*doublepromote someone else finally noticing global dimming as a significant factor in global warming.

Global dimming from excess sulfur dioxide may be responsible for cutting the current excess anthropogenic heat in the system by between 15% to 50% depending on the study.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/what-is-solar-geoengineering-sunlight-reflection-risks-and-benefits.html
What this means is, if we stop polluting tomorrow, the CO2 and other greenhouse gases will continue to warm us at the same rate for decades to centuries, but the sulfur dioxide that has blocked between .25 to 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise will be gone almost immediately, and a significant sudden rise in temp will be the result kicking off or feeding more feedback loops.

While it may seem he’s onto some global warming solution…just put more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere…that ignores the lower growth rates and lost solar production it causes by deflecting a significant percentage of sunlight, both adding to net CO2 added to the system.
The incredibly scary part is the whitehouse and other international governments are actively researching ways to inject sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere despite knowing it has so many issues.

There’s no easy fix.

I hate it when the uneducated try to explain a complex issue and do a piss poor job of it. Is PFAS a problem? Sure. Are ALL PFAS compounds a problem with regards to their toxicity? No. The small molecule species are problematic because of mobility. The polymeric species are stable as fuck, that's why they were invented and why we use them as seals and barrier layers to isolate corrosive liquids and gases, and why we use them in such things as medical implants. The polymers excel because they are inert and largely unreactive. So - are they all bad? No. Are they all good? No. But it's too late - the fuckwits like Oliver have fueled the Emotional Response bus, and society won't stand for outdated concepts like scientific investigation or rational thought. Eight member countries of the EU are presently on track to restrict or ban all PFAS in any form, sweeping all compounds into the same category with no differentiation between a water soluble perfluorinated molecule like perfluorinated PVME and a one million molecular weight PTFE polymer. If it has a -CF2- moiety in it, it's subject to being banned. Good science doesn't matter any more, the knee-jerk fear mongerers are now making the decisions.

Such nonsense.
Biden did not approve, nor is he helping build this pipeline. He chose to not sanction one Swiss company helping build the last 90 miles, but is still sanctioning Russian companies involved, and is likely to block it's certification and insurance (by banning any insurer from using international or US banking) without guarantees the Ukrainian pipeline won't be abandoned.
He decided not making Germany go dark was a better plan, not alienating a long term ally and strategic partner that we are trying to repair our severely damaged relationship with.
He also decided putting Russia in bed with the Chinese, their other option for selling their gas, was not a smart move.
He is clear, he is against this pipeline and is still sanctioning many Russian companies involved in it's construction.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/18/politics/us-nord-stream-decision/index.html

Those grapes must be really sour today @bobknight33, they've got your yummy tears flowing like a firehose....keep em coming. So yummy, you guys.

Edit: I'm curious why America SHOULD hold veto power over international projects approved by all involved countries on other continents. Should we stop pipelines because Putin says so? He could stop hacking them and just tell us to quit. It seems ridiculous that we are telling Germany they can't have more natural gas, and telling Russia they can't sell it.
For clarification, I'm against it for ecological reasons, yes gas produces less CO2 than coal and oil, but produces way more methane which is >25 times more destructive per molecule in the short term. 11 billion could have built any number of wave/tidal generation facilities that run 24/7 without a new source of greenhouse gases.

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

What a disgusting piece of shit and outright liar.
Her achievements already outweigh his by miles...he's only managed to get himself kicked off Fox, impressively hard to do if you're right wing. Fox has apologized for his disgraceful ad hominem attacks against a child who he couldn't factually contradict....but Laura Ingram has also personally attacked her on her show, as has Trump on Twitter.

Being on the autism spectrum, she says she has aspergers, is a developmental disorder NOT a mental illness.
Being a pathological liar, that's a mental illness apparently now shared by an entire political party.
Being a fecal golem is a personality disorder he clearly has in spades.

The Carnegie Mellon study he sites said no such thing, and it's authors have stated that it's a total misrepresentation of their findings....repeatedly.
The study actually said certain produce at it's worst might be more ecologically harmful per calorie than some kinds of white meat eating by comparing things like bacon vs lettuce on a calorie to calorie instead of serving to serving rate, so 4 strips of bacon were compared to > 40 cups of lettuce. Get real.
To compound the confusion they chose a calorie poor produce like lettuce with high greenhouse gas emissions instead of kale, broccoli, rice, potatoes, spinach and wheat (just to name a few) which all rank lower than pork in terms of greenhouse gases.
The same argument holds for water usage...they chose lettuce, with high water requirements, instead of things like corn, peanuts, carrots and wheat which all use less water than all non-seafood meat.
It's also assumed the produce will be wasted at exponentially higher rates than meat, which can be preserved more easily. That may be true, but they don't include the preservatives or energy to refrigerate and/or freeze meat on the bacon side of the equation.

Of course the lettuce takes more resources if you eat 40+ cups instead of 4 thin bacon strips, just like when you compare a single fish stick to several giant pumpkins.

*rant over*

Why is the junk science of chiropractic still a thing? It's like homeopathy.

Any "medical procedure" that claims to rid the body of cancers by causing gases to forcibly be extracted from cartilage is the worst form of snake oil.

Look for flashover videos too.
Nothing like seeing the fire on one side of the room and you think your safe, to get to the exit but the superheated gases travelling along the ceiling over your head dip down and ignite the opposite side of the room on fire.

I'm torn by our pulling out of Paris. I think it's critical that we all cooperate to reduce our Co2 emissions. But I also understand that at least what China offered (not) to do is the single biggest factor in our future success (failure).

Their "reductions" are tied to points of GDP compared to 2005 levels, meaning that they can either reduce their emissions, or grow their economy faster than their emissions grow. The latter is what is happening.

Their contribution is to try to have their reliance on coal "peak" by or prior to 2030. At the moment, they are emitting over 30% of the world's Co2, with the US at about 17%. But even when and if China's Co2 emissions peak, they almost certainly won't fall...they will plateau. As we speak, China is building dozens of new coal-fired power plants...and these new plants, along with those already built, have life spans of at least 50 years. So when you hear talk of China's already reducing their emissions, they aren't speaking of real reductions, rather lowered percentages as a ratio of growing GDP. For example, China emitted over 5,800,000 kilotons of Co2 in 2005, and 10,600,000 kilotons in 2015. Yet China's nominal GDP was only US$2.3 trillion in 2005, and a whopping US$11.1 trillion in 2015. So as a ratio of GDP, China's emissions appear to have decreased. The opposite is true, and they'll continue this farce for as long as possible. Now, some will answer with things such as:

A. But America pollutes more per capita!
B. But China deserves to have a per capita GDP that rivals that of the US!
C. You should be comparing GDP per capita or PPP!

To which I answer...our planet's climate and environments don't give a damn about these abstractions. What matters is the TOTAL amount of greenhouse gases being emitted.

So, I guess we won't keep warming under two degrees Celsius. Because it's more important that China's per capita GDP of about US$8,000 grows to match the US$56,000 of the US. In effect, if populations stayed the same, and the US economy stagnated...we'd need to wait for China's nominal GDP to grow to US$77.7 trillion compared to the US's $17 trillion.

Let me just add that if China were allowed to grow that powerful, polluting all the while, then the free nations of our planet would have graver problems than climate change.

You may think that China is a poor country without the current means to effect a major transition. To which I'll answer that their government and state-run corporations could stop buying foreign businesses and real estate, as well as not building more missiles, planes, rockets, blue-water navies, and man-made islands...and perhaps put those funds toward an honest shift toward green energy.

*related https://videosift.com/video/Climatologist-Emotional-Over-Arctic-Methane-Hydrate-Release

It likely is too late, as soon as these short-lived but potent gases are released it will get unpleasant very quickly. I know dumping iron in the ocean to stimulate algae growth which then sinks as acts as a carbon sink has been discussed. Also, spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere constantly can decrease warming, but that doesn't reduce the CO2.

Skip the beef, and save the reef :-)
Choose the bean pattie instead.

"Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.


Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs and chickens?". WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. "Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases". Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. "A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It". Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)"

It's like the doctors have given you second and third opinions and told you your liver is failing, you have to stop drinking or you'll die. You won't die the next time you have a beer, but every beer takes you farther over the edge. You can say the bartender who knows this is blameless for serving you, because others gave you the alcohol that destroyed your liver and it took longer than one night, or you can work from now and realize that he's intentionally killing you in hopes of a tip before you stumble outside and keel over.
Working from today, our planet's liver is failing, there no transplant, and Trump just reopened the bar and is serving everclear. Chances are he can't accelerate things so much that Florida submerges in the next 3 1/2 years, that doesn't mean he can't make things be far worse, beyond the point of possible mitigation.

You may hold that theory, but climatologists disagree. We are past, but still near the tipping point, and every ton of CO2 takes us farther from a survivable rise. It's ridiculous to think that we're already past holding at 3.5 degrees global rise (edit: the maximum assumed to be survivable by civilization), so we might as well make it 5 degrees.

Island nations, people who live South of New Orleans, and millions of others are already being displaced. It only takes one high tide (edit: or one extended drought) to wipe out low lying farmland permanently, and erosion has become an unstoppable force.

Trump is moving towards raising the level of multiple greenhouse gases we produce, Obama had us lowering those levels. Time can only tell what that actually means in tonnage, but 180 degree turnaround is awful enough. I agree, we also didn't do enough under Obama.

? Reversible means it can be reversed, not that it's easy. I don't know where you get that idea. Irreversible in this context means sending the temperature trend the other way before civilization becomes unsustainable. Eventually the planet should normalize unless we really follow Trump's lead wholeheartedly, then we might go full Venus. There WAS a magic bullet, being responsible with our atmosphere, but we argued over climate change until it was useless.

If, before it reverses (which it may not do at all, btw) the planet becomes inhospitable to humans, then for humans, it's irreversible. In 4 years we can do enough damage to 1) make the effects longer and harsher enough to make long term survivability impossible and or 2) go beyond the next tipping point where feedback loops reinforce each other, leading to a Venus like runaway greenhouse effect. We're damn close to massive methane releases (already happening) and if we don't avoid that, nothing will save civilization.
All that said, Clinton probably wouldn't do enough to avoid disaster either, but at least she accepted the science and agreed we should make efforts to mitigate the coming damages.

I'm definitely a pessimist, mostly because I understand the systems and human nature, and so I think we're totally hosed as a species.

Idiot narrator/narration. The gases discharged there are dominantly sulfur dioxide - not hydrogen sulfide. There is a difference - and each has a different physiologic impact on human health. Clearly these people are being impacted by the sulfur dioxide...
These so-called science videos should really try harder to get their science correct.

You don't have to change your entire way of life, all you have to do is stop eating animal products - which account for 51% of Global Warming. http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

What does this mean? It means that even if the governments and technology could give us entirely sustainable electricity and transport, then global warming would still destroy the planet, because of the gases released from the 80+ billion farm animals raised each year.


The good news is though, that as individuals we have the power to save the world, with every meal.

Bon appetite, Planeteers: http://tinyurl.com/jfh5wfw

Water normally has some dissolved air in it, which is expelled and trapped when it's frozen leading to the white spots in the ice. To make clear ice you need to avoid the dissolved air being trapped in the ice.

One way to do this is to boil the water before freezing, which reduces the amount of dissolved gases.

What I think is happening here is that freezing only part of the water, and relatively slowly, lets the dissolved gases remain in the liquid part of the water.

After reading some more on the subject, this has been that way for many decades, possibly longer but the history is spotty further back. The CSIRO thinks it is possibly due to the nearness of a coal seam to the rifts and/or drought.

The recent fracking has drawn attention to it, with many locals claiming it has gotten worse since the fracking. Scientists are still researching it further to see if this is true.

I don't support fracking, but some of these reports usually are about things that were pre-existing due to the natural layout of the region. However, there are some cases where it is definitely a cause of the companies fracking in the area.

For instance, a recent study proved that drinking wells in Texas and Pennsylvania were affected by the fracking company not following the correct procedures. This led to the wells being contaminated with gas. They found that there were clear cases of substandard work that led to cracked steel and concrete in the casing of the drill sites. They said in the study that if the companies had followed the correct procedures, the contamination could have been easily prevented.

More on the wells - http://www.newsweek.com/fracking-wells-tainting-drinking-water-texas-and-pennsylvania-study-finds-270735

They probably should use the same method to check the origin of the noble gases in that river.