We just switched from LTO-4 to LTO-6. When I calculated the price per MB the cost of LTO-4 and LTO-6 tapes was about the same. But if you never fill up the 2.5 TB of an LTO-6 tape then that might not be the most economical. So far I am pleased with the switch to LTO-6. Our full backups went from 8 or 9 tapes down to three tapes (really 2.5 tapes) although the speed isn't that much better.
If you think a mere 3 million acre-feet of water is enough to cure California's drought problems you must be smoking some of that fine Humboldt County weed.
Obama promised a litany of things he was going to do, including effecting a strong recovery and make progress towards debt reduction.
I think he talked more about deficit reduction than debt reduction. The deficit this year will be lower than it has been since before he took office. Who knows how much better the recovery could have been without all the roadblocks that Congressional Republicans have thrown in the way.
Sorry, good skepticism requires enough knowledge of the subject that you can make cogent arguments.
GCM's, the big climate models are not designed to predict "a decade+ flatline in global temps" because that's more related to weather and the randomness of natural variation. A good skeptic would know enough about climate models to understand that. To quote Gavin Schmidt, one of the principals of the GISS Model/E climate model:
Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary value problem — a statistical description of the mean state and variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.
The results you see from climate models are combinations of many different runs through the "phase space", some of which show flatlines like you described and others that don't but when you average them all together those sorts of variations get washed out because they don't line up temporally.
Of course it would reach equilibrium. Since the heated plate heats up even more because of the return IR it emits that added IR in all directions so not all of that 10 W/m^2 is returned to the passive plate and the passive plate has the same thing happen returning even less of the increase. Eventually that peters out to zero and a new equilibrium is reached.
Here's another way to look at it. You've got a certain amount of energy going into the system and when it reaches equilibrium an equal amount of energy leaving through the walls of the vacuum chamber. When you insert the passive plate the system eventually reaches equilibrium again with the same amount of energy entering and exiting the system. But because the passive plate is cooler than heated plate it's sends less IR toward the side of the chamber it's facing.. In order to reach equilibrium more radiation has to be emitted by the parts of the system that are not shaded by the passive plate which means they have to heat up.
Imagine if the heated plate were totally transparent to the IR emitted by the passive plate. Then if you measured the thermodynamic temperature from the side opposite the passive plate you would see 100 W/m^2 from the heated plate plus 10 W/m^2 from the passive plate for a total of 110 W/m^2. Isn't that by definition an increase in temperature by S-B?
The Colorado River drainage has had persistent drought conditions since 2000 interrupted by an occasional normal year. So much so that the two major reservoirs on the Colorado, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, have both been below 50% of capacity for some time now.
Hey ganjadude, whatcha been smokin'? There was still a 6 to 1 ratio of papers on global warming over global cooling in the 1970's (actually 1965-1979).
It's never to late to make a difference (unless maybe we hit some major tipping point). The ultimate outcome just depends on how soon and radically we react.
This funding is for climate resilience. It doesn't matter if the cause of climate change is human or not. If the climate is changing there are things that can be done to prepare for it and to help withstand the effects.
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Within the relevant scientific fields there is very little debate that the major source of change is the increase in CO2 and the source of that CO2 is mostly human.
If the heated plate is radiating 100 Joules then you insert the passive plate and once it reaches equilibrium it is radiating 10 Joules back toward the heated plate. What happens to that 10 Joules being radiated back? It gets absorbed by the original plate (or reflected if you like) which means it's radiating 110 Joules to maintain equilibrium. By S-B it is radiating more so the temperature has to increase.
It would be a relatively easy experiment to set up and run. I wish someone with access to the right equipment would test it just to shoot Latour down for good.
Science is a systematic and self correcting enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. I trust science because it is self correcting has shown itself to expand our knowledge in ways that enhance our lives. Occasionally scientists make errors and promulgate bad science but since it's not possible to prevent others from repeating the research sooner or later the bad science gets corrected.
I don't see that the Stefan-Boltzmann law contradicts what I have said. Yes the NET heat flow is always in one direction. But the gross heat flow goes both ways. The heat produced by the electric element in the first plate remains the same but in addition to that the plate has to emit or reflect the IR coming from the cooler plate. The Wikipedia page on S-B states:
Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j^{{\star }}, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:
j^{{\star }}=\sigma T^{{4}}
If the energy radiated from a surface increases (electric heater plus received IR) the thermodynamic temperature has to have increased. It's the only variable on the right.
(Note: For those who don't know "{{ }}" is superscript, "\star" is * and "\sigma" is a lower case sigma.)
My perception is that the EPA is already open, honest and scientific and enacting this law would just place an extra burden on them that would just result in unnecessary bureaucratic waste. (And I'm not saying the EPA is perfect but over the years the good they've done is at least an order of magnitude greater than any problems they've caused.)
So when the hotter plate absorbs and emits the IR right back out isn't it still emitting all of the energy provided by the electric heater too? The net effect is that the plate appears (and becomes) hotter since there is more radiation coming off of it, that provided by the electric heater and that re-emitted radiation from the cooler plate.
Australia may have never been joined to Asia as you say but the reduced sea level would have considerably reduced the width of the straits they had to cross.
Slashdot Mirror
We just switched from LTO-4 to LTO-6. When I calculated the price per MB the cost of LTO-4 and LTO-6 tapes was about the same. But if you never fill up the 2.5 TB of an LTO-6 tape then that might not be the most economical. So far I am pleased with the switch to LTO-6. Our full backups went from 8 or 9 tapes down to three tapes (really 2.5 tapes) although the speed isn't that much better.
The term Climate Change has been around forever, for example:
Plass, G.N., 1956, The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change, Tellus VIII, 2. (1956), p. 140-154.
Note the year of the paper.
If you think a mere 3 million acre-feet of water is enough to cure California's drought problems you must be smoking some of that fine Humboldt County weed.
If the data to support AGW is so overwhelming there would be no need to cook the books.
BTW, we are experiencing the Third Coldest Winter On Record So Far In The US
Talk about cooking the books. The contiguous US only covers about 2% of the Earth's surface so at best it has 2% to do with global temperatures.
Obama promised a litany of things he was going to do, including effecting a strong recovery and make progress towards debt reduction.
I think he talked more about deficit reduction than debt reduction. The deficit this year will be lower than it has been since before he took office. Who knows how much better the recovery could have been without all the roadblocks that Congressional Republicans have thrown in the way.
Sorry, good skepticism requires enough knowledge of the subject that you can make cogent arguments.
GCM's, the big climate models are not designed to predict "a decade+ flatline in global temps" because that's more related to weather and the randomness of natural variation. A good skeptic would know enough about climate models to understand that. To quote Gavin Schmidt, one of the principals of the GISS Model/E climate model:
Weather concerns an initial value problem: Given today's situation, what will tomorrow bring? Weather is chaotic; imperceptible differences in the initial state of the atmosphere lead to radically different conditions in a week or so. Climate is instead a boundary value problem — a statistical description of the mean state and variability of a system, not an individual path through phase space.
The results you see from climate models are combinations of many different runs through the "phase space", some of which show flatlines like you described and others that don't but when you average them all together those sorts of variations get washed out because they don't line up temporally.
Mostly just a bunch of bare ground scoured by millenia of glacial action.
Of course it would reach equilibrium. Since the heated plate heats up even more because of the return IR it emits that added IR in all directions so not all of that 10 W/m^2 is returned to the passive plate and the passive plate has the same thing happen returning even less of the increase. Eventually that peters out to zero and a new equilibrium is reached.
Here's another way to look at it. You've got a certain amount of energy going into the system and when it reaches equilibrium an equal amount of energy leaving through the walls of the vacuum chamber. When you insert the passive plate the system eventually reaches equilibrium again with the same amount of energy entering and exiting the system. But because the passive plate is cooler than heated plate it's sends less IR toward the side of the chamber it's facing.. In order to reach equilibrium more radiation has to be emitted by the parts of the system that are not shaded by the passive plate which means they have to heat up.
Imagine if the heated plate were totally transparent to the IR emitted by the passive plate. Then if you measured the thermodynamic temperature from the side opposite the passive plate you would see 100 W/m^2 from the heated plate plus 10 W/m^2 from the passive plate for a total of 110 W/m^2. Isn't that by definition an increase in temperature by S-B?
Solyndra failed because China started selling PV solar panels cheaper than they could compete with so their business model was not longer viable.
Then you'd get Joe Biden.
The Colorado River drainage has had persistent drought conditions since 2000 interrupted by an occasional normal year. So much so that the two major reservoirs on the Colorado, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, have both been below 50% of capacity for some time now.
Hey ganjadude, whatcha been smokin'? There was still a 6 to 1 ratio of papers on global warming over global cooling in the 1970's (actually 1965-1979).
It's never to late to make a difference (unless maybe we hit some major tipping point). The ultimate outcome just depends on how soon and radically we react.
This funding is for climate resilience. It doesn't matter if the cause of climate change is human or not. If the climate is changing there are things that can be done to prepare for it and to help withstand the effects.
1) Nobody is claiming that climate doesn't change - the debate is over the source(s) of that change.
Within the relevant scientific fields there is very little debate that the major source of change is the increase in CO2 and the source of that CO2 is mostly human.
obviously.
I told you what I think happens to that 10 Joules. By the first law of thermodynamics it doesn't just disappear so what happens to it?
Latour is wrong. Period.
If the heated plate is radiating 100 Joules then you insert the passive plate and once it reaches equilibrium it is radiating 10 Joules back toward the heated plate. What happens to that 10 Joules being radiated back? It gets absorbed by the original plate (or reflected if you like) which means it's radiating 110 Joules to maintain equilibrium. By S-B it is radiating more so the temperature has to increase.
It would be a relatively easy experiment to set up and run. I wish someone with access to the right equipment would test it just to shoot Latour down for good.
If I'm right about what I said then the information is already being disclosed and it's an unnecessary law that wastes time and money.
Science is a systematic and self correcting enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. I trust science because it is self correcting has shown itself to expand our knowledge in ways that enhance our lives. Occasionally scientists make errors and promulgate bad science but since it's not possible to prevent others from repeating the research sooner or later the bad science gets corrected.
I don't see that the Stefan-Boltzmann law contradicts what I have said. Yes the NET heat flow is always in one direction. But the gross heat flow goes both ways. The heat produced by the electric element in the first plate remains the same but in addition to that the plate has to emit or reflect the IR coming from the cooler plate. The Wikipedia page on S-B states:
Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power), j^{{\star }}, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:
j^{{\star }}=\sigma T^{{4}}
If the energy radiated from a surface increases (electric heater plus received IR) the thermodynamic temperature has to have increased. It's the only variable on the right.
(Note: For those who don't know "{{ }}" is superscript, "\star" is * and "\sigma" is a lower case sigma.)
I trust science.
My perception is that the EPA is already open, honest and scientific and enacting this law would just place an extra burden on them that would just result in unnecessary bureaucratic waste. (And I'm not saying the EPA is perfect but over the years the good they've done is at least an order of magnitude greater than any problems they've caused.)
So when the hotter plate absorbs and emits the IR right back out isn't it still emitting all of the energy provided by the electric heater too? The net effect is that the plate appears (and becomes) hotter since there is more radiation coming off of it, that provided by the electric heater and that re-emitted radiation from the cooler plate.
Australia may have never been joined to Asia as you say but the reduced sea level would have considerably reduced the width of the straits they had to cross.