I hope they use Kawai the whole way through the film, just like Akira, the sound is crucial to creating that atmosphere.

I agree, hard to get past "nuke-yoo-lar".

But also, I think more information is necessary to justify their claims about results of a hypothetical India vs Pakistan nuclear war with 100 warheads dropped "in anger" so to speak.

Google search suggests that there have been more than 2000 nuclear tests, 520 atmospheric, from 1945 to today. Would the increased particulate dust and debris from being fired on generally populated areas really be enough to make 100 of those warheads have a drastically greater effect than the 520 atmospheric tests that have already happened?

Seems possible, but I dunno. Expanding on that further would be interesting.

Vimeo description:
Atmospheric refraction plays with the light of any object near the horizon. Here stars, startrails and the sun, filmed in timelapse photography from two major observatories in Chile, display immense distortion above inversion layers in the outskirts of the Atacama desert, Chile. The moon scene is filmed near Boston at the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The mirage is an optical phenomenon in which light rays are refracted and bent in the atmosphere and produce distorted or multiple images of the object.

Absolute must watch movie!

It's scary because there aren't any jump scares, and no over-the-top gore.
Instead it builds up a thick atmosphere of dread and despair.

Well, to be fair, we don't have any real idea of the living conditions on planets in nearby systems that are roughly earth sized. We haven't been able to detect them until the last few years, and most of those are orbiting too close to the sun (because those are the easiest to detect), and getting any kind of real idea of their atmospheres is currently unavailable. There could be several systems with habitable planets within 30 ly, we just don't know yet. We are improving our capacity to detect these every year, so perhaps by the time we have colonized Mars, we should have a few viable extra-solar earthlike planetary candidates to send probes. Still would be another 50-100+ years after sending probes to receive back enough data to justify sending colonists. Hopefully by then our tech has matured enough to make it possible, and the war with Mars has settled down enough.

@newtboy
There's also absolutely no measure of the aquifer itself, how it moves, mixes, flows, etc. The system is mostly unmapped.

Fortunately that's not entirely true. If you go check out the wiki article, it has a lot of links on a lot of mapping that has been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer#Hydrology_and_Geology
Most relevant to trying to analyze things, the graphic below is a mapping of the normal water flow within the aquifer based off of testing from about 1,500 different locations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floridan_aquifer#/media/File:Estimated_transmissivity_of_the_Floridan_aquifer_sytem.png

The Mosaic leak occurred somewhere inland from Tampa as close as I can find, if you can narrow that down it'd help. On the map that looks like good news though because that region shows upwards of 100,000 m^3 of water flow per day. So very good mixing for the quantity of leak being discussed if it falls there.

And you didn't address the orange problem.
That's because there isn't one. Radon doesn't work like lead or mercury, it's a gas and doesn't build up in irrigation or the food chain. It bleeds off very fast, irrigation systems bleed it almost instantly into the atmosphere. In animals and meat bags like us, the references I've found suggest the average time from consumption to release is about an hour so we don't hold onto Radon long. Again reason for optimism imo.

Well, you're not German so clearly you wouldn't understand anything about the delicate balance of judeocarbons in our atmosphere that Bill Nye wants to destroy.

If you read my other reply two posts up, it's clear that I'm not left leaning.

Your linked slaughter statistics are for the USA alone, and as far as I know GLOBAL warming affects the whole globe....so we should count the global amount of farmed animals.

Your statistics also only count slaughtered animals, and not farmed animals like dairy cows, which there are more of at any one time. Around 9 billion dairy cows in the USA. So already in the US alone we have 13.9 billion farmed animals(4.9b slaughtered + 9b dairy cows). It's not hard to see worldwide that figure reaching 50 billion.
And that's still not counting a bunch of animals (read the small print of your link).

The thing with methane too, it traps over 29 times more heat that co2....and most trees don't absorb methane. So even if we had enough trees to absorb co2 (which we don't) then all of methane from farmed animals would remain up there anyway.


80% of tree's aren't gone, 80 % of forests are gone:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20much%20of%20the%20world%27s%20forests%20have%20been%20destroyed


How much renewable energy tax do you pay BTW? Where I live I pay $0. But the government does give some $4 billion of our tax money to the coal industry. So if anything the big tax scheme is from non-renewable.


EDIT:
Oh I forgot the most important bit. Scientists can tell between natural co2 and man-made co2. They have differing amounts of carbon. So it's actually really easy to tell between how much carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere vs naturally occurring carbon dioxide.


Also lions and bears are going to live in nature regardless of human activity - we've added 50 billion large, methane producing animals to the world that wouldn't be there otherwise. Granted the destruction of habitats might have reduced the lion and bear populations, but not by 50 billion. Perhaps a few million at most.

Basically, a Hyperloop tube is under the same pressure as a tube of sea-level air, 10m underwater. The difference from inside to outside is 1 atmosphere in both cases.

This is close to the underwater tunnel at the Georgia aquarium, and that's made out of plastic...

Not sure why he thinks this is so bizarre.

There have been some interesting suggestions to solving the methane hydrate issue, but the none are very realistic. The closest thing to a possible plan would be that we introduce particulate, natural or man made, into the atmosphere to partially block the solar heating cycle. That would seal the methane back into the permafrost and give us time to try to reverse the effects of climate change or find another method of neutralizing it.

That is the main issue. We don't have a way to remove the methane safely. Basically the situation is primed, we have a methane bubble that is going to happen at some point, there is no stopping that without removing the methane deposits in a safe fashion.

The simplest counter arguments to your dismissal are, 1) it's not a single degree, it's a number of degrees in a short time, releasing massive amounts of methane at once instead of over a few millennia. 2) it's exactly what happened 250 million years ago when climate change happened rapidly enough to release massive methane deposits in a short time frame, causing massively more climate change and a mass extinction event. Since then, there has not been the same kind of rapid mass increase in ocean temperature since the methane deposits were replaced.

It's about the speed of the temperature change, not just the amount of temperature change. Methane is short lived in the atmosphere, so if a change happened over 1000 years, the same total amount of methane might be released as a 100 year change, but only 10% of it will be in the atmosphere at a time. Consider, we've raised the temperature fast enough that the permafrost is melting at the same time as ice at the bottom of the ocean. That's a fairly unique situation that releases two enormous deposits of methane at the same time.

Our understanding does not need to be "complete" to be scientifically valid, or right. We may not know everything we need to know about the climate, but what we do KNOW is how methane reacts in the atmosphere, and how methane hydrates melt at certain temperatures/pressures, and we are near those levels in the deep oceans and permafrost areas today....so close that there are massive methane pockets bubbling out of the northern oceans and recently frozen ground worldwide.

I can't tell you how much I agree with this statement....no matter what the topic.

Of course, that would mean all devout religious people (and also many non religious people) would be removed from the population....which I can totally get behind. I would also be OK with them just being put in 'religious freedom' camps after sterilization...but would prefer they no longer share the atmosphere as they are likely to damage it for the rest of us even if they're separated.
The only thing I'm truly 100% certain about is that I can't be 100% certain about anything. I mean, come on, there's at least a 0.000001% chance I live in the Matrix.

its extremely short, i finished it in 3 hours, the ending is very WTF out of nowhere. good atmosphere but expensive for the few hours gameplay

What's hilariously terrible is, the 'dirty smoke' that coal use produces is the only mitigating factor of coals environmental destruction. The sulfur dioxide it produces goes into the upper atmosphere and reflects sunlight, actually COOLING the atmosphere. IF they ever actually perfected "clean coal" technology, it would be more damaging to the planet than "dirty coal" is, because at least dirty coal produces global dimming effects that have mitigated as much as 1/2 of the temperature rise due to excess CO2. Without that dimming, we'll suddenly see a HUGE rise in temperatures worldwide, and all the associated damage.

It's not quite true to say it would take thousands of years to reach our nearest star. If only people weren't pussies about the small matter of exploding hundreds of nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, we could use technology that existed in the fifties to accelerate spacecraft to as much as a tenth of light speed. Proxima Centauri in a matter of decades, no problem.

There's no reason to actually do that; nothing to be learned, nothing to gain in terms of technology or resource exploitation or potential for the future, but god damn it, it would be cool.