21 posts • joined Tuesday 23rd September 2008 16:43 GMT
Not off the top of my head...
n the UK you can pump up to 20 m3/day without a licence - assuming that it's there to be had and that your pumping doesn't adversely effect your neigbours (although if it did that would be a civil issue).
If pumping less than 20 m3/day about the only requirement on you is to lodge a geological record if you go below 15 metres.
Re: well no one got hurt?
John Bannister in 1799, discussing the profession of well sinking
'. . . These accidents render this profession extremely hazardous, but as the people who embark in it entertain but little thoughts of a future period, and since the chief end of their pursuits is the obtaining of a liberal supply of drink, if this end be answered they bestow little attention to the hazards of their profession . . . '
Re: Safer idea?
That's a fairly standard technique for constructing a well. How deep you would go would depend on the local geology, but assuming that the superficial deposits are reasonably stable, wells made with this technique are often carried down to bedrock.
If the caisson gets stuck you can just narrow the diameter and carry on....(assumes you have a ready supply of different diameter concrete rings)
Thumbs up for the hydrogeology - massive massive thumbs down for the actions in the photo at the bottom of page 1 - working in an unsupported excavation like that is basically typing out an application for a darwin award.
Re: True Cost/Efficiency
Reread the earlier posters post.!
Just because it doesn't suit you, doesn't mean it doesn't suit anyone. Two car households are not exactly rare.
When I go on my handful of holiday journeys, i need a car that can cross seas and travel in excess of 500 mph, but as they aren't readily available (rotten scientists failing to design my personal jet-pack) i made a compromise and bought a petrol car that handles the normal run of journeys.
Leaving aside the economics, both in terms of the cost and potential saving, I quite like the idea of a nice integrated system - my phone would notice that I've left the office and am heading home, and siri or her freinds would say 'do you want me to turn the heating on?' and I could say 'yes please' or 'no thanks, i'm off to the pub, not back till 11:00' .
Re: Do we need new scientists?
Never let facts get in the way of memes. There were some stories in the 1970s about a new ice age - but the bias towards a prediction of cooling was more a media artifact. A systematic survey of papers published at the time has about 10% of scientists predicting cooling, 60% warming and 30% neutral.
But even if scientists had predicted a new ice age 40 years ago, that wouldn't really invalidate modern day climate science, any more than Bill Gates saying '640K ought to be enough for anybody' means that all computer science is invalid (and yes - I know he didn't say it - just like the climate scientists didn't predict an ice age!)
So one year sea ice in one bit of the Artic was extensive - so everything is OK. Because obviously the whole edifice of climate science was predicated on that. We can thankfully ignore all the bits of the Arrtic where there was less ice, and obviously hypotheses linking sea ice extent to weather patterns are comprehensively disproven, so fire up the old coal stove and relax.
Re: If you really have too much money ...
Well actually its not as if he's burning dollar bills. The money 'spent' will buy stuff and pay wages, and the people who sold the stuff or got the wages will pay taxes, and buy more stuff and pay more wages, and so the wheels of capitalism grind round.
if we are going to whinge about pointless expenditure I think there's quite a long list before you get to this - i would start at nuclear weapons and work down the list, through TV reality shows, past designer handbags and personalised number-plates before i carped at spending that celebrates heritage, arts and achievement.
Yes - remarkably well.
Re: Here's my position for what it is worth...
OK -a downvote based simply enough on your first paragraph - the number might be up for grabs, but .3 degrees/century is based on what? Not observations, not models, not theory , 'intuition' maybe?
Just because something makes us uncomfortable, and we don't want to change our habits, doesn't mean it isn't happening. Doctors tell me red meat is bad for me, and eating it will shorten life expectancy. I don't like that message because I like eating steak. but that doesn't mean the doctor's are wrong, It means I am weak willed and think about short term gain (mmmm - steak!) rather than the long term (dying from bowel cancer). That makers me a typical human, but says absolutely zilch about the scientific facts of diet/life expectancy.
This is how science works - lots of small bits of evidence (for the period in question and the antarctic measurement made on one ice crystal!) gradually clearing away layers of uncertainty - but it doesn't 'contradict the IPCC - the IPCC report basically said that there was a need for more evidence to be sure how Southern Hemisphere temperatures evolved over the last millenia. So research gets funded that shines a small light on this.
Unfortunately for naysayers, one line of thought is that if the MWP was warmer than we think, climate sensitivity iwould be greater than we think, so our releases of CO2 will have more effect, and we should be more alarmed, not less!
Weather forecasting in the British Isles is easy, innit? you just need some damp seaweed because the weather is so predictable.
At least the Met Office actually collect data and forecast, and get it right pretty perfectly for the lead times that the inherent unpredictability of Atlantic weather allows. Comparing the Met Office to private forecasters is a bit like comparing a blogger to a journalist- 'why do we need journalists to report news - I can read talk to peoople down the pub and read news on Google and regurgitate it with my own opinion attached for free!'
Two car households
Arguments against these cars on the basis of cost are fair enough, but arguments around range and the possibility of doing long journeys always seem to overlook the fact that lots of households (>30% in 2009 ) have access to more than one car, so having a short range electric for trips around town and a conventional motor for long trips is not so dumb.
Really a bargain?
The O2 deal for an Asus UL30 looks a bit less of a bargain given that it was recently on sale for - £350 in car phone warehouse, where, although it is still listed on a home page at that price, it now seems to be a dead link. Still, had you bought at that price, the O2 deal would be costing £95 not saving £89. IMHO there is no such thing as a free lunch (or laptop).
Volcanoes are innocent
Don't blame the cuddly volcanoes - estimates for volcanic CO2 emissions are about 150 million tonnes per annum. Man's activity is responsible for 27 billion tonnes per annum. Sulphur aerosols from volcanoes can be shown to have a cooling effect, so I am drilling through the base of my hollowed out volcano to set off a super eruption and save the world!
Qaulified to comment?
I agree with Pinkerton - why is climate change science an area where everyone can be their own expert? The science is complicated, and as befits complicated science most practitioners will have spent decades studying, in an environment where a questioning mind and innate scepticism are de-rigueur. But never mind - 10 minutes reading a tabloid newspaper or half an hour trawling the web will put you on a par!
Paris because I expect she is as well qualified in climatology as most commentators on these threads.