeners such as carrageenan and agar-agar contain the mineral, too.
> calcium,
Sources of well-absorbed calcium for vegans include calcium-fortified soy milk and juice, calcium-set tofu, soybeans and soynuts, bok choy, broccoli, collards, Chinese cabbage, kale, mustard greens, and okra.
> zinc
Sources of zinc include beans, chickpeas, lentils, tofu, walnuts, cashew nuts, chia seeds, ground linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, wholemeal bread and quinoa.
> and have generally lower mineral bone density.
Vegans avoid lower BMD by consuming plenty of plant-based foods containing calcium and vitamin D.
Eating meat has its own health risks, including a higher risk of ischemic heart disease, pneumonia, diabetes, diverticular disease, colon polyps and colorectal cancer. On average, those who engage in regular consumption of meat (three or more times per week) experience more adverse health consequences compared to those who consume meat less regularly.
But the biggest problem with eating meat is that meat industry is responsible for a large share of global greenhouse gas emissions. It contributes not only to global warming but also causes direct environmental pollution. People who eat a lot of meat can make a significant difference in the climate crisis by reducing or quitting meat consumption altogether. Even substituting other meat for beef would considerably reduce greenhouse gas emission.
In conclusion, meat sucks. I'm not a vegan, but my biggest gripe is meat is shoved down everyone throats. Nearly single restaurant, at least on the east coast, pretty much only serves meat dishes. Becoming a vegan is difficult because meat is literally everywhere, and animal product is in nearly all food products in some form or other, and even a large number of non-food products.
And there is simply too much meat in the US. There is a cow for every 3.5 people. An average cow, including calves and adults, weighs more than 1000lbs and produces nearly 650lbs. of meat. That's roughly 185lbs. of meat for every man, woman and child in the US, which would take a year to consume eating a half a pound of meat every day.
It's too much. There's way, way too much meat, and it is hurting everyone, everywhere. So please, don't be so pro-meat. Eat less of it, much less. You'll live longer and healthier, and your sacrifice will benefit everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they're being phased out.
Did any ICE phaseouts start to happen prior to Tesla starting to deliver EVs that were just as good, though?
>> Electric tractors. Should have been here decades ago.
> Those sound like great ideas. How about we roll them out first,
> and only stop using fossil fuels once they're able to totally
> replace them with no downside
All these things are already here. Nuclear power is nothing new, renewable methods of generating energy are growing fast, and electric tractors are already on the market.
How expensive they are and how fast they are common does not depend only on the market, but also on the policies we have.
There are subsidies and policies in place to protect the status quo. Without demolishing the existing barriers of entry no progres can be made.
If we accept "cheap" energy from coal plans as standard, and wait for new miraculous technology to compete with subsidized coal energy on price, without any support, it simply won't (and didn't) happen.
But say you'll phase out coal plans, and almost miraculously the effort materializes and is redirected to new areas and new solutions are found.
Wait for it to happen on it's own, and only thing you'll get is cancer from the soot and scorched earth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Solar panels & batteries are also made of toxic material. Mining & the material breakdown of these materials spead these toxins to the land they are deployed on. Much of this material is also unethically mined. Children are coerced to mine some of this material. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. You may be able to downvote this comment but you cannot downvote reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scientists overestimated climate change and frequently still do by their own telling. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem Users beware: a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence. In recent studies, the “hot…
The second link is not an unpaywalled copy, it's "climate change isn't real" content that you're portraying as having been posted to Nature. This is not a constructive way to talk about the topic at hand (methane being the equivalent of 20x CO2 instead of 28x, at least if the submission isn't in error).
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-climate-scientist...
If you're claiming this material is "climate change isn't real" then look into who the authors are.
The topic at hand is climatologists changing their minds about basic variables despite decades of making predictions with 100% confidence. The fact that their latest models are totally unrealistic, by their own assessment, is further evidence that the science here is seriously flawed and subject to major revision, still.
This is exactly what the "deniers" have been saying - that the mathematical model is not fleshed out enough, and the data is not present in sufficiently accurate quantity, for the climate models to be accurate. This research shows that the mechanism of action was misunderstood all this time. What else hasn't been researched enough and has simplistic assumptions baked into the climate models? That shockingly simplisti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at the same level it was at this time of year in 1980, actually a little higher. Use Charctic to see for yourself: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-... Arctic sea ice extent is currently tracking the 2010-2020 average. Nothing much is happening in terms of Arctic sea ice extent at the moment and that's been true for a while. There has been a steady decl…
We have reliable measurements of Arctic snow cover that date back to the late 1960s when satellite observations of the Earth's surface began. The earliest satellite used for snow cover monitoring was the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) series, which was launched by the United States in 1960. In the early 1970s, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) launched the Advanced Very Hig…
Polar bears are doing fine, by the way.
https://polarbearscience.com/2023/02/23/published-field-stud...