Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Chat' started by ETB4U, Dec 14, 2016.
Something something hurricane Jose something Trump wants to see his papers something...
Or have a RichDad.
like the kid I saw in a GT3 today
prolly hockey player maybe
In tech, an employee often loses his/her drive for innovation after a few years. On top of that, on a normally growing company, you let a "veteran" employee go and get someone new for less money, but that really depends on the specific job and the supply and demand situation.
this is actually a huge trend, slack an old timer and hire 2-3 university grad
Exceptionally pissed at my movers right now. They gave me a window of August 26 to September 6 for delivery of my belongings (they picked them up on the 17th of August). My furniture was delivered on the 12th of September. Its a three-day drive across the country. How are people supposed to live for a month without their things? (At incredible expense, is what I've found).
Just barely settling into Edmonton now. Glad I didn't plan a trip to Europe for the end of the month.
Just put on my decent headphones after a month without. I imagine this is what it feels like to find your glasses.
Jesus. Makes me appreciate our small country. Distance has virtually no effect on moving prices here. It's mostly about "how many floores do we need to climb without an elevator?".
all movers in Canada are ex con
Just finished with Narcos S3 and I can say south american music is the most pleasing to the ear.
no that shit
Leaving for work this morning it was +1C outside and sun no longer above horizon.
It has been ever-so-slightly less scorching hot in the past few days.
It's super cold here. 12c or something. Wtf.
I remember suggesting an alternative method.
"Another reason the climate outlook is less bleak than previously thought is stabilising emissions, particularly in China."
"Renewable energy has also enjoyed more use than was predicted."
well this is why we got all worked up isnt it? so we could correct course?
That quote has nothing to do with their incorrect data.
It's funny because I remember the propaganda video they made us watch in elementary saying we would need radiation suits due to no ozone.
incorrect data or incorrect model?
I guess I dont see a problem with them making a very conservative guess and being off, in the correct direction. Imagine if they said 'everything is fine, step up your polluting ways' and 10 years down the line 'oh shit...'
The actual paper is here. I have access around the paywall and can share the full paper for anyone who wants to read it, but the abstract is pretty clear:
The Paris Agreement has opened debate on whether limiting warming to 1.5°C is compatible with current emission pledges and warming of about 0.9°C from the mid-nineteenth century to the present decade. We show that limiting cumulative post-2015 CO2 emissions to about 200GtC would limit post-2015 warming to less than 0.6°C in 66% of Earth system model members of the CMIP5 ensemble with no mitigation of other climate drivers, increasing to 240GtC with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation. We combine a simple climate–carbon-cycle model with estimated ranges for key climate system properties from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Assuming emissions peak and decline to below current levels by 2030, and continue thereafter on a much steeper decline, which would be historically unprecedented but consistent with a standard ambitious mitigation scenario (RCP2.6), results in a likely range of peak warming of 1.2–2.0°C above the mid-nineteenth century. If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5°C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250GtC and unlikely greater than 540GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5°C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible.
To unpack this, since it's pretty dense verbiage:
A warming of 2.0°C relative to the mid-1800s is considered the limit before damage to Earth's climate is expected to be catastrophic
The Earth has already warmed 0.9°C since the mid-1800s, and a warming of 1.5°C is a stated goal of many climate symposia.
The main conclusion of this paper, which is considered tremendously good news, is that this goal of 1.5°C warming is "not yet a geophysical impossibility".
Reaching that goal would still require an effort they describe as "historically unprecedented", namely that humanity not emit much more than 200 gigatons of carbon over the remainder of our species' existence. As an aside: we currently emit about 10 gigatons of carbon per year.
Current increases in emissions must stop, reverse, and re-approach current emissions levels by 2030 in order for this to occur, and then continue to decline to zero and an increasingly fast pace.
Given this tremendous effort, there is still a one-in-three chance that it is not enough.
No new climate models were developed and there is no indication that the old models were errant. This study uses an ensemble of dozens of models produced by universities and national laboratories in many countries in a massive modelling effort to achieve an expected likely outcome, as relying on one model is foolish.
So yeah, "climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought" is technically a true headline. But in this case that means "catastrophic outcomes are not yet geophysically certain if and only if we make herculean efforts and unprecedented sacrifice". An alternative and equivalent headline could simply read "hope extant".
If I remember correctly, there was a massive global effort to eliminate the causes of ozone depletion, which succeeded only in stopping its continued deterioration, and the ozone layer has scarcely recovered. So yeah, that's a pretty good analogy because your teachers appear today, with the benefit of hindsight, to have been absolutely correct.
They claimed by the year 2000 we would need radiation suits. That was 10 years prior when they told us. I highly doubt we would have needed radiation suits regardless if cfc use didn't decline. Also what do you think of this?
Stop global warming, use more cfcs.
Let's bring back leaded fuel and DDT while at it....
Considering the geography around Houston, I'd be more worried about rising sea levels and storms increasing in magnitude and frequency. Even if you don't have a mortgage, handling all the problems with dead crops, potable water, sewage etc. could prove arduous.
Do you honestly believe that greenhouse gases have no effect on Earth's temperature, or that rising temperatures won't affect weather patterns and the sea level?