It won't help, the other lobster has diabetes, so it pisses with an accent.

Oh common, are we really circling this discussion forever?

We need to reduce burning fossil fuels, everything else is nice, but doesn't really make a dent in the graphs.

In this context ICE stands for "Immigration and Customs Enforcement".

For other like me that only know ICE as an abbreviation for "internal combustion engine".

I actually watched that episode last night, so that post was kinda jumping at me. What are the odds...

Sagan, a real teacher. Not only smart, there are quite a few smart people. But also able to make something complicated easily understood. To make something abstract sound straight. To make something minds can't grasp comprehensible. A beautiful ability!

It would not, though. I assume your glasses to have a larger surface than your eyes. Additionally, eyelash do are real good job in filtering the air in front of your eye.

Source: was wearing glasses for 25 years before I got my eyes fixed 7 years ago.

I don't think this would improve cooling, as the bottleneck of airflow is probably the radiator, not the grill.

All I can guess is that the grill was damaged and removed.

Edit: accidentally commented this twice due to poor mobile data service.

From the article:

In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. But reliable assessments of aerosol emissions rely on networks of mostly volunteer-driven efforts, and it could be a year or more before the full data from 2023 are available.

This is true for older technologies.

Like combustion as you said, we used it a lot and pretty much designed it the best we can with the materials we know and have. But there will be completely new technologies opening up, like maybe fusion. Or solar we know already since a while but made major improvements the last decade and will probably improve it even more.

I was more thinking about how we had this technology rush. I think it is mostly due to the use of fossil fuels and therefore "incredible cheap" energy which also led to humans reproduce a lot. (incredible cheap in quotation marks, because we will probably have to pay the real price which is environmental damage and a modified atmosphere)

When you have a world with 3 times (random number based on nothing) more people you also have 3 times more great artists, scientists, etc. Of course only, if society stays more or less the same. Imagine how many great works we could have if the majority of great minds wasn't preoccupied paying for food and a place to stay like in a hamster wheel.

I think that's true for only a planet with indefinite resources. We haven't really hit many caps yet, but I believe things will start to slow down within a lifetime.

And when they're moving, they're highly inefficient as well. With a displacement ship hull designed to part the water their top speed is limited by their own length. A ship cannot overtake its own bow wake and with a length of let's say 70 meters you end up at a top speed of about 20 knots. Which isn't slow, but also not that much faster than cargo or passenger transport (maybe going 10 to 15 knots).

While a cargo ship is mostly longer and could theoretically sail faster, it is designed to be economical. It gets an engine that is most efficient at a certain speed, for example 12 knots at ahead standard, the propeller is cut for efficiency etc.

A yacht is designed to be comfortable and fast. It gets powerful engines that combust however much they need to combust. The propeller may be designed to produce less noise or vibration instead of being most fuel efficient.

I really don't get it. Why surprised? Surprised that a man, who leads major fossil fuel companies, works against regulating the fossil fuel industry.

I mean it won't change anything much, listening or looking away. Just look at the whole conference, it seems pretty clear to me that there is no motivation to change.

If I learned today that the political meeting to solve the problem climate change is being held in a petro state, lead by an oil sheikh and sponsored by companies that have no ambition to change, I would assume that somebody wants to fool me or it's satire.

What I expect is a lot of talk, self love and emphasis on how great we're doing already, some vague ideas and plans and then back to business as usual.

But still, I think the author of this article is right. There is need to show political leaders, that we don't let us get tricked by their green washing and that we demand more, much more action and that we won't accept empty promises!

It's very tiring to just want to live in a world that doesn't kill us while most business men readily kill the climate for profit. And the hope that the future is worth living is fading quickly. But we need to stand up as long as there is a piece of hope left. We'll likely lose this fight, but at least we tried.