Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
5028 messages in 114 discussions
Latest 4/29/21 by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
17250 messages in 761 discussions
Latest Sep-28 by CamGeary
Latest Sep-27 by ElDotardo
Latest Sep-8 by OSarge (mahjong54)
Latest Sep-7 by OSarge (mahjong54)
4885 messages in 208 discussions
Latest Sep-26 by PTG (anotherPTG)
744 messages in 13 discussions
Latest Sep-7 by ElDotardo
It's difficult to convey how oppressive Delhi's air pollution is.
Morning visibility is a couple of hundred metres. Through the eerie filtered light, figures emerge from and disappear into the gloom.
Some wear masks or handkerchiefs, most blithely dismiss the apocalyptic atmosphere, shrugging it off as "just fog".
Except it isn't.
Last Wednesday, central New Delhi's count of harmful PM2.5 particles exceeded a staggering 1,000 on the US EPA's air quality index. To put that in perspective, the highest rating, "hazardous to human health — do not go outside", is reserved for readings between 300 and 500.
Delhi was off the scale, twice.
Following angry protests several years ago, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang declared "war" on pollution, fearing worsening air could spark wider community unrest.
He ordered crackdowns on factories and power plants flouting rarely-enforced regulations.
According to Greenpeace, it's working.
Last year, the environmental group examined a decade of satellite particulate matter measurements, concluding "China's systematic efforts to combat air pollution have achieved an impressive improvement in average air quality".
India generally dislikes comparisons to rival China, and Greenpeace's findings didn't make for happy reading in Delhi.
"From 2011 to 2015, China has made big strides while in India, pollution levels have kept rising," the report noted.
Why? Because Delhiites' seasonal outrage rarely outlasts their social media posts, and the country's politicians know it.Meanwhile in states surrounding Delhi, illega
Time is running out to prevent a global environmental collapse — that's the stark warning 15,364 of the world's leading climate scientists have sent out.
Scientists from 180 countries, many in the developing world, put their names to the journal article published today in Bioscience, which also predicted temperature rises and unpredictable weather patterns that would cause widespread misery.
But the paper also noted it was not too late for governments to do something about it.
The number is believed to be the largest group of scientists to have ever put their names to a research paper focused on climate change.
One of the key authors of the paper, Bill Laurance, a research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, said this was the first time he had ever seen such a letter get sent out.
The paper focused on a number of issues, including the depletion of oceans, deforestation, endangered species and extinct species numbers, fresh water pollution and urban liveability.
It found the amount of fresh water available per capita has reduced by a quarter and almost 300 million acres of forests have been lost since 1960, while the human population has risen by a third.
"All kinds of instances of liveability of the planet," he said.
"It's far more than just climate change, although that's certainly a critical part."
The paper has depicted a bleak future world ravaged by climate change, a world characterised by human misery.
It called for population growth to be limited and for governments to stop focusing solely on economic growth.
I do not waste time arguing about "climate change", which used to be "global warming".
Climate, weather, change, hot, cold, ice age, volcanoes have been happening for hundreds of million years. I guess dinosaur farts caused the ice age?
To think that man can actually change/effect global weather is beyond preposterous. As we say in Philly, fuggedabowdit.
What possible effect could ONE species have on the ecosystem of an entire planet?
Twenty countries including Britain, Canada and New Zealand have joined an international alliance to phase out coal from power generation before 2030.
The Powering Past Coal Alliance was unveiled at the COP23 climate talks in Bonn, Germany, which were working out the technical details of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
"I think we can safely say that the response has been overwhelming," Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said.
"There is so much momentum, there is so much ambition in this room."
The alliance, which isn't legally binding, was launched days after a pro-coal presentation by the Trump administration jarred with many ministers who wanted the talks to focus on cleaner energy sources.
Australia isn't part of the alliance, which also doesn't include some of the world's biggest coal users China, India, the United States, Germany and Russia.
Coal is responsible for more than 40 per cent of global emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
I trust the news source, John.
I know you now see FAKE NEWS everywhere, but no.
It's just The News.
While much focus is placed on human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, research from teams around the world suggests plants could be contributing up to 11 times as much.
A study involving the Australian National University, Western Sydney University, and centres around the world has found plants release more carbon dioxide through their respiration than previously thought.
And what is more, as global temperatures rise, scientists say the output of carbon dioxide by plants will accelerate.
During daylight hours, plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen through photosynthesis, however plants also release carbon dioxide through respiration.
ANU researcher Owen Atkin said plant respiration was previously thought to account for five to eight times the carbon compared to human activity.
However the new findings suggested that number could be much higher.
"Each year the burning of fossil fuels releases around 5 to 8 billion tons of carbon … so the respiration by plants is somewhere approaching 11 times that in our new estimate," he said.
"That's an enormous flux.
"What will happen in the future will be that those rates of carbon released by plants will increase as the world gets warmer, and it will have an impact on how much carbon is stored in vegetation, how much accumulates in the atmosphere in the future."
The study examined about 1,000 plant species in a range of climate extremes, to determine how much carbon dioxide is released in various scenarios.
"This will have fairly substantial implications for our ability to model carbon flows between landscapes and the atmosphere, and ultimately how much carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere," Professor Atkin said.
Researchers said plants could also see a declining ability to absorb carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and that carbon flow models and budget projections would need to be altered in response to the findings.
Great... Now I have to become vegetarian!