Such a sad little boy. That’s all you can come up with vs worse language skills and treason, unprecedented massive vote frauds, and a failed coup? 😂

Edit: You are such a constant waste of my research time….He actually said “I was in the foot-Hima…foot, excuse me…foothills of the Himalayas with Xi Xing Ping….he combined foothills and Himalayas once then stuttered the word “foothills” and instantly correctly pronounced it afterwards. Such blatant quick edit to make it sound like gibberish when, as expected, seen as the whole video it barely registers as a stutter. More dishonest kindergarten level silliness, all you’ve ever had against Biden. 🤦‍♂️
15:26 into his speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqNtQ6c_HAU

Biden has a long term diagnosed speech impediment you LOVE to ridicule, making you an infant and douchebag that laughs at people’s disabilities, even the most successful people who overcame those disabilities to levels you could never dream of reaching….

…Trump has a severe brain impediment you LOVE to ignore completely. He stares into the sun, suggests mainlining bleach, says Washington “took over airports”, publicly brags about having sex with his daughter, draws hurricane projections in sharpie and thinks it looks like an official weather map, wonders about the oranges, oranges, the oranges of the investigation, can’t say “yesterday”… And on top of thousands of examples of him being utterly brainless, he reads, writes, and speaks gibberish and you lap it up.
He also has a morals and an ethics impediment, but I’ll stick to ridiculing his words.
Trump was president Jimmy Wichard (also accused of frying his brain by staring into the sun, but it’s kind of a chicken and egg thing). YOU think that makes him a genius.



Covfefe.
Go sell it on Troth Senchel, those morons will believe anything
🤦‍♂️ 😂

I guess there was no danger driving on a road like that, as you can tell by everyone in the video. Not one of those people in the truck seemed to give a fuck. Just another day driving in the Himalayas.

HAL Tejas (LCA) Over Himalayas AMAZING SCENERY has been added as a related post - related requested by chicchorea on that post.

*ban1.0
DefenceExclusive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fllNrHss64Q

*related=http://videosift.com/video/HAL-Tejas-LCA-Over-Himalayas-AMAZING-SCENERY
*ban2.0
DefenceExclusive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M85dFa_Rfs4

Realistically recreating human consciousness - along with every event in the universe - is no small task.

It would require:

- quantum computing
- a data storage room the size of texas (if not all north america)
- easily more energy than is consumed by the entire planet in a year

So stating - "only one person would need to experience that simulation"..

..is like saying - "you would only need one person",

to recreate the Great Wall & Pyramids & Grand Canyon & Himalayas, etcetera..

Sure, I guess. But the amount of time & energy make it extremely improbable.

..Much more likely the civilization would collapse first.

The guy even concedes that point multiple times.

@newtboy

#1 and #2, fine, if you won't go there to read it's now pasted in full for you:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear. Here, we present measurements of rates of methane consumption in different vegetation types within the Zackenberg Valley in northeast Greenland over a full growing season. Field measurements show methane uptake in all non-water-saturated landforms studied, with seasonal averages of − 8.3 ± 3.7 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in dry tundra and − 3.1 ± 1.6 μmol CH4 m−2 h−1 in moist tundra. The fluxes were sensitive to temperature, with methane uptake increasing with increasing temperatures. We extrapolate our measurements and published measurements from wetlands with the help of remote-sensing land-cover classification using nine Landsat scenes. We conclude that the ice-free area of northeast Greenland acts as a net sink of atmospheric methane, and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under future warmer climatic conditions.

#3, regardless of if it make's sense to you, and regardless of if it means a 10C warming by 2100, the IPCC scientists collaborative summary says it anyways. If you want to claim otherwise it's you opposing the science to make things seem worse than they are, not me.

#4, To tell them those things would sound like this. The IPCC current best estimates from climate models project 2100 to be 1.5C warmer than 2000. This has already resulted in 2000 being 0.8C warmer than 1900. Summer arctic sea ice extent has retreating significantly is the biggest current impact. By 2100 it is deemed extremely unlikely that the Greenland and Antarctic iccesheets will have meaningfully reduced and there is medium confidence that the warming will actually expand Antarctic ice cover owing to increased precipitation from the region. That's the results and expectations to be passed on from the 5th report from an international collaboration of scientists. Whether that fits your world view or not doesn't matter to the scientific evidence those views are founded on and supported by.

You said the ocean's may be unfishable in 20 years, and the best support you came up with was a news article quote claiming that by 2040 most of the Arctic would be too acidic for Shell forming fish. Cherry picked by the news article that also earlier noted that was dependent on CO2 concentrations exceeding 1000ppm in 2100, and even that some forms of plankton under study actually faired better in higher acidity in some case. In a news article that also noted that the uneven distribution of acidity makes predicting the effects very challenging. If news articles count as evidence I then want to claim we'll have working fusion power to convert to in 5 years time from Lockheed Martin. I'll agree with your news post on one count, the world they talk about, where CO2 emissions continue accelerating year on year, even by 2100, is bad. It's also a bit hard to fathom with electric cars just around the corner, and if not solar and wind, fusion sometime before then too, that we'll still be using anywhere near today's emissions let alone still accelerating our use.

by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
And you link to a blog, and a blog that provides exactly zero references to any scientific sources for the claim. Better yet, even the blog does NOT claim that the access to water will be limited because of climate change, the blog even mentions multiple times how other forms of pollution are destroying huge amounts of fresh water(again with zero attributions).

Here's the IPCC best estimates for 2100 impacts regionally:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter14_FINAL.pdf

You'll find it's a largely mixed bag if you can be bothered to read what the actual scientists are predicting. Just bare in mind they regularly note that climate models still have a lot of challenges with accurate regional estimates. I guess your blogger isn't hindered by such problems though. If you don't want to bother I'll summarize for you and note they observe a mixed bag of increased precipitation in some regions, notably monsoons generally increasing, and other areas lowering, but it's all no higher than at medium confidences. But hey, why should uncertainty about 2100 prevent us from panicking today about more than half the world losing their drinking water in 10 years. I'll make you a deal, in ten years we can come back to this thread and see whether or not climate change has cause 2/3 of the world to lose their drinking water already or not. I'm pretty confident on this one.

Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
Lost 50% since 2005? That'd be scary, oh wait, you heard that from the same blog you say? I've got a hunch maybe they aren't being straight with you...
Here are a pair of links I found in google scholar to scientific articles on the Himalaya's glaciers:
http://cires1.colorado.edu/~braup/himalaya/Science13Nov2009.pdf
I you can't be bothered to read:
Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Riana, whose report notes that the glacier has "not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years" Which looks likely that your blogger found a popular press piece about that single glacier and then went off as though it were fact, and across the entire mountain range .

http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/glaciers%20and%20climate.pdf
Here's another article noting that since 1962 Himalayan glacier reduction is actually about 21%.

If you go back and read the IPCC links I gave earlier you can also find many of the regional rivers and glaciers in India/East China are very dependent on monsoons and will persist as long as monsoons do. Which the IPCC additionally notes are expected to, on the whole, actually increase through 2100 warming.

I've stated before up thread that things are warming and we are the major contribution, but merely differed from your position be also observing the best evidence science has for predictions isn't catastrophic. That is compounded by high uncertainties, notably that TOA energy levels are still not able to be predicted well. The good news there is the latest IPCC estimated temps exceed the observed trends of both temperature and TOA imbalance, so there's reason for optimism. That's obviously not license for recklessly carrying on our merry way, as I've noted a couple times already about roads away from emissions that we are going to adopt one way or another long before 2100.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

I didn't say any such thing.
A large percentage of farm land is going to be lost by displaced people and lack of water.
A large percentage of people, those who live less than 1 foot above sea level will be displaced.
Just wow, you think we can build dykes around Florida? New Orleans is not the only low lying city in the world, you know.
We would have to start from scratch. The tech is abandoned, there's not a concord to get on no matter how much you pay, nor is there a rocket that can make it to the moon, no matter how much funding you throw at NASA, just plain old gone. We would have to start from scratch again. We're trying to use 40+ year old Russian rockets just to go to the space station, we can't even get there on our own, how do you assume we can just go back to the moon?

Food production where it's needed is the issue. The men with guns are also an issue, but even without them there's simply not enough food where people are starving. I'm not talking about instances where dictators starved their people intentionally, I'm talking about the billions of people who are lacking food because of either economic or climate pressures, or often both. If people in Africa could grow their own food, the men with guns could not stop them from eating, but no water, no fertilizer, and no seed make that impossible. We do NOT have 'more than enough food', we may have near exactly enough food if it were perfectly distributed throughout the world (accounting for spoilage, probably not though). Perfect distribution is impossible, so there's not enough food. Period.
Another reason Africa has massive crop failures is lack of water. It's a much larger reason than displacement, not smaller.

CO2 emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented. If you implement enough new tech to reduce emissions, the new industry will be more productive, create more jobs, and be better for the economy than 'staying the course' and giving it all to Texaco.
My point. No matter what we do, we are likely going to see the same climate changes through the next 100 years, it takes at least that long for the gasses to be absorbed.

Dude, did you read the link you posted? It said one glacier is stable, the rest are melting FAST. One glacier will not keep India, Tibet, Bhutan, Pakistan, etc wet, nor will it supply any other area that survives on glacier water. They showed that only one odd, incredibly high glacier was stable(they mentioned it's on K2, the highest mountain in the world, so don't even try to say there are lots more stable glaciers around the world, from what they said it's only this ONE mountain range, in the tippy top of the Himalayas, that's high enough and in the right weather pattern to be stable.)

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

Your video, Insane Himalayas Bus Ride - not for the faint hearted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'climbing, awesome, himalayas, highest' to 'everest, roof of the world, climbing, awesome, himalayas, highest' - edited by kulpims

So I looked it up and Paro Airport (VQPR) has a single instrument approach, a VOR/DME approach. The airport itself is at 6500ft and surrounded by 16kft mountains. The "hills" in the video are around 5k'ft, significant enough to worry about spiraling updrafts. The terrain itself makes "safe minimum" approach impossible, safe min is an industry standard for the min and max speeds, bank and rotation angles, and decent rate...there are more, but those ones specifically HAVE to be violated to make a landing at this airport. That means, every landing violates the minimum industry standard for what constitutes a safe landing. The flight path takes in you in parallel to the Himalayas, which must be a sight to see. going to load up the simulator and see if I can make it in a medium size jet.

And if you think landing is bad, check out the takeoff table

That would make India a separate continent from Asia since it's still connected to a subducting oceanic plate under Asia! Hence the continuing collision and the Himalayas. Even Geologic plate boundaries gets squirrely since there are micro-plates. And also, there are no "continental plates," rather continental parts of plates. All plates are composed of oceanic and continental crust.

By the way, this guy is WAY off base in terms of geology.. Nothing in the Pacific Ocean?? There are two types of crust, defined by lithology (rock type): Oceanic crust (dense dark basalt) and continental crust (not-dense light-colored granite). The Pacific Ocean is underlain by oceanic crust, which because of it's higher density always sinks beneath continental crust when they run into each other. That's why the age of the continents is ~4.4 billion years old while the oldest oceanic crust is something like 200 million years old.

Anyways, you could definitely divide the continents based on their modern tectonic boundaries where each continent is part of a separate plate from any others. That would give you ~9 continents, but then you run into the micro-plate issue..

>> ^Hive13:

I always understood that a continent was defined by continental plates with significant landmass. I was always under the impression that there were 6 continents despite what Europe selfishly tries to do.
Get over yourselves Europe......you aren't continental, but you are awesome.

There's a documentary about Joe called "Let's Rock Again" by Dick Rude and in it, I sense a real sadness within Joe as he tries to get his new band and new record heard. He even stood on the street handing flyers to passersby and I'm thinking: he really shouldn't have to do that, right? There's another scene where he gets an on-air interview with this douchebag radio DJ who only wants to talk about the armadillo in the Rock the Casbah video. I really wanted to punch that fuck for not being more respectful.

Anyway, I miss you Joe.

Bass playahs in the Himalayas...

In the beginning there was a fountain
But it wasn't just any fountain
It was a fountain of light
It was a fountain of truth
It was a fountain of dreams
It was a fountain of youth

It was a magic fountain

And we were never told
That the fountain was a trophy for the kingdoms of old
A treasure a plaything a Trojan in disguise
And in the last great war the secret burned up in the fire
So the peasants stormed mountain tops pretending to be king
While the king sailed off in their balloons pursuing idle things
? Hit the Himalayas in the night

It was a magic fountain

And so it was some motley crew who found it in the night
One of them a lunatic told me of his plight
One dived to the left of him two went to the right
But he remained he said he saw he said he saw the light

And it was magic fountain
Magic fountain