51 posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
If this was Wikipedia, that reply would look like this
"issued by the GWPF who are ALL IN THE PAY OF BIG OIL" 
Actually, we're cutting down the trees because
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
If it moves again....
then _that_ would be news.
And then nuke it from orbit.
Re: Optimistic - Given the right components
>> sugar, custard and ... a little strawberry jam
Agreed - anything to take away the taste of the rhubarb.
Ozone causes (a) warming (b) cooling (Delete as politically expedient)
(c) More money to research the problem
"We Have A Problem" Ballocket Abort Panel
Re: Encrypted email
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? Obligatory XKCD reference follows
DRM lifecycle flowchart - http://xkcd.com/488/
The next step...
""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 ?
Commercial power generation potential?
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?
Quick - use the second amendment....
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 ?
Magnets - electro magnet?
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.
I know I've misunderstood this, but....
To summarise: Scientists go "Woo Hoo!" at sending information via photon over fiber optic.
Honest question - what is the signifcance of the breakthrough here?
Can't reduce what you can't measure
... 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.
Re: Kill it with fire
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.
Kill it with fire
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.
@nomnomnom Re: Not radical, at least nolt compared to what is actually being done
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.
Re: Not radical, at least nolt compared to what is actually being done
"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.
Rectangular, with rounded corners
Must be an iPhone(y)
Re: "But we can't escape economics; it's a discipline we're cursed to continue."
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.
Re: tosh, again (@ Mephistro )
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.
Re: tosh, again
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.
Does this show a negative feedback?
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?
Getting to the truth
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.
Re: This is insane.
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...?
Not registered here...
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?
Re: Re: Weather vs Climate
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)?
Weather vs Climate
We're inferring a simple inverse link between Arctic Ice and UK snow from 6 data points?
SURELY "more data required" ?
You want ANOTHER supercomputer?
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.
"No-one ever said it would". Apart from....
Glad that science is settled then. FFS.
I LOVE Flash because...
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.
A valid point
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?
Valve before gauge?
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 have an answer
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.
More solar activity = less cosmic rays
Your confusion arises because you have the first relationship back to front.
More active sun = fewer cosmic rays because the solar wind acts as a buffer, reducing the cosmic rays coming into the solar system.
Fewer cosmic rays
= less nucleation
= less cloud
= higher surface temperatures.
So it's the Sun?
Who'd have thought it.
"Scottish boffins", please.
It was a dark and stormy night...
and because they didn't carry batteries, none of their gear worked.
I foresee future wars fought on a "From Dusk till Dawn" basis of using sharp sticks until the sun comes up.
Current global UAH anomaly is....
Get your coat.
"Scientist cracks mystery" - sounds confident to me
An interesting comment on the Nature site by a David Hathway is here:
suggesting that the model, whilst generating observed sunspot behaviour, relies on a model of meridional flow at the start of the cycle which was exactly opposite to the flow observed at that time.
It seems the model ignored the reality. I got bad grades at school when I tried that, and I was't on anybody's payroll.
Put another way...
Scientist writes computer program which successfully outputs past measurements, yet makes no predictions about what cycle 24 holds in store.
And the other 5% are...?
presumably perfectly functional satellites whose owners wouldn't take kindly to their investment being swept up in a fishing net and discarded?
Nothing to fear = nothing for them to gain
Frankly, I would have something to lose - namely my rights to be left alone as a private individual.
"They" would gain _nothing_ from having my DNA, except the overhead of storing it securely and sucking up CPU cycles on _every_ search.
Lastly, just how does this MP actually know whether there is any DNA evidence to match against?
500 gigatonnes = 0.021%
1km^3 of ice weighs 0.9 Gt, so 500 Gt = 555km^3 ice.
Volume of Greenland ice approx. 2,600,000 km^3 according to USGS.
So, ice loss in the 6 years between 2003 and 2009 is 555/2,600,000 = 0.0214%. At that rate it will ice-free in AD30090.
Put into context, 500Gt of Greenland ice looks like 'fuck all', not 'fuck loads'.
How will the Camp Climate people coordinate their attack now?
Update your bookmarks now
Can't we make it less cost effective for the ISPs to do this?
e.g. if you have www.virginmedia.com as a bookmark, change it to www.virginmedia.cmo and then click the sponsored link on the error page.
Virgin then has to pay Yahoo for the click every time you visit.
Never mind - daft idea.
Setting the bar high
If you think you can get a better picture than this, then by all means bash on:
Myself, I think the science has been settled on this one.....
If I've got nothing to hide...
then they've got nothing to gain.
So s*d off and leave me alone.
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Did Apple's iOS make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets using glowing KILL RAY
- Review Distro diaspora: Four flavours of Ubuntu unpacked
- Neil Young touts MP3 player that's no Piece of Crap