321–330 of 456 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a Canadian I never use Fahrenheit. The only people I know who do are at least 70. Edit: For weather.
Honest question: what temperature scale is on your oven? My understanding is that it is likely to be Fahrenheit but I don't actually know.
The comparisons between the AR5 and AR6 are alarming. Now, under no emission scenarios other than low and very low which we are not tracking close to, we reach +2C at or just before 2050. Many reading this thread will see 3 degrees by the time they plan to retire. This comes with drought, undernourishment, and mass migration: https://sciencenorway.no/climate-climate-change/deadly-heat-...
Do people in capitals not understand or believe this? What do rich people (some of whom control large parts of the media) plan to do exactly? Die? Bunker? I mean seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: what temperature scale is on your oven? My understanding is that it is likely to be Fahrenheit but I don't actually know.
Sorry, I meant in terms of weather. The oven is Fahrenheit (presumably because its product being sold in America too) but I don't have a mapping for that vs weather.
I don't think Canadian ovens feature the Fahrenheit scale because they are sold in the US. The SKUs are likely to be different and changing the display is easy. Consider cars which are similar. I assume Canadian cars feature speedometers in KPH and external thermometers in Celsius. I am curious what units your engine coolant temp uses though!
Canada is a commonwealth country and the commonwealth didn't begin converting to the metric system in earnest until the 1970s. This is over 100 years later than the rest of the world. Canada paused metrication in 1988. Cooking is likely to have been one of the last things to change because it is so common.
Pre-metrication Canada used the Imperial system and the US used the US Customary system. This means the definition of units like the gallon was inconsistent. Units in Canada seem to be influenced more by the commonwealth than they are by their southern neighbor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused as to how a part of the system can cause a change in the whole system. I understand it's changes based upon ocean temperatures, but it's not as though during an El Nino yeah our global temperature goes up and during a La Nina year it goes down, right? I can follow that El Nino will get worse and cause more local extremes across the global, but I don't know how it will cause or exacerbate the 1.5C global…
Warming of 1.5C is an average over the entire planet and a warming Pacific Ocean can drive this average beyond the threshold. Also nowadays an El Nina more or less pauses the warming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Drowning is hyperbole English is not my first language. How would you describe something previously on land becoming submerged by the ocean?
Flooding. Drowning is when a living organism is submerged, flooding is when buildings are submerged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given many fossil fuel deposits took millions of years to settle/decompose/compress, I don't think you get a proper X multiplier without an exponent greater than 6.
Yeah the time is interesting but it doesn’t directly imply anything about the flow. I’m curious about that. Ie how much new oil/gas etc is being produced by nature each year. Found this[1] now, which gives a ballpark of 20-80k barrels/y which can vary quite a bit depending on the guesstimates of undiscovered reserves. Since we produce 80-100M barrels/y, we’re drinking from the basin about 1000x the rate that it reple…
(Also, as a reply points out, there's thoughts that time periods after the Jurassic epoch, if not some point earlier in the mid-to-late Cretaceous, may be much less "fertile" in petroleum and coal-producing raw elements and that for the most part new "production" by "nature" has been "stopped" and we've long just been mining further and further back in time. Which is to suggest there is no real, meaningful replacement rate at all with which to discuss.)
Given the timescales involved, I know I'm far more inclined towards pessimism that any discussion on replacement rate with respect to human lifetimes, especially on an "annual" basis rather than cumulative across the human epoch, is ignoring the forest for some statistically insignificant trees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that about a quarter of the world population - 2 billion people - currently make their living through traditional small-scale farming. If it turns out that climate change rapidly expands the viable area for growing quinoa, that's great for Peru and Bolivia and the world food market, but it's not going to help a subsistence farmer in Vietnam who finds their rice fields no longer grow enough to live from…
> but it's not going to help a subsistence farmer in Vietnam who finds their rice fields no longer grow enough to live from. But what if those farmers switch from rice to some other subsistence crop better adapted to the new conditions?
Point is: It would lead to lower crop yields, at a higher cost.
That's doesn't mean instant death for all humans on the face of the earth. But it's still something we want to avoid.
Acting to prevent climate change is a cost saving measure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the models aren’t wrong. They’re surprisingly accurate. Some media reporting has been alarmist, choosing absolute worst cases and stating them as fact. But in general, the changes we’ve seen so far are in line with predictions and there’s no reason to be more skeptical than normal of this science. (As a side note, the resource extraction required to run a petrol engine is also not very green and often connected t…
No they are not "surprisingly accurate". I have actually made more money in direct bets AGAINST climate models. From 1970 to present. Indeed, the challenge I make to climate doomsayers is simple: make one prediction in the 5 year out timeframe and stick to it. I'll simply take the opposite. So far, I have won... every time. Let me have a look at my trading accounts: cenovus up, pembina up, taiwan semi up, everything…
None of the things you mention after this sentence have anything to do with climate models.
> cenovus up, pembina up, taiwan semi up
At best, this is equivalent to saying health nuts have been disproven because you made money buying Coca Cola stock.