"It's in the manual" is just another way to say "it can run on this". How many times did you fuel up with Avgas?

Yes they can run on it (they can run on a lot of stuff) but the practical reality is that they don't.

I'm not sure what response you expected but I wouldn't call the response of "they can't move the compactor so your options are move or adapt" "bootlicking". Acknowledging the reality of your options and what you signed up for is hardly defending them (I'm not even sure what you think is defensive there).

Oooooh, I see what you're saying. You can find sample points that are sufficiently far from sources/sinks that your local measurements are (essentially) just measuring the aggregate of the troposphere.

That's different from saying that a local measurement at an arbitrary location is representative. Ok, I'm onboard now that I understand what you're saying. I was just commenting that local measurements are not necessarily reflective of larger scale measurements (which it sounds like is accurate with the exception of a few selective spots where the local readings happen to be better reflections of the average).

That's fair, I'm more familiar with tracking things that have more local sources/sinks (which arguably CO2 has as well at the surface) which is why I noted that while all constituents have local variation it may not be very large in the case of CO2.

I appreciate the clarification though. I should really go look into some of the datasets and see how much surface variation you actually get when not intentionally chasing sources/sinks.

The fog bank example was intended to highlight how distinct different atmospheric "chunks" can be, not necessarily that the CO2 content would change. But again, the clarification is worthwhile here.

Atmospheric CO2 is not homogeneous globally (no atmospheric constituents are). It may not vary a ton (I haven't looked at CO2 specifically so I can't say) but it does vary.

We think of the atmosphere as this uniform mix that's the same everywhere but the reality is that it's lots of distinct chunks with different conditions throughout. They mix some, but those chunks are remarkably distinct as they move through the atmosphere. The easiest example is a fog bank, you can see a distinct difference between the air in the fog and outside of it and see how they mix at the edges but they don't spread out to mix evenly everywhere and remain fairly distinct.

When you take a sample at a location you are only sampling that one spot. To properly sample the entire globe and comment on the Earth as a whole you need lots of samples (which we use for analysis today).

I think your stance is self destructive and not only does it result in worse outcomes but advocating for it undermines the possibility of improvement. So yes, I am certainly at odds with that stance.

I've read quite a bit on the subject and your comment was extreme. While you're right that you didn't say "never" you did say "rarely" and then used that stance to justify why it is unjustified when dealing with a suspect that had already used the weapon.

Again, I understand the concerns. Police need to be heavily regulated, on camera 24/7, reduced funding that is redirected toward mental health and social welfare resources. I'm onboard. The whole system needs to be completely restructured from the top to bottom.

Your stance and hyperbole here hampers that goal. Sometimes we do need police armed and prepared to use lethal force. Someone utilizing a potentially lethal weapon is one of those times. Do they need better training? Yes. Do they need more oversight? Yes. Should they be locked up in cases of misuse of force (such as shooting unarmed people)? Yes. Does that mean lethal force is unjustified when dealing with suspects wielding weapons other than firearms? No.

Awfully tough to de-escalate with someone committed to doing violence.

Look, I applaud your belief that no one needs to die at the hands of police and I agree that policing in the US is deeply broken right now. But when you take more extreme stances and use hyperbolic examples/statements you undermine the goals of actual change.

Yes the police should reduce their use of force, yes they should improve their training to avoid these types of incidents, but also yes, sometimes lethal force is necessary to protect themselves and the public for violent people with weapons (not just guns).

Actually I do think we have very few reliable non-lethal ways to stop someone intent on harming you. Most ways of stopping them reliably pose a significant risk of killing them.

They believe all cops are criminals.

This is where you've lost me. I was with you on the assumptions of incompetence and concerns with the level of force used, but this is where you've taken reasonable concerns into the territory of unreasonable.

The difference between a lethal blow from a pipe or knife and a non-lethal one is the point of impact and luck. Assaulting someone with a pipe (or any other weapon) is a potential justification for lethal force. While guns are the second easiest way to kill someone, that doesn't make knives and other weapons any less lethal, especially when someone has already proven their willingness to use it for violence.

The officer in question clearly screwed up here and there should be a thorough (ideally independent) investigation of how and why, probably ending with the officer's termination (unless they can come up with a damned good explanation). That doesn't mean that lethal force is unreasonable against future armed criminals, especially when they have already used those weapons.

January and February have almost identical snow rates over the past 50ish years.

Washington DC Monthly Snowfall - National Weather Service

The fact that several people leaked classified documents to prove a point why their beloved vehicle of choice needs a buff (or nerf) in War Thunder is well know and publicized. (It happened several times now)

What isn't established is that as a result playing War Thunder means you are categorized as a security risk.

OP can certainly try, but the plain reading of the text certainly points toward the interpretation that it only applies for items that don't have a value in "the book".

Because it sounds like I'm vaguely defending the moron in the car and this sub currently has an absolute hatred of anyone in a car (with some justification). The only acceptable response is to vocally attack anyone driving a car and mine didn't do that.

It's also because the term is so widely used that I suspect a lot of people don't realize it has racist origins.

I have never heard the term applied to a vehicle made by western manufacturers. No one would call a modified mustang "riced out". The term originates from back in the 70's when cars from Asian (mostly Japanese) manufacturers were derogatorily referred to as "rice burners".

Urban dictionary (and a few others) suggests that the acronym was developed after the fact by people uncomfortable with the racist origins of the term looking to justify it's continued use. At least there seems to be some awareness of how racist the term is/was but we can do better than coming up with an excuse and just use different words to describe "a car heavily modified with stupid cosmetics that look fancy but provide no performance benefits".

There's probably a less racist way to describe that particular asshole/moron's car.

Not to anywhere close to the same degree. Excess fuel consumption is way more costly than heating up a little bit of extra air.

Obviously you want to run as close to stoichiometric as possible, but since we are only human, running a bit lean is less expensive than running a bit rich (all other factors being equal).

They use depleted wells for long term storage of compressed gas but some places also use LNG for on system peak shaving. It sounds from your comment like it's reasonably common to use some processed natural gas (presumably with all the heavies extracted) as the refrigerant feeding the cryogenic heat exchangers.

Thanks.

No, I meant liquefaction. It's a peak shaving facility so they take from their distribution system, liquify for storage in summer and then re-gasify for injection in winter.

I'm curious, what are you using? The only liquefaction plant I've gotten to visit mentioned they were using gas as the working fluid (it was a peak shaving plant) but I have no idea if that's standard or not.

Washington Gas filed for a rate increase in VA back in June that went into effect on Nov 26th. That shouldn't have resulted in a 300% increase (the increase was closer to 10%) but it's certainly part of it.

Take a look at your bill, it should have a breakdown on how much is from various distribution charges vs energy prices (the cost for the gas itself) which can help you see where the jump came from.

US natural gas prices are actually lower today than they were back during the summer. That may not hold going into full winter, but through the bill for November it's definitely true.

Most budget billing programs cost you more (on average) over the course of a year than if you just paid your bill each month. They are intentionally designed that way to make the company offering the program money.

Wealth also doesn't correlate directly as you can see the pockets of low emissions high wealth areas around stations especially along the orange, silver and blue lines.

It's almost as if carbon emissions and addressing climate change is an incredibly complicated and multi-layered problem that doesn't have simple answers or silver bullets to combat it.