A coronal mass ejection (CME) is anticipated to impact Earth as early as Thursday evening, 6 November EST. Therefore we have a G3 (Strong) Watch in effect on the 6 and 7 November UTC-days. There is a fair measure of confidence in a Earth-directed aspect to this CME and a moderate level of confidence in timing of the CME arrival - which we anticipate with a range from as early as Thursday evening to Friday morning EST.
Touying is a slide/presentation package developed for Typst. Touying is similar to LaTeX Beamer but benefits from Typst, providing faster rendering speed and a more concise syntax.
Preprint Abstract: Global surface warming has accelerated since around 2010, relative to the preceding half century1-3. This has coincided with China’s efforts to reduce air pollution through restricted atmospheric aerosol and precursor emissions. A direct link between the two has, however, not yet been established. Here we show, using a large set of simulations from eight Earth System Models, how a time evolving 75% reduction in Chinese sulfate emissions partially unmasks greenhouse driven warming and influences the pattern of surface temperature change. We find a rapidly evolving global, annual-mean warming of 0.07 ± 0.05 ºC, sufficient to explain a majority of the uptick in global warming rate since 2010. We also find North-Pacific warming and a top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance that are consistent with recent observations. China’s aerosol cleanup is thus likely a key contributor to recent global warming acceleration, and to Pacific warming trends.
> REN said: “Due to extreme temperature variations in the interior of Spain, there were anomalous oscillations in the very high voltage lines (400 kV), a phenomenon known as ‘induced atmospheric vibration’. These oscillations caused synchronisation failures between the electrical systems, leading to successive disturbances across the interconnected European network.”
- Redes Energéticas Nacionais (REN) is a Portuguese energy sector company
But that presumably doesn't handle the relative motion of the stars, which makes the problem even trickier, since the distances will change as you travel, no? Or is my astronomy off base here?
I think your astronomy skills are correct, but if we have to worry about actual travel then you would also have to consider things like fuel capacity, refuel opportunities, the fact that you probably don't want to actually fly through a star but around it, etc.
I think it's still valid to have a distinction between travel logistics and having a route that's at least theoretically possible. I suppose what they've calculated would work with a star gate like system, but then I'm not sure what the point of having minimal distance would be.
Isn't the flying around problem just "e" since it is so many orders of magnitude less than the distance between stars that for this calculation it is irrelevant anyway?
That's not true. The tour is 16.2 billion light years long, so even at the speed of light, it would take more than the current age of the universe to travel. Stars will move a lot over that period of time.
That doesn't make sense to me. If you're assuming instant travel, then of course you don't need to account for stellar drift. Your response talking about stars "moving on roughly the same trajectory" doesn't make sense in that context. And anyway the GP was obviously not talking about instantaneous travel.
reply