The degree to which we've had a warm dry winter and a hot spring is only represented by 2 years in the last 140 or so. While this pattern may be more common, it usually isn't this amplified. If this year plays out like the two analogs we should have a milder may. In any case I'd look for the trough in the Midwest to end up as a cutoff low over the east and bring a little relief.
Interference on 121.5 wont affect much. 95% of the traffic on that freq is people telling other people they are accidentally transmitting on guard.
The real issue is 108-112 MHz is the frequency band localizers broadcast on (the lateral part of instrument landing systems, the vertical is up somewhere in the 300's MHz), and 112-118 MHz is VOR navigation. Most people these day are flying GPS and not VOR, but they will be on the localizer when landing in low visibility. Not too many airlines can use RNAV afaik. If an oscillator is adding 10.7 Mhz, then anyone listening to an FM station around 97-102 MHz would put them in the right range for interfering with the localizer signal.
We're all told to turn off our phones for our own safety, because self-interest is the most persuasive argument available.
If you are unlucky enough to be on a flight that ends up in an accident during takeoff or landing (if it happens, its probably going to be one of those two), do you really want be trying to get to an exit with everyone between you and that door trying to put a laptop away? People have a hard enough time just leaving their bags on the plane in these situations, it'll only be worse if they have stuff they are trying to stuff back into a bag before leaving a burning aircraft.
True, its quite the exception to be involved in an accident like that, but remember that possibility is the only reason you have flight attendants; their primary role isnt to get you a coke and some peanuts.
And to add a personal anecdote, I was both a First Officer and a Captain for an airline flying EMB-145 regional jets, and if I had a passenger (or my crew) that left a TDMA or GSM phone turned on, I could always hear the distinctive noise they make in my headset, even with a TSO-approved headset. Nothing more than a distraction, though. The real reason I tuned my phone off is so the battery didnt drain looking for a cell tower en route.
Solid angles! Your understanding is correct, but the OP has it right also (for a ballpark estimate). He is using an averaged irradiance at the Earth's surface [ W m-2 ] that takes into account the effect of projecting the cross sectional area onto a rotating sphere (and is also averaged daily and seasonally to correct for night and the tilt of the earth).
You are correct that i am simplifying the matter. In truth, the east/west boundaries would be considered periodic, so that essentially the grid points on opposite edges of the domain are actually the same point. The north/south boundary gets interesting:). For spectral models, which require periodicity in the wave solution, the 'wraparound' zonally provides this, guaranteeing periodicity around a latitude circle. My personal modeling experience is cloud scale and regional modeling (CM1 and WRF, primarily), so I dont deal with global grids in physical or spectral space, or climate models for that matter.
Also there is still a need for upper and lower BC's, which in a very simple model might employ a no slip condition on the bottom and a radiative boundary at the top with a sponge layer to minimize energy reflecting off the top. Tthe lower boundaries will also have forcings from ocean and vegetation models/parameterizations (for moisture fluxes, sensible heat fluxes, roughness lengths, albedo, etc).
> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were/programmed/ to/assume/ that there will be lag
What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.
You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.
They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.
And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.
Piston aircraft dont use this engine, they use big displacement flat 4 or flat 6 engines, air cooled. They arent suitable for car use because they are high compression cylinders that still rely on leaded fuel to achieve their compression ratios, and they rely on the airflow from cruising at faster-than-highway speeds to keep the engine cool. Also as another poster pointed out, you open the throttle wide open for takeoff, climb wide open (or a small reduction) and then cruise at 75% or 80% rated power. Keep in mind 100% rated power in one of these engines is only around 2300-2500 RPM with the typical prop you'll find on one of these planes. The closest thing to this you'll find in a car is probably an older air-cooled porsche boxter.
Other aircraft engines like radial and turbine engines are also unsuitable for cars, for various other reasons.
I'd say the effect is known. What may be new is that the fluid is ionic and interacts with a magnetic field. You can induce the same effects in an airplane, where its pretty easy to apply accelerations to your body that your ears (vestibular system) will interpret one way and your eyes in another way. Vertigo.
You could read 512 bytes multiple times and build a probability density function for each byte of the block based upon your many samples. You could then use the PDF's to construct the most probable 512 byte block. You may not be able to read a single byte at a time, but you can certainly sample that byte from multiple larger reads. I'm not familiar at all with the software, but it sounds like something that could be accomplished with a basic application of statistics, given that you can actually get different 512 byte blocks on subsequent reads and that the bad bytes within the block are not truly random or stochastic.
For your proposal, I think you underestimate the complexity and equipment needed to launch a probe and have it captured into a geostationary orbit (you want to "match speed") of a moon of another planet. Also note that geostationary orbits are very high altitude orbits over the equator. For decent pictures you need to do what the ISS is doing and use a lower orbit (polar or other inclination), but in that case you wont "match speed" anymore and will have to deal with the body moving underneath you (from your reference frame).
At the costs involved you'll probably want to put more than just a nikon and a big lens on your probe.
NASA already has many satellites in orbit that take pictures. Its not live streaming, but you can easily download the data and look at it for yourself. Their cameras aren't just restricted to the visible spectrum (in fact, that is probably a minority), but the cloud tracking projects definitely have visible data from a polar orbiter. The Terra satellite (i think its that one) takes something like 9 pictures along its orbit at different angles to the earth so that cloud height and motion can be determined (correct parallax and drift using multiple images of the same location taken from different angles). For the non visible wavelengths you'll find infrared, water vapor, land use, and many other images.
I wasnt debating climate science, but rather using an example of radiative transfer and refuting the poor naming choice of the "greenhouse effect". The mechanics described above hold for any molecule that interacts strongly with longwave radiation, a few of which are H2O, CH4, CO2, etc. If you disagree with my statements at their face value, I'd be happy to discuss further.
greenhouse gasses do not "block" IR radiation. Greenhouse gasses absorb and are excited by IR radiation. This energy goes into increasing the internal energy of the molecule, some of which ends up in kinetic energy (manifested as an increase in temperature) and some is re-emitted as IR radiation. The key here is that the IR radiation primarily being absorbed by the molecule is emitted longwave radiation from the Earth, the energy of which depends on the temperature of the molecules emitting them. Likewise, the emitted radiation from the random CO2 molecule is dependent on its temperature. If the CO2 temperature is less than the earth's crust, the CO2 molecule cannot emit as much radiation as it absorbs, which yields a net increase in temperature of the CO2 molecule, which then redistributes this temperature with nearby molecules though collisions. What makes a gas a good greenhouse gas is the ability to interact strongly with the IR radiation emitted by the earth.
As you can see, this is not at all how a greenhouse works. The name is a poor choice.
It does raise a valid (ever so slightly offtopic) point though, a company/person making their Google+ page their main portal will exclude a percentage of their audience for ~8 hours a day.
Yea, they did sell them a policy, and this shows you why you need to actually read your policies before signing them. Many policies, perhaps even ones you have signed, contain clauses that limit the insurers liability if certain conditions aren't met.
More likely your right to promote your "money" as an alternative currency and encourage adoption by merchants and consumers, thus validating your "money".
Decreased solar output will have an impact on global temperatures, but it will take time.
Greenhouse gasses (Water, CO2, CH4, etc) do not directly interact with incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. Rather, they interact with the longwave radiation coming from the surface of the Earth. With no greenhouse gasses, the Earth would radiate (based on its temperature) and this radiation would be lost to space. What greenhouse gasses do is absorb the emitted longwave which adds energy to the molecule absorbing it. The excited state either results in a temperature increase of the molecule, or the emission of radiation. Some of this re-emitted radiation is directed downward, toward the Earth. The net result is that some energy that would be lost to space is absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere, warming it, and some is redirected back to the Earth, increasing the net incoming radiation.
The effect can be directly observed. If you look at the measured longwave radiation emitted at the top of our atmosphere, the global average temperature you would calculate would not support life as we know it (much too cold). The difference from that and our directly observed average surface temperatures are due to the greenhouse effect (the energy based on those temperatures is not making it to the top of the atmosphere).
Decreasing solar input would change part of the energy budget, but the greenhouse effect will act as a buffer (from absorbing and re-emitting longwave radiation) that would cause a delayed response.
Note that I am not a climate scientist, just a regular meteorologist who has taken a few classes in radiative transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
The degree to which we've had a warm dry winter and a hot spring is only represented by 2 years in the last 140 or so. While this pattern may be more common, it usually isn't this amplified. If this year plays out like the two analogs we should have a milder may. In any case I'd look for the trough in the Midwest to end up as a cutoff low over the east and bring a little relief.
I take it then that you haven't been in many airplanes. Good luck.
Tenerife was caused by an infallible Captain and his FO that was afraid to speak up and tell him he was wrong. CRM has come a long way since then.
Interference on 121.5 wont affect much. 95% of the traffic on that freq is people telling other people they are accidentally transmitting on guard.
The real issue is 108-112 MHz is the frequency band localizers broadcast on (the lateral part of instrument landing systems, the vertical is up somewhere in the 300's MHz), and 112-118 MHz is VOR navigation. Most people these day are flying GPS and not VOR, but they will be on the localizer when landing in low visibility. Not too many airlines can use RNAV afaik. If an oscillator is adding 10.7 Mhz, then anyone listening to an FM station around 97-102 MHz would put them in the right range for interfering with the localizer signal.
The old NorthWest DC-9's still flew VOR to VOR on steam guages last time I rode up front in one, which was before the Delta merger.
We're all told to turn off our phones for our own safety, because self-interest is the most persuasive argument available.
If you are unlucky enough to be on a flight that ends up in an accident during takeoff or landing (if it happens, its probably going to be one of those two), do you really want be trying to get to an exit with everyone between you and that door trying to put a laptop away? People have a hard enough time just leaving their bags on the plane in these situations, it'll only be worse if they have stuff they are trying to stuff back into a bag before leaving a burning aircraft.
True, its quite the exception to be involved in an accident like that, but remember that possibility is the only reason you have flight attendants; their primary role isnt to get you a coke and some peanuts.
And to add a personal anecdote, I was both a First Officer and a Captain for an airline flying EMB-145 regional jets, and if I had a passenger (or my crew) that left a TDMA or GSM phone turned on, I could always hear the distinctive noise they make in my headset, even with a TSO-approved headset. Nothing more than a distraction, though. The real reason I tuned my phone off is so the battery didnt drain looking for a cell tower en route.
Solid angles! Your understanding is correct, but the OP has it right also (for a ballpark estimate). He is using an averaged irradiance at the Earth's surface [ W m-2 ] that takes into account the effect of projecting the cross sectional area onto a rotating sphere (and is also averaged daily and seasonally to correct for night and the tilt of the earth).
You are correct that i am simplifying the matter. In truth, the east/west boundaries would be considered periodic, so that essentially the grid points on opposite edges of the domain are actually the same point. The north/south boundary gets interesting :). For spectral models, which require periodicity in the wave solution, the 'wraparound' zonally provides this, guaranteeing periodicity around a latitude circle. My personal modeling experience is cloud scale and regional modeling (CM1 and WRF, primarily), so I dont deal with global grids in physical or spectral space, or climate models for that matter.
Also there is still a need for upper and lower BC's, which in a very simple model might employ a no slip condition on the bottom and a radiative boundary at the top with a sponge layer to minimize energy reflecting off the top. Tthe lower boundaries will also have forcings from ocean and vegetation models/parameterizations (for moisture fluxes, sensible heat fluxes, roughness lengths, albedo, etc).
> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag
What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.
You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.
They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.
And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.
Piston aircraft dont use this engine, they use big displacement flat 4 or flat 6 engines, air cooled. They arent suitable for car use because they are high compression cylinders that still rely on leaded fuel to achieve their compression ratios, and they rely on the airflow from cruising at faster-than-highway speeds to keep the engine cool. Also as another poster pointed out, you open the throttle wide open for takeoff, climb wide open (or a small reduction) and then cruise at 75% or 80% rated power. Keep in mind 100% rated power in one of these engines is only around 2300-2500 RPM with the typical prop you'll find on one of these planes. The closest thing to this you'll find in a car is probably an older air-cooled porsche boxter.
Other aircraft engines like radial and turbine engines are also unsuitable for cars, for various other reasons.
I'd say the effect is known. What may be new is that the fluid is ionic and interacts with a magnetic field. You can induce the same effects in an airplane, where its pretty easy to apply accelerations to your body that your ears (vestibular system) will interpret one way and your eyes in another way. Vertigo.
You could read 512 bytes multiple times and build a probability density function for each byte of the block based upon your many samples. You could then use the PDF's to construct the most probable 512 byte block. You may not be able to read a single byte at a time, but you can certainly sample that byte from multiple larger reads. I'm not familiar at all with the software, but it sounds like something that could be accomplished with a basic application of statistics, given that you can actually get different 512 byte blocks on subsequent reads and that the bad bytes within the block are not truly random or stochastic.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/raw/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/multimedia/index.html
Those are just two missions that come to mind.
For your proposal, I think you underestimate the complexity and equipment needed to launch a probe and have it captured into a geostationary orbit (you want to "match speed") of a moon of another planet. Also note that geostationary orbits are very high altitude orbits over the equator. For decent pictures you need to do what the ISS is doing and use a lower orbit (polar or other inclination), but in that case you wont "match speed" anymore and will have to deal with the body moving underneath you (from your reference frame).
At the costs involved you'll probably want to put more than just a nikon and a big lens on your probe.
NASA already has many satellites in orbit that take pictures. Its not live streaming, but you can easily download the data and look at it for yourself. Their cameras aren't just restricted to the visible spectrum (in fact, that is probably a minority), but the cloud tracking projects definitely have visible data from a polar orbiter. The Terra satellite (i think its that one) takes something like 9 pictures along its orbit at different angles to the earth so that cloud height and motion can be determined (correct parallax and drift using multiple images of the same location taken from different angles). For the non visible wavelengths you'll find infrared, water vapor, land use, and many other images.
He was wrong on the details and displays terrible ability to use google to find the right article, but he was right that the 1.3B judgment was struck down. To my knowledge a new amount has not been settled on. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-billion-award-tossed-sap-oracle.html
I wasnt debating climate science, but rather using an example of radiative transfer and refuting the poor naming choice of the "greenhouse effect". The mechanics described above hold for any molecule that interacts strongly with longwave radiation, a few of which are H2O, CH4, CO2, etc. If you disagree with my statements at their face value, I'd be happy to discuss further.
greenhouse gasses do not "block" IR radiation. Greenhouse gasses absorb and are excited by IR radiation. This energy goes into increasing the internal energy of the molecule, some of which ends up in kinetic energy (manifested as an increase in temperature) and some is re-emitted as IR radiation. The key here is that the IR radiation primarily being absorbed by the molecule is emitted longwave radiation from the Earth, the energy of which depends on the temperature of the molecules emitting them. Likewise, the emitted radiation from the random CO2 molecule is dependent on its temperature. If the CO2 temperature is less than the earth's crust, the CO2 molecule cannot emit as much radiation as it absorbs, which yields a net increase in temperature of the CO2 molecule, which then redistributes this temperature with nearby molecules though collisions. What makes a gas a good greenhouse gas is the ability to interact strongly with the IR radiation emitted by the earth.
As you can see, this is not at all how a greenhouse works. The name is a poor choice.
http://airex.tksc.jaxa.jp/pl/dr/19930073399
one example of many.
It does raise a valid (ever so slightly offtopic) point though, a company/person making their Google+ page their main portal will exclude a percentage of their audience for ~8 hours a day.
It is understood that humans require sleep.
Yea, they did sell them a policy, and this shows you why you need to actually read your policies before signing them. Many policies, perhaps even ones you have signed, contain clauses that limit the insurers liability if certain conditions aren't met.
More likely your right to promote your "money" as an alternative currency and encourage adoption by merchants and consumers, thus validating your "money".
Decreased solar output will have an impact on global temperatures, but it will take time.
Greenhouse gasses (Water, CO2, CH4, etc) do not directly interact with incoming shortwave radiation from the sun. Rather, they interact with the longwave radiation coming from the surface of the Earth. With no greenhouse gasses, the Earth would radiate (based on its temperature) and this radiation would be lost to space. What greenhouse gasses do is absorb the emitted longwave which adds energy to the molecule absorbing it. The excited state either results in a temperature increase of the molecule, or the emission of radiation. Some of this re-emitted radiation is directed downward, toward the Earth. The net result is that some energy that would be lost to space is absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere, warming it, and some is redirected back to the Earth, increasing the net incoming radiation.
The effect can be directly observed. If you look at the measured longwave radiation emitted at the top of our atmosphere, the global average temperature you would calculate would not support life as we know it (much too cold). The difference from that and our directly observed average surface temperatures are due to the greenhouse effect (the energy based on those temperatures is not making it to the top of the atmosphere).
Decreasing solar input would change part of the energy budget, but the greenhouse effect will act as a buffer (from absorbing and re-emitting longwave radiation) that would cause a delayed response.
Note that I am not a climate scientist, just a regular meteorologist who has taken a few classes in radiative transfer.
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/ Lots of data available, have fun.
Then you can probably just load it onto an 8 gig USB memory stick which is even more storage than a DVD!