😁 whooopsie! Haha. Yeah, it’s somewhat 6000 km I mean. Sorry for my stupidity here today… Thank you very much for explaining my dumb mistake instead of making fun! Time to sleep now, I guess. Thank you!

I am fairly sure Earth’s radius is somewhat 6 km, so something with an 48 km radius would be 42 km above Earth’s surface, where we experience 1 G.

Can you explain please, where I made a mistake?

Not OP. What would evaporate?

I think we don’t know anymore what’s going on with Richard. I believe he would consume Earth almost instantly, including all satellites and maybe the moon.

Didn’t do the math myself, but internet says 1 G would be at about 48 km radius.

Probably you are right with the latter. A cement brick house easily has 100 tons CO². And in war, whole cities get destroyed. Plus destruction of enemy energy infrastructure, like oil fields, if existant.

Kind of sad now, when I think about it. Looks like we rather destroy the enemy with us, than having somebody we don’t like rise above us.

That got me interested on fuel economy. According to this webpage, a M1A2 has a gas tank size of 1907 l (505 gal) and a cruising range of 426 km (265 miles).

That would make 448 l/100km (0.52 MPG). Wow.

The site also says

A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. (1364 l)

0.6 miles per gallon.

60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country (263 l)

30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal (136+ l)

10 gallons basic idle (45 l)

A mine plow will increase the fuel consummation rate of a tank by 25 percent

Nice idea, but in my area for example this wouldn’t be a good solution. I live in a flood prone area.

Luckily there are many different solutions. What I find quite interesting are simple techs that also don’t require electricity, like a heat chimney, or a air supply from underground, air-flow designs in general.

Also, with already built houses there are even simple possibilities. What I’ve done successfully is letting a tree grow on the south west side, now in the evenings my walls and with that the inside area is much cooler.

If Im not mistaken, Delhi’s hottest month isn’t in peak summer but in May and June, so now. As the climate is largly influenced by the monsoon season.

Next year also doesn’t necessarily need to be worse, now going from an el niño into a la niña makes that somewhat unlikely, although regional differences will probably make some places worse, compared to this year.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but people may be already dying by the thousands. Isn’t it rather difficult for a doctor to point down the reason of death to heat?

If not next year, it will get worse rather quick, that’s for sure. Much, much worse.

I also thought about wet bulb and checked the humidity in Delhi, which seems to be just 7 % or so. According to wet bulb calculators that’s still good, like around 23 °C wet bulb.

Interestingly the wet bulb temperature calculators that I tried only work until 50 °C, so that was what I put in.

At 50 °C you need about 35 % humidity to get to 35 °C wet bulb.

Regarding your second point: If I’m not mistaken, the hottest month in the region is around May. The temperature is influenced by monsoons, and although the sun peaks higher in summer, it is generally also more cloudy and rain cools of the surface. That’s why usually temperatures peak just before rain season.

Thank you!

Do you have a link to source of that? I’m pretty sure there are many sensors measuring the temperatures in a city that size.

From the article:

At the SMS hospital in Rajasthan’s capital, Jaipur, so many bodies of casualties of the heat have arrived at the mortuary that its capacity has been exceeded.

Warning: comment includes heavy slurs

Edit: Deleted for now, cause I can’t figure out how to warn alert my comment.

Edit 2: I think I got it now. Please let me know in case it doesn’t work.

It is far from over.

We are currently doing the easy part of dropping emmissions. We have not yet peaked, globally speaking. Then we need to get to zero.

The only possible pathway now is overshoot and return. Which means we depend on carbon removal in a big style, in whatever form that will be.

It also means we will go temporarily over 2 °C. That is a critical number where several tipping points could be reached.

Pretty much the hardship has just begun. Now we need to stop emitting completely, somehow in the same time start to remove atmospheric CO² and hope that while we will be over 2 °C that no crucial tipping points will be reached.

While these policies aren’t nice and your assumptions might be right, it’s still a valid point that it’s unfair for people to suffer the consequences of other people’s actions.

In an ideal world everybody and everything would need to face the consequences of their own action. We don’t live in that world. So it’s not wrong to point out unfairness and fight for better solutions. Not being perfectly right yourself doesn’t take away the right to point out wrongness in others.

Now away from the ideal world into reality. In the (hopefully) long term the Maledives are doomed. And they aren’t alone. We screwed up the climate so much and we are still screwing up and haven’t even peaked our emmissions yet.

We need to accept the fact that life will get hard. We need to finally accept the fact that if we don’t overcome our differences, the human suffering will be absolutely brutal.

Unfortunately I am very pessimistic in this regard. Already and maybe since always human suffering gets ignored if it’s not your tribe. It seems like humans can’t overcome their tribe thinking. It seems like humans don’t improve on their hate and brutality against each others. And it seems that many humans aren’t able to feel sorry for human suffering if it’s far, far away.

The future looks bleak and we made it and still make it look that way.

Thanks for your reply. I looked it up now and it looks like you’re right.

There doesn’t seem to be any scientific difference, it looks like it is based on how people feel about these stones.

Very interesting and ambitious mission.

I just read a little about it. Going to the far side is by far more complicated as going to the side that faces Earth. As communication will be lost as soon as the rocket is behind the moon.

In order to keep contact, there are 2 lunar satellites launched acting as a bridge.

The far side is believed to have a very different composition compared to the near side and part of this mission is to find out why.

Any thoughts, ideas?

I thought maybe the far side receives much more impacts as it’s not protected by Earth, so maybe has much more “imported” materials from different areas of space while the near side is still much more Earth like. But that would probably just be surface, I don’t know.

What’s a semi precious stone? I’ve read the article and seen the pictures, but still don’t know. Is it stones that are pretty but with little monetary value?

Incredible poor title. OP please add a sentence or two explaining the article.

I’ll start of doing that so other people don’t need to blindly click on a link that could be anything.

It’s about a welsh coal mine that got closed (not sure if because of environmental reasons or because of less demand) and then after rains turned into a toxic lake.

Article is questioning if the toxic lake and coal imports are any improvement environmentally compared to extracting coal locally.

I think it’s not asking the right questions. So there is a toxic lake now and maybe it’s worse than a coal mine, but that shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that the coal mine was maybe less bad. Instead it should come to the conclusion that companies need to be held responsible and can’t just abandon sites like that. Maybe they need to fill in some land or I don’t know, but their mess is their responsibility in my opinion.

That’s an article giving hope for sure. I don’t know how realistic it is. Maybe there’ll be an emmissions peak in 2024 while we should half emmissions by 2030.

The difficulty is: even if we’re peaking, we have only a few years to half these emmissions, which means there is no time at all to relax. We need to push even harder.

I’m worried about many countries switching to natural gas and declaring natural gas climate neutral. I believe this could be a big threat.

Sidenote: maybe I’m getting just old, but I did hard concentrate on that article where every other word is bold.

I haven’t read the article. Dumb question anyway. Yes, AMOC is approaching a tipping point, that science has been public since years. Yes, AMOC has already slowed down some dozen or more per cent.

And while we here answering the same questions as always: yes the climate is changing, yes climate change is also occuring naturally, however this one is human made and yes, the outlook isn’t good at all. No, we shouldn’t continue burning fossil fuels to feed our energy hunger and yes, we need to do something now or better yeaterday. And no, asking repetitive questions isn’t action enough.

Edit: excuse me. I got a little emotional. Education about climate change is good. I’m just a little tired of reading the same stuff since decades I guess, while at the same time we continue to burn more and more fossil fuels.

Another update: Interesting Youtube video about this topic.