Posts by Barely registers 119 publicly visible posts • joined 22 Jun 2009
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.
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.
An interesting comment on the Nature site by a David Hathway is here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/full/nature09786.html#/comment-18493
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.
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?
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'.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
