安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Instances of large scale population reduction massively decrease the effect of scale on every industry, and allows for cost-optimization of basic services rather than needing to feed them through an economy of scale.
If you wanted to cut the carbon footprint by any means then restricting access to food and healthcare is the simplest first step from a Methuselahian perspective. Messing with individual industries comes after you’ve killed everyone you can.
This is illogical and shows you don't know aircraft.
1. you can burn Jet-A and have a propeller, it's called a turbo-prop and they're common in the aviation world. They also wouldn't save much on fuel use.
2. Piston engine aircraft don't use car gas, they use 100 /110 low lead. (low here is a relative thing, and the name, not an actual endorsement) Burning lead doesn't do good things for our environment.
3. It's all about BTUs of energy, you aren't going to get something for nothing, X amount of fuel = Y amount of thrust. The only variable is efficiency. In aviation efficiency has had a lot of research done, but we are talking things that travel fast, so that's a factor.
4. When you refine fuel, it takes more refining to produce gasoline than diesel / kerosene, and I'd imagine there would be an environmental cost to that. Further more, the worlds refineries are setup to produce only so much of each fuel type, I highly doubt we could switch them to producing 100% Gasoline over night, which would create a massive shortage and a price crisis.
About the environment? Or T-Swift?
I mean the environment should be obvious. We like being able to breathe and not having thermal runaway to the point the oceans boil.
For T-swift, I don't know, she's go talent, it's not like she's Greta though, so I feel like people expect much. Artists are people too.
And only a few songs.
Also, calling her an old hag made me laugh a lot.
I mean, I'm older than Taylor Swift, and I'm only 39. :P
Planes don't even put out as much CO2 as any major traffic jam. :P
Also, Volcanoes are still worse than planes.
Climate change works on a very long period of time. Humans can accelerate it, but all climate change fears are greatly exaggerated.
Last estimate that's reasonable is a six foot rise in ocean levels, and that's if all ice above ground on Earth melted.
World won't end, but most of New York City is going to have to be more like Venice. :P
Thermal Runaway?
You do know the boiling point of water is 212F, 100C?
Oceans can't boil unless someone dropped the Moon on the Earth. :P
In which case, they will boil hard.
Like, what are you even on about here?
The laws of physics would have to change to boil the oceans. Completely.
This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect
It would take a fair bit, don't get me wrong. It's not like we're about to hit it tomorrow or something. But the issue isn't X amount of CO2 = X heat increase. After a threshold it starts running away, and it's really freaken hard to stop at that point.
You're also not understanding Ice Caps. It isn't at all about the quantity of water released. (though that could wreck the environment good) It's the fact that snow / Ice / etc is white (or whiteish) and reflects light back. (literally helping to maintain temp)
You're also forgetting about the species that actually depend on the environment being like it is now. (they'll die off)
I used the term thermal runaway, because that's what happens in NiCad batteries, and it's a small scale example of something similar happening, (in short a tipping point of no return)
The reverse can also happen with cooling FYI, a run away cooling effect can happen.
Either way it's a death sentence for Earth.
Before we get there though we'd have other problems like scuzzy air.
It's never going to be done on Earth without first detonating a nuke on all the Karst deposits located around the globe.
Fossilized Coral will produce an insane amount of CO2.
More so than anything we can even do right now if we let things run among. Heck, 9 major Karst Deposits are all you need for a Runaway Greenhouse effect.
The ice in the world isn't going to break the temperature issues if it suddenly goes away.
Besides, we're already in a warming period, and it's waning, and has waned for the last 200,000 years. :P
Earth has cold and warm periods.
Always has.
You are right. It is not the politicians that lack will, it is the people. If people were motivated enough the politicians would get the message and they would be doing more than they are. The fact is that we will die, because we won't do enough, because we still think that someone or something will save us without us having to change anything. Unfortunately, with climate change, there is a lead time, and by the time we change our minds and demand action it will be too late.
We won't need to worry about Global Warming breaking the normal cycles the Earth has, and had since 4.4 billion years ago when it was first formed, and literally a giant ball of lava. :P
People vastly over-exaggerate what humanity can ever do to the Earth.
Yeah, pollution sucks.
Still the same drunken Alex Jones gibberish?
I don't like Alex Jones either, but he isn't the cause of pollution. :P