Spanish Petty Bureaucracy Hinders Exciting Research - Organise Experiments Stateside
66 posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
Spanish Petty Bureaucracy Hinders Exciting Research - Organise Experiments Stateside
Stratospheric Test Indicating Fit to Fly, Yes?
It's the acronym for Final Flight Shakedown, FFS.
I suspect a plot - Earth Hour is now to be enforced centrally.
You can go about your business now.
Apple: How may I help you today?
Sith Lord: My iSabre intermittently cuts out in the middle of duels.
Apple: Ooh - sounds nasty.
Sith Lord: It is. I now have two of your iHands.
Apple: Well, that's alright then. Was there anything else?
Sith Lord: Yes - about my iSabre cutting out?
Apple: Oh yes. What version of iSabre do you have?
Sith Lord: Version 4
Apple: Ah. Yes. We've had reports. Let's see. Oh yes. The outcome of our research is that you must be holding it wrong. Are you by any chance left-handed?
Sith Lord: I was....
Apple: Ah. Yes. You mentioned that. Oh - there's a workaround. Try using electrical tape across the quantum accelerator terminals. Thank you for your call. And good luck with those duels!!
Hey - ain't we uninstalling the same software together on the very same day?
I propose the ultimatum tweet:
@AdobeFlash #Flash #FixItOrNixIt
Thanks. Most interesting.
The 128km^3 figure is not derived by performing the subtraction between two actual measurements, but by comparisons between model outputs. The model is derived from 369 days of data starting in january 2012, and then applied to data taken between 2011 and 2014.
From what I can understand, the model is an 8th order polynomial curve fit. To quote John von Neumann, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." Here we have eight parameters.
The error bars on the result are nearly of the order of the result: -128km^3 +/- 83.
The claim of a factor of three increase in rate of volume loss comes by comparing the output of two different models. When you consider that the thrust of the article is that the models aren't stacking up to reality, conclusions drawn by comparing two model outputs don't seem wholly reliable.
Climate science is worrisomely veering to the "models all the way down".
Give me measurements.
Ooh. Data. Can you post a link please?
When you observe a cherry that says that an entire continent of ice and snow has grown by more than 4 standard deviations above its baseline average, it just screams to be picked. Much like the cherries which have been picked highlighting record lows in Arctic ice area and extent.
When the cherry represents a measurement that flat out goes against the predictions of a globally warming world, and laughs in the face of models being used to justify billions of pounds being directed to "alternative" energies and the like, then it fucking well should be picked and held up to the world with at least the tagline "hold on just a second....."
If I read it right, 25cm resolution is the limit "for sale".
I find myself wondering what the _actual_ capability of these sats is?
Fetching coat, and hat, and dark sunglasses.
Gets Out The Way Of Obstructive Deciduousness.
to ditch FB.
It was Adam Kramer's comment "it was in 2012, and we've come a long way since then" that really sent the chills down me.
You do know that the more recent mobile phone versions have your permission to read your texts, right?
equals how much actual reliable baseline load?
I actually want to know - references gratefully received, ta.
From "The Long Earth" with Stephen Baxter:
"He was after all the founder of the first 'serendipital laboratory'. The logic was that since so many important new discoveries in science were made by accident, then the process would be speeded up if you set up a situation in which a very large number of accidents happened and watched the results carefully."
Kudos though to the researcher who at least thought "that's interesting..."
Wiping out malaria - I'm all for that.
As I understand it, we either destroy the parasite itself and/or the vector that it spreads by. My question is, what would happen next?
If the parasite is eradicated, how will the balance of nature shift? I've found a fair few examples of what could happen if mosquitoes themselves were wiped out, which was interesting on its own, but nothing about whether losing plasmodium falciparum would have unintended consequences.
Note - I'm _not_ invoking the precautionary principle here.
I think sickle cell disease would drop markedly, as there would be no further evolutionary benefit in having it (it's less fatal then getting malaria, it seems).
Anyone got any other theories?
"issued by the GWPF who are ALL IN THE PAY OF BIG OIL" 
then we can burn them in "CO2 neutral" biomass power stations.
(having shipped them across the ocean in bunker diesel powered ships).
You know it's fucking stupid when even the Guardian quotes people calling it an insanity.
May 2011 http://science.time.com/2011/05/10/why-does-the-ipcc-want-us-to-cut-down-trees/
April 2012 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/02/eu-renewable-energy-target-biomass
May 2013 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22630815
then _that_ would be news.
And then nuke it from orbit.
>> sugar, custard and ... a little strawberry jam
Agreed - anything to take away the taste of the rhubarb.
(c) More money to research the problem
"We Have A Problem" Ballocket Abort Panel
Because their public key is in the certificate which is digitally signed by a higher certificate authority that you _do_ trust.
It all comes down to trust, and right now, I've precious little of it.
DRM lifecycle flowchart - http://xkcd.com/488/
""The next steps will be to carry out modelling studies to quantify the impact of Criegee intermediates on climate and to quantify the level of alkene present in various environments.”
Can I humbly suggest that a better "next step" would be to do some experiments that will get you some data to input into a model ?
As I understand it at the moment, this system uses the fusion energy to convert a pellet into a 30km/s projectile.
So why is this not a possible power generation system?
Fire that projectile into the equivalent of a sand trap, and it will dump its kinetic energy as heat. There's your equivalent of the coal furnace / gas turbine / nuclear reactor. Pump water around it, get steam, add a turbine and voila - electricity. If the fusion is effective enough, you've got a system pushing out more usable power than went into it.
I'm not saying the engineering is simple, but isn't the premise sound?
If it's a weapon, does that give American citizens the rights to use them under the "keep and bear arms" term of the Second Amendment ?
I may show a shocking lack of grasp of the physics of magnetism here....
Use a small electro magnet on the truss and a small "bar" magnetic stripe (like a shower door seal) on the LOHAN, separated by a non-stick membrane. Push current through the electro magnet to attract it to the bar magnet.
At the point of ignition, reverse the current in the electro magnet, providing an actual repulsive force to disconnect the power supply.
The electro magnet means the magnetic join can be made very strong, reducing the risk of premature separation, but there will be no static magnetic attraction to be overcome on launch. Indeed, you might even get a push forwards.
Or I'll just get my coat.
To summarise: Scientists go "Woo Hoo!" at sending information via photon over fiber optic.
Honest question - what is the signifcance of the breakthrough here?
... and you can't _measure_ what each building is producing, only _simulate_ it with a model.
Unless the model knows the construction, air-con thermostat setting, level of occupancy and level of insulation, it can't do even that in any meaningful way.
Nothing - just two birds, one stone, and all that. Both excercises (metric and lane change) need new signs. Let's do both at the same time.
Yes, god yes. Consign these unholy Imperial abominations to the darkest of the depths. Lead the way, and maybe, just maybe, we can drag the rest of the world kicking and screaming out of the mire and into the light.
And while we're at it changing the road signs from miles to km, let's drive on the right hand side of the road too.
My bad - the 23W/m2 reduction would of course be over the daylight half of the Earth only. However, this is the same half of the Earth that plants photosynthesise on. Given the fierce fight for light in the plant world, I suspect this would be a significant problem.
I don't get how you end up at 4W/m2.
I started with 1360 W/m2 Total Solar Irradiance (TSI)
Times 1.7% for rock dust reduction
Times 0.5 to spread the effect over to the dark side
Times your 0.7 (for planetary albedo of 0.3 ?)
gives 8.092 W/m2
still 3 to 4 times the effect the IPCC claims for AGW effects.
Thinking things through a little more though, the overall 1.7% reduction will not be evenly spread across the light spectrum of the TSI. The visible wavelengths (including blue and red light at which photosynthesis is most attuned) will be dispersed more than, say, infrared (which can penetrate dust clouds more effectively, depending on dust particle size). Thus I would expect plants to suffer effects greater than a flat 1.7% reduction in daylight.
I would like to claim first dibs on the precautionary principle on this one, especially given the near impossibility of sucking a dust cloud out of vacuum if the Earth did get a chill.
"1.7% barely noticeable".
Not by us, maybe, but seriously, you think removing some 23W/m2 over the surface of the earth isn't going to be noticed? The IPCC reckons anthropogenic warming results in from a net energy imbalance of the order of 2 to 3 W/m2 - one tenth of the proposed cut.
So. Considered it. It _could_ solve the problem by killing off large swathes of plants, hence food, hence people, hence CO2 production.
Bewick - step AWAY from the modelling computer.
Must be an iPhone(y)
Economists..."They have no appropriate sense or respect for: 1.) the complexity of the systems they are dealing with, 2.) their own limitations, and 3.) that the systems will *always* react in strange and unexpected ways when one attempts to control them."
Also a neat summation of those proposing climate controls e.g. sea water cloud ships, iron seeding of plankton, space mirrors and so on.
You are looking at big Bq numbers. It's the Sv number you need to look at.
That is why I did the conversion from Bq (Caesium) to Sv - Bq is the number of decays per second. Sv is the derived unit standardising the biological effects of ionizing radiation. You could shield behind a sheet of paper from something emitting 10,000,000 Bq of alpha particles, but not from something emitting 10,000,000 of beta particles or gamma rays - same Bq, different energies, different biological effects. Sv is the number to worry about.
Wikipedia (it's too late to go searching for more authoratative sources) gives an example that a single 140 MBq/kg of Cs-137 is lethal to dogs after 3 weeks. Assuming human/canine biology is equally sensitive to ionising radiation, then a 140,000,000 Bq / kg dose at my hefty 85kg is 11,900,000,000 Bq - some 922,480 times the does compared to the 12,900 Bq in the portion of battered fish in question.
That tells me that the biological effects of that radiological dose on my body are tiny. Really. Tiny tiny tiny.
Caesium enriched fish & chips eh? Tasty. Let's see now.
25,800 Bq / kg of fish - lets be greedy and have a half-kilo (11oz) portion, gives 12,900Bq.
1 Bq of Caesium = 0.013 microsievert (uSv) (source: http://www.ourfood-news.com/node/115)
12,900 * 0.013 = 167.7 uSv
The mighty xkcd chart (here: http://xkcd.com/radiation/ ) lists a flight from LA to New York at 40 uSV and a head CT scan as 2,000 uSv (2 mSv)
So, for a free bag of battered fish and chips (I _do_ live in Scotland, after all) with health effects of 2 return air trips across the USA, I might well take you up on your offer, if Lewis doesn't beat me to it.
If that's the effect of putting 6 nuclear reactors in an earthquake, then throwing a tsunami over it and blowing the roof off, then I think that's just incredibly safe.
Would I be right to interpret this study that a new negative feedback mechanism has been uncovered, whose effect has varied over time? i.e. is there an effect by which more CO2 increases the sequestration of more CO2?
If that _is_ the case, what is the impact on the projections made so far by models? Would they be overstating future warming?
There are records of what Bank X lent to Bank Y and the rate of that loan.
There are records of what Bank X and Bank Y reported to the LIBOR committee, and the people that made those reports.
It is therefore a straightforward job to identify rogue reports, given access to the data.
It is therefore a straightforward job to identify those banks and individuals that reported rogue rates.
In the interests of national security (it's been used as justification for much less) demand those records. Identify, charge and prosecute. Get to work.
Where does SSL fit into all of this? If you enable it as default on Twitter and Facebook, then what can a snoop reveal except that you visited the site? It couldn't reveal which pages you visited, what messages you wrote and read, and so on, so what the hell is the point?
Unless SSL is an open book to those in the know...?
It's a nice touch by Google to say that, as the company is not headquarted there, they are not subject to Japan's law.
The USA can take down any site they like that has a .com TLD regardless of where the domain owner trades or resides. What chance google.jp being taken down by Japanese law enforcement?
From the supporting material, it looks like just 4 data points to me - 2007/8, 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11.
Ok ok I'm being glib that 1 solid year of observations is 1 data point. But seriously, a climate study taking in just 4 winters? Color me unconvinced.
Does anyone know if this can this be used to generate snow forecasts (and hindcasts)?
We're inferring a simple inverse link between Arctic Ice and UK snow from 6 data points?
SURELY "more data required" ?
Bigger and better than the £33m IBM supercomputer that you installed in 2009?
Yeah - you know - the one that consumes the same power as 2000 homes?
My tip - write a better program.
Glad that science is settled then. FFS.
I can turn it off using NoScript, so those bastard animated banner ads don't show.
Can anyone tell me how I'd do that in HTML5 short of http blocking the ad servers?
Paris? Flash? 'nuf said.
As the lid is to be held down by the vacuum, any explosive increase in pressure _should_ vent out the top rather than destructively forcing a way through a gauge.
You _do_ want to be sure that your vacuum vessel was in a proper vacuum though?
A lesson I learned from my Uni life when working on a vacuum chamber was that the gauge should always be directly connected to the volume it is measuring.
With a setup not disimilar to what you have proposed, my lecturer one day helpfully closed the valve and shut off the pump to get some quiet in the lab. He later switched the pump back on but didn't open the valve.
So I stroll in, read the pressure gauge, see that all is well and activate the second stage oil vacuum pump. Result? A coating of soot over every square inch of the internals of the chamber as the oil cooked in the air that had seeped in to the vessel.
Be prepared to sacrifice the gauge, and put the valve between it and the pump. Who knows, if you log the gauge's output, you may get some interesting data.
I suspect that was when someone at El Reg looked at the science and not the models, and came to a different conclusion to the consenseless.
Maybe I was skim-reading too quickly, but doesn't this article just deal with the economics? I didn't see any claim that climate change wasn't happening.