International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction 2018 is on Wednesday, October 10, 2018: hi frnsi want to create a evs project file?
Wednesday, October 10, 2018 is International Day for Natural Disaster Reduction 2018.
Natural disasters are often frightening and difficult for us to understand, because we have no control over when and where they happen. What we can control is how prepared we are as communities and governments to deal with the dangers that natural disasters bring.
Places that are more likely to have natural disasters, such as the earthquake-prone Pacific Ring of Fire, or coastal areas vulnerable to hurricanes, require accurate methods of predicting disasters and warning the public quickly. Once the people have been informed, evacuation routes must be provided so that they can all leave quickly and safely, even if they travel by foot. Emergency warnings and evacuation plans are not enough, though. Where there is a high risk of earthquakes, buildings need to be strong and flexible enough to survive a quake without collapsing. Where hurricanes and flooding are a problem, levees and dams must be strong enough to hold floodwaters, and natural drainage systems must be maintained to allow waters to flow back into the ocean. The failure of the levee and drainage systems was responsible for most of the destruction and flooding in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. It was the poor planning of evacuation routes and assistance for those trapped by the flooding that resulted in the many tragic fatalities.
People need to be educated on the risks in their area, and what to do when a disaster strikes. After a disaster, even if no one has died, there is a lot of damage to people' homes, farms and workplaces that must be repaired. This takes a lot of time and money to fix, and a country damaged by a disaster usually needs a large amount of international help to get better. Donated food, clothing, medicine and experienced professionals are all important when there is a disaster, but when the emergency is over it can take years to rebuild and make sure that future disasters can be managed. The boxing-day tsunami which devastated Indonesia and the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, Pakistan were both natural disasters whose effects were made worse by underdeveloped infrastructure and widespread poverty. Tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes or any other natural disaster can't be avoided, but with good preparation and well-organized help after the fact, it is possible to survive and go back to normal life afterwards.
Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface, has partially counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present. The main cause of this dimming is aerosols produced by volcanoes and pollutants. These aerosols exert a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. James Hansen and colleagues have proposed that the effects of the products of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent decades, so that net warming has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases.
In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, aerosols have indirect effects on the radiation budget. Sulfate aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei and thus lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar radiation more efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger droplets. This effect also causes droplets to be of more uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes the cloud more reflective to incoming sunlight.
Soot may cool or warm, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited. Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and cools the surface. Regionally (but not globally), as much as 50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown clouds. When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo can also directly heat the surface. The influences of aerosols, including black carbon, are most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of greenhouse gases are dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.. I hope it can help . . . ..
Quick question on Global Warming?
Nobody denies global warming, it is self evident that the world has been warming since the end of the little ice age. What is in dispute is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, i.e. that the main driver of global warming is industrialised man as opposed to natural variation and that the current warming is catastrophic, i.e. will lead to irreversible changes that will either make the world uninhabitable or cause unprecedented upheaval the likes of which has not been seen since the Flood of Noah's time.
The 'science' behind global warming is not false in the sense of being an outright lie. The problem is that climate science has the same level of knowledge and understanding that medical science did in the seventeenth century, more supposition and, it should be said, superstition than fact. In other words it is a hypothesis, more importantly one which has produced very few near term predictions and of which none have been physically observed.
It should be remembered that the leading scientists in this area are first and foremost environmentalists, certain that industrial man is the root of all our modern day evils this strongly casts doubt on their objectivity as clearly shown by the climategate emails and even more so by the 'Harry.readme' file. It is also evident in the way every climate scare predicts doom and disaster, not one predicts any beneficial effect even though it is well known that an average global temperature two to three degrees higher than now would actually be the optimum for human health. That little fact in itself is telling. While some may believe God created man only 4,000 years ago science says man prototypes came into existence around 4.5 million years ago and that modern man has been around for 150 - 200,000 years. All species evolve to accommodate to the average environmental circumstances, if the evolve too slowly or dramatic environmental change is too sudden they die out. Think about that point. It is obvious to anyone who does follow the science that most of climate science is based on the assumption that CAGW is valid and exists and research is pitched not to prove or quantify the theory but to quantify the effects. In other words the old 'the science is settled' crap.
The worst thing about CAGW is that everyone above the level of the man in the street is a winner, even big oil. These people are no longer just big oil, they are big solar, big wind, big tide, big 'give me subsidies', big 'let's create artificial shortages so we can make a killing businesses'.
Government loves CAGW because it gives them legitimacy to tax and regulate and to posture on the international stage as they 'save the world'. organisations like the EU and the UN love it because it allows them to accumulate trans-national power, environmental organisations love it because it gives them undreamed of influence and undreamed of incomes, universities and scientists love it because it generates huge grants and employment, just as long as it supports CAGW or more government. And they don't even have to lie, just sprinkle enough coulds, mights, potentiallys and maybes around. And as long as you hide your data and code no one can contradict you, especially if you get your pals rather than your peers to review your work
The media loves it because they can spew 'Oh my God! we're all gonna die! and 'Oh my God! we're killing our grandchildren!' headlines that sell, sell, sell. People like Al Gore love it because it makes them richer than they ever dreamed, and allows them to buy ocean-side mansions at knock down prices because they convinced everyone else they would soon be inundated.
That is why it is so hard for any degree of common sense to take hold, for the inconvenient truths that however much the West reduces CO2 the BRICS countries will add many times that reduction, that to achieve the cuts claimed to be needed can only be achieved by de-industrialisation to the level of the mid nineteenth century, that the costs involved would impoverish entire populations for generations to be admitted. And that's why big oil et al don't take it on in court.
If my I-20 is terminated, is there anyway to regain my student visa from within the U.S?
A foreign student who is out of F-1 status for a certain period of time (5 months) may apply for reinstatement of F-1 status by submitting the following documents:
1. Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status;
2. A properly completed SEVIS Form I-20 indicating the DSO's recommendation for reinstatement
The immigration office may consider granting the request if the student:
A. Has not been out of status for more than 5 months at the time of filing the request for reinstatement (or demonstrates that the failure to file within the 5 month period was the result of exceptional circumstances and that the student filed the request for reinstatement as promptly as possible under these exceptional circumstances);
B. Does not have a record of repeated or willful violations of the immigration regulations;
C. Is currently pursuing, or intending to pursue, a full course of study in the immediate future at the school which issued the Form I-20;
D. Has not engaged in unauthorized employment;
E. Is not deportable on any ground other than section 237(a)(1)(B) or (C)(i) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act; and
F. Satisfactorily establishes that:
1) The violation of status resulted from circumstances beyond the student's control. Such circumstances might include serious injury or illness, closure of the institution, a natural disaster, or inadvertence, oversight, or neglect on the part of the DSO, but do not include instances where a pattern of repeated violations or where a willful failure on the part of the student resulted in the need for
2) The violation relates to a reduction in the student's course load that would have been within a DSO's power to authorize, and that failure to approve reinstatement would result in extreme hardship to the student.