Ben Matthews

I see that says ‘has to be local only, not federated’ (same issue also discussed on github).
‘Local only’ suggests to me front-end, i.e. info stored by browser. In that case people who are often switching devices would have to re-organise on each one, which could be tedious.
So isn’t there something in between local and federated - i.e. saved by the instance as user-settings, but not pushed to other instances?
Maybe there could be some manual copying mechanism, so a user who organises a big set of communities could share with others. (This reminds me of mastodon ‘lists’ and various ways of organising and transferring them).

As a small kid I learned i = i +1, before any maths teacher told me it couldn’t.

Nearly 200 upthumbs, more ?!
But the discussion explores broader and narrow variants, need to coalesce.

Hmm, did you consult the next french president about that ?

Sure, but diplomacy is not logical, and EU has a habit (mistake?) to do things in mega packages (look at 2004). Last I heard, the gossip was ‘by 2030’.

Is this intentionally english speaking, or does this just reflect the population of lemmy ?
I’d prefer a multilingual europe instance, ou chacun parle sa langue, para aumentar la diversidad.

Well such timescale would in any case depend on EU, not on convenience for any british parliament. There are now N. Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, [ Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo ?], Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, [Turkey ?] all in the queue to join EU. On the other hand, it might help from point of view of geographic and economic balance, otherwise the centre of ‘gravity’ will shift even further SE away from Brussels. I think to expand EU has to reform processes, to end all vetos and generalise multi-speed / opt-outs.
Meanwhile a new british government could implement obviously convenient win-win cooperation step by step, until there isn’t so much left to change. And I’d be happy to see Scotland and Northern Ireland take a lead.

Indeed I see too much fatalistic doomerism here on Lemmy and it’s boring - waste of potential energy. We can try to explain better - if people want to understand - that climate system is complex, actions don’t give immediately tangible results, there are many sub-systems with inertia, and indeed various types of waves too, but most of this is predictable and the pathways we have to follow are well known.
By the way about the jet-stream waves mentioned in the article, they have two sides - where I am it’s been cool recently.
More importantly, seems likely that Chinese emissions are peaking, not because they are so virtuous but because their enormous over-construction bubble involving so much steel and concrete, which was driving global emissions growth, has burst. When I was in climate negotiations years ago, we could never get the chinese to agree to talk about peaking before 2025, yet it happened. Meanwhile renewable energy expands fast around the world.
However we also reduced a lot of sulphate aerosols (both on land and from ships at sea), so we removed that temporary cooling, then on top of that we had El Niño, and have a peak in the solar cycle. The temperature spike then pushes more CO2 into the atmosphere from forests, soils and ocean, so we get bad news about atmospheric CO2, but such feedbacks happened before and are in the models, it’s not unexpected or out of control yet.

From the tasks described, it seems to me they were not measuring ‘Computer Skills’ as reasoning, patience, tenacity - people could have similar issues with similar tasks involving a pile of papers.

I’d like to be able to vote for pan-european parties, but voting for Volt only works in very large constituencies (such as Germany). In most other places it likely reduces the chance of getting pro-european MEPs who might consider implementing such an option. What other strategies can help ?

Useful study - thanks for link.

"they were not supportive of asylum seekers’ freedom of movement and would prefer them to live in a designated place (respondents were 8.3% more likely to choose the latter option … "

But who do they think does this designating, and according to what criteria, is the result really anywhere near optimal for anybody?
Doesn’t it make more sense for people to have the option to move, in their own time, to where they can find housing, jobs, languages they know etc., than be stuck in ghettos where they happened to gather due to various short-term factors ?

That’s great progress, thanks for all the work!
Glad to see enhanced federation with rest of fediverse - a small detail : the link for ‘Automatically includes a hashtag with new posts’ should point to pull #4533 (not #4398 ) - should help discoverability from mastodon, especially if community tags become customisable.

Well, maybe not just wait … Some factors will fall back - e.g. El Niño is a cycle, so are sunspots, ocean patches go round in (big-slow) loops, forests can run out of tinder (for a while). But to be sure to tip the balance of those climate-carbon feedbacks we need to get the temperature down - this could be done quicker by focusing especially on emissions of shorter-lived gases - mainly methane. Cutting out aviation-induced cirrus might also help to cancel some of the warming we got from cutting shipping sulphate - the opposite effect is because low clouds cause net cooling, high clouds cause net warming (depending on angle of sun etc. …). The good news is that models already include most of these factors, the bad news is that models say we have to cut emissions much faster than we do.

Global directly-anthropogenic CO2 emissions - things we measure and attribute to countries - have been flat in the period 2019-23 (except for covid dip), and maybe falling this year (due to changes in China). However there are also climate -> carbon feedbacks. The most obvious are forest fires which tend to peak during El Niño years (it’s a repeating pattern - I even remember 1998 seeming bad). Heating also enhances respiration by bugs in soils, and reduces the solubility of CO2 in seawater - the ocean is the largest and most long-term CO2 sink. El Niño also changes ocean circulation temporarily, but I forget which way this impacts CO2 (it’s not trivial - you have to think about the history and future of large patches of water).
So, if known emissions are flat, but there is a record increase in the atmosphere, that means those feedbacks are worse. It takes a while to disentangle the factors, but this is not a surprise to me.

So that suggests, over 4 tons CO2 per tank-refill. Many of those things don’t get to roll very far (except by train, ship), but there’s still over 120 tons embodied CO2 just from producing the (mainly) steel. Also the energy in the shells. I guess military planes, ships, missiles contribute more than tanks. Should also consider albedo effects such as smoke drifting over arctic snow.
But maybe this is all dwarfed by the implied emissions of reconstruction later, also missed opportunities for cooperation on global mitigation efforts.

The key new info is not the decadal trend, it’s ‘not yet risen beyond pre-pandemic levels’ - in other words global emissions are ± flat. More recent info (also from carbonbrief) suggests that China’s emissions may now be falling (and therefore likely global too -as China was such a large fraction of recent growth). On the other hand feedbacks from high temperatures in 2023 - forest fires, ocean circulation etc., made the atmospheric CO2 rise break another record, but several temporary factors (e.g. reduced shipping sulphate, El Nino, solar cycle, etc.) contributed to that spike.

“…at a rate of roughly 0.05 percent per day … would take a very long time” … but by my quick calculation 0.9995^3650 is 84% per decade, which is not long. Almost instantaneous on a geological timescale - and think how much the world changed when fungi learned how to digest lignin in wood - ending the era of coal-forming swamps.

But what can “maximum vigilance in these last days” do to counter last-minute fake news ? The night before the brexit referendum, facebook distributed loads of fake messages on the theme of migration (e.g. especially targeted to south asians to say they could have more chance at family reunions if there would be less east-europeans, while targeted to others to say there would less asians … ), all of this after the other channels were silent following the murder of Jo cox.

Of course all emissions should be counted. It’s not just the explosions and burning oil, I’d guess that manufacturing all the steel and chemicals also uses loads of energy. Some stockpiles used now may be associated with emissions long ago, e.g. in the last decades of the soviet union emissions rose very high, even while the economy was low.

Hi, excuse me for replying so late, but i’ve been away from lemmy for.a while. Well, to summarise, the model calculates the future trajectories, of population, economy, emissions, atmospheric gases, and climate response etc., according to a set of (hundreds of) diverse options and uncertainties which you can adjust - the key feature is that the change shows rapidly enough to let you follow cause -> effect, to understand how the system responds in a quasi-mechanical way.
Indeed you are right, complexity is beautiful, but hard. A challenge with such tools is to adjust gradually from simple to complex. Although SWIM has four complexity levels, they are no longer systematically implemented - also what seems simple or complex varies depending where each person is coming from, so i think to adapt the complexity filter into a topic-focus filter. Much todo …