CanucksCorner.com Forums

micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 11:31 am

Per wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 10:40 am

micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 8:44 am .
Per; Would you support a worldwide ban on all commercial and military aircraft flying above 10,000 feet?
If you cannot answer an outright yes, then; ?
.
.
.
Just call me a party pooper. .

No, I don’t believe in going backwards, back to the stone age.
Instead I applaud the Norwegians that have passed legislation that all domestic flights must use electric planes by 2030.
There is also a proposal in Germany to ban domestic flights.

I will continue to fly when going abroad, but usually take the train within Sweden, and I think airlines should be encouraged to use energy efficient aircraft, and refrain from fossil fuels to the largest extent possible. At present bio-fuels for aircraft are not readily available. They exist, but production is far too limited and the product is still way too expensive. But rather than banning flights or having a one-size-fits-all flight tax, I think they should tax the fuel consumption, and exempt And maybe even pass legislation to phase out fossil fuels asap.

I believe in solving problems through science and technology.

The problem isn’t airplanes. The problem is fossil fuels.
Rather than banning airplanes, we need to find other ways to propel them.

Nice try. Aint gonna happen. Well, maybe nuclear powered aircraft, if mankind is around that long.
Norway is speaking of light aircraft that need not reach high altitudes. They are also speaking of their own only.

Aint gonna happen?!

They already have electric planes that can transport eight people and be in the air for one hour.
As technology improves, as batteries get smaller and more powerful, performance will improve.
I bet within five years they can carry 20 passengers and stay in the air for two hours. That’s good enough for quite a few destinations.
In ten years they can probably carry 50 passengers. That should cover our domestic needs.

I doubt they will ever be able to replace jumbojets, but if those switch to hybrid technology, or fuel cells, or even just biofuels, that would still be a huge improvement.

Per wrote: ↑Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:09 pm reefs are dying

micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:54 pm

I’ve actually only been to six of those...

There's a Per born every minute

https://www.westernjournal.com/elites-c ... ve-tribune

Topper wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 3:03 pm There's a Per born every minute

https://www.westernjournal.com/elites-c ... ve-tribune

I got a little confused reading this part...

Even though NASA data shows increased fire activity in 2019, when it is compared to the past 15 years, the activity is about average.

... so I went straight to the source:

With the fire season in the Amazon approaching its midpoint, scientists using NASA satellites to track fire activity have confirmed an increase in the number and intensity of fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010.

Fire activity in the Amazon varies considerably from year-to-year and month-to-month, driven by changes in economic conditions and climate. August 2019 stands out because it has brought a noticeable increase in large, intense, and persistent fires burning along major roads in the central Brazilian Amazon, explained Douglas Morton, chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. While drought has played a large role in exacerbating fires in the past, the timing and location of fire detections early in the 2019 dry season are more consistent with land clearing than with regional drought.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/image ... ty-in-2019

And what has made people so upset is that while the rest of the world is planting trees to bind carbon dioxide, the Brazilians are burning down the rain forest on purpose.

Love your source btw...

Western Journalism features "conservative, libertarian, free market and pro-family writers and broadcasters"[8] and seeks to provide "God-honoring" content.[4] In practice, according to the Times, this philosophy, in which "tradition-minded patriots face ceaseless assault by anti-Christian bigots, diseased migrants and race hustlers concocting hate crimes," results in "a torrent of sensationalized, misleading, or entirely made-up stories, often aimed at Muslims and immigrants."[6] Because of negative rulings by fact-checking sites and user trust surveys, Western Journalism was blacklisted by Google and Apple News, and by 2017 its Facebook traffic declined to near zero. The company responded by changing its name in 2018 to The Western Journal, hiring trained copy editors, and introducing a corrections page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Western_Journal

covfefe

Per:

"The planet is fine, the people are fucked..."

-George Carlin

The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:06 am Per:

"The planet is fine, the people are fucked..."

-George Carlin

Pretty much.

Except, I’d even say SOME people are fucked.
Most of Scandinavia should be fine. Most of Canada should be fine.

Bangladesh, the Maldives, Florida and northern Africa - not so much.

But there are also lots of animals that are fucked, especially those that are highly specialized and have a rather small habitat.
As climate zones shift, they will have a hard time adapting.

They will adapt or die off only to be replaced by an evolutionarily superior creature.

200000 years of mankind is only a blink.

.
being concerned is great, but
.

The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 10:15 am They will adapt or die off only to be replaced by an evolutionarily superior creature.

A common misconception of the survival of the fittest idea. When there is a sudden change in the environment, it is not necessarily the superior species that prevail, but those that can more easily adapt to the new circumstances.
There is a huge element of chance and/or luck in evolution.

When the dinosaurs (most of them) were wiped out by a meteor, it was not really that they were inferior in anyway, but the impact of the meteor basically killed off all vegetation on earth, and the particle cloud created an artificial winter of the kind a nuclear war could. This meant that all major herbivores had nothing to eat and starved to death. As they died off, the carnivores had no prey, and also died off. It was mainly smaller scavenging animals that lived in burrows that survived, and among those we find the early mammals. They weren’t superior, but their niche as scavenging burrow dwelling omnivores was not hit as hard as the dinosaurs. Some smaller feathered and winged dinosaurs also survived, and are now referred to as birds.

Crocodiles, turtles, sharks and amphibians all predate the dinosaurs and survived them, but not because of being superior. Aquatic animals stood a better chance than those on land, and there was also a matter of size, the biggest sharks and crocs were as big as dinosaurs, and those big ones were wiped out, but many of the smaller ones are still here today.

A new theory also claims that the Neanderthals weren’t outcompeted by the Homo Sapiens, but wiped out by a supervulcano. Neanderthals could only be found in Europe and the Middle East, and pretty much their entire habitat was destroyed by toxic ash that killed off all vegetation, which in turn killed all herbivores and thus left the carnivores without prey. Homo Sapiens had already spread all over Africa, Asia and Europe, and could repopulate the area as the vegetation returned, but only a tiny remnant of Neanderthals survived in Spain, and either vanished from inbreeding or were absorbed by the Homo Sapiens population. Are we superior to the Neanderthals? They were stronger and had bigger brains. If they hadn’t been in the wrong place at the wrong time... who knows?

200000 years of mankind is only a blink.

Absolutely. But as I said before, it depends a bit how you define modern humans.
We now know that Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals could interbreed with fertile offspring. By definition that ought to mean they cannot be considered separate species, and Neanderthals were around aleady some 350,000 years ago. Perhaps Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens should all be considered different breeds of the same species, which may then perhaps also include their closest predecessor, probably the Homo Heidelbergensis.
By this definition we may have been around a bit longer.

micky107 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:49 am being concerned is great, but
.

+1