kaybe

I agree. The authors probably had a bad day.

Conferences can be depressing. The IPCC reports contain the very basic rock-solid consensus of what can be expected, but while playing around with data and models things can look much scarier.

No, let's please not stop! Have a look at this plot:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigSPM-10.jp...

And then consider that the x-axis does not cover the full carbon available as fossil fuels. Depending on estimation, this could be 15,000 GtC, maybe more (the lower axis in that plot).

https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/what-if-we-burn-all-t...

It's not looking good now, but we can make this so much worse.

You're right about the mitigation, of course.

Global warming is not binary. We still get to choose the degree of chaos.

The last-ditch effort of carbon capture is still a possibility. And a lot of work in preparation remains as well. The more resilient we can become the less suffering there will be. And some of these things are not even complicated, such as large monocultures being much more susceptible to crop failures for example.

This is an interesting paper in this regard:

Bastin et al, Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

"Even under an optimistic climate scenario (RCP 4.5), we found that 77% of future cities are very likely to experience a climate that is closer to that of another existing city than to its own current climate. In addition, 22% of cities will experience climate conditions that are not currently experienced by any existing major cities. "

"We notably predict that Madrid’s climate in 2050 will resemble Marrakech’s climate today, Stockholm will resemble Budapest, London to Barcelona, Moscow to Sofia, Seattle to San Francisco, Tokyo to Changsha."

The information might not be new, but the way it is presented is quite tangible, since many people have an understanding of today's conditions in different cities.

To be honest, at this point I'm in favour of attacks on all health services all the time, to drive home the point that acceptable long-term data protection in this kind of infrastructure doesn't exist and that all data will be stolen at some point, before everything is collected everywhere.

The less data is actually leaked and sold the better, of course, but societies and especially politicians don't seem to learn that easily.

> instead of the government serving as a middleman for charities and making political decisions on who-gets-what, it allows the citizens to more freely support the charities they like directly.

In this case it would make sense to make the donations mandatory and income-dependent. Let people choose which cause to support but don't let them choose not to support anything. I happily pay income tax for the state to support those around me who need it, which ideally should cover the need for donations fully, but see your point.

Still, nobody should be dependent on only the good-will of other luckier people to this extent, when the system and people's background influence economical success this much.

Until the payment actually leads to the carbon being captured and stored again (or the kerosine is from renewable sources) nothing much is won.

I'm a big fan of thermal mass.

This is probably climate-related - when there is a big difference between day- and nighttime temperatures it is very comfortable.

I suppose the way old European cities are constructed, with a lot of smaller houses right next to each other and narrow roads, also makes them a much larger fire hazard when made of wood compared to the spaced-out suburban way of building.

Again, thanks for answering! :)

I told him we didn't have a computer. That didn't register at all, he still tried to get me to install something, somehow, despite my insistence.

I have to say, as a kid, all these games and movies were much more harmless than the news.

The news had actual blood on the streets, from real people who had actually died there, real violence, real panic, real bombs and real war. If you shut off the TV, it does not go away, it's taking place somewhere out there, in the real world. A game is a joke in comparison.

Thank you for the long explanation! So I gather you reduced sugar and increased vegetable intake?

Can you elaborate on what you experienced?

Curbside parking in city centers should go away. So much space is given to those tons of metal blocking the sidewalk and the streets, taking freedom to move from pedestrians, cyclists and also moving cars. Underground parking and parking further away from the city center can take its place.

'Anklingeln' in Germany. Mobile credit on pocket money was expensive..

I really wonder what they think of me shooing them from the nests of smaller birds in the garden. (A futile endeavor, I fear, since I cannot be there all day.) It probably destroys all chances of having a good relationship.. too bad.

I could see the physics department doing this, if it wasn't that expensive. They used to have cocktails with dry ice in them - not sure how legal that is, but it's great fun. If you breathe in the vapour you can taste the drink quite strongly already.

(Note, if you put too much dry ice the water in your drink will freeze and that can affect the taste quite negatively..)

The idea is to assume we have an unbroken record of genealogy in the bible and add up all the lifetimes of people mentioned, which gives the ~6000 years. [0]

I'm not sure whether there is any basis for this assumption in the text though..

[0] https://creation.com/6000-years

A small addition: Here is the link to the wikipedia article that also tells you about their hotel and airline business.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_Group

(Cue jokes about earth (they have trucks) and water blockages soon to be followed by air. I haven't seen a good fire theory yet.)

It could be interesting though, if one added a few smaller instruments. CO2 and SO2 sensors, temperature, humidity and more.. do it frequently enough, calibrate well throughout, keep good records and the scientific community would definitely be interested in the data. (If they can be convinced you did a good job with the trustworthiness.)

Ah, guess who makes the rules about how close you may be to an active volcano? It's usually the corresponding observatory, and they are valid for the public, not for the scientists.

And then, safe just means nobody gets hurt. The volcano will eat some instrumentation anyway at some point, probably. They often do. Plus, the sulfuric acid plume emissions will damage your gear if you get caught in it.

It's fine when you know your volcano. Not all of them are the exploding kind.

(Especially Hawaiian and the Icelandic volcanoes are usually not that bad (unless the eruption is below a glacier, that's quite explosive).)

Ahahahaa... try to get funding for that.. -sigh- If you're trying to protect a city from an ongoing eruption you might have a chance.

So, the $1k toy is actually being trialed around the world, just with more complex instrumentation. You can get closer without risking anyone, and you can make much more frequent measurements since it's so much cheaper. The biggest problem is the wind and turbulence (since volcanoes are mountains with a heat source, and almost nobody in the field is an experienced drone pilot).

You might be able to get the city to add some metal to shade the light coming into your room. I don't know about the US, but here in Germany it took me one call to the city office and two weeks of waiting.

One of the best arguments for allowing abortion is that we do not force anyone to risk their integrity and life for another person, which is what pregnancy is. This argument won't work anymore.

You still have time. sigh

Is this in the US?

I wonder if there is some kind of predictor for whether it'll work for someone? (Like skincolour for the sun exposure issue.)

I'm also thinking of the highly diffusive radioactive tritium gas which is a PITA to contain and work with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium