The Gulf Stream does not reach Iceland. The tail end of the North Atlantic Drift and the Irminger current bound us.
Our winters are fairly mild compared to our latitude, although certainly colder than Scotland, we're significantly further north in the same basin. Winter lows are generally what you might find in the mid to upper US great plains or northern New England. But winters are very long here, and very windy.
Exactly what I was thinking... this is a group that sells sex slaves for a profit....
I agree with others, that they should have deliberately planted false information. I know some groups have posted fake copies of Dabiq for that purpose (Dabiq = their professional-looking monthly magazine, named after the Syrian town (which they control) where they think that Armageddon will soon begin)
No thanks to our current government:( Cutbacks here have been pretty terrible.
What impressed me more is broadband connectivity. We're highly ranked despite being a rugged, low population density country in the middle of the North Atlantic. And many sites report Icelanders as being #1 per capita, such as Facebook.
400k is generous, it's closer to 330k. And for most of Iceland's history it was closer to 60k.
The earlier carrying capacity was based primarily on livestock. Some increase was made possible with cold-weather caloric crops like potatoes, but especially with sea fishing. Today's big increase is made possible by imports.
Re: housing, though most of Iceland's history, it was turf houses. There are still a good number of people alive today who grew up in them. Today's housing is primarily concrete. You import a bit of portland cement and steel, use a lot of local aggregate, and get something that tolerates well our high winds.
Maybe hard from a Mohs/vickers perspective, but in practice it's usually highly fractured and easy to erode. This is most visible in the dikes that, being harder, get left behind.
Iceland isn't very geyser-y. We only have one active geyser basin, and it's pretty far from hellisheiÃi.
But yes Iceland's basalts are MORB, not exactly the same as other places. But then again, not all of our layers are the same. Some aren't even basalt (rhyolite, andesite), and some aren't even lava flows.
Allow me roll my eyes. Yes people are working on electric airplanes. No they haven't gotten very far with them
You might as well say the same thing about smartphones. They exist. They're for sale. People buy them. And they use them. It's an existing market. And one that's growing very rapidly. And their performance is quite nice. A number now offer ranges of about 400km at cruising speeds, similar to electric cars.
It doesn't matter what "eye rolling" you do, these things exists, the scale of the market grows dramatically every year, and so do the performance specs.
(Skipping your silly pretending that navigating around obstacles and in orders-of-magntiude varying tractiion conditions and full of moving objects that you have no control over and no beacons on them is somehow easier than straight-line flight navigation)
As someone who's spent way too much time trying to get trees to grow in Iceland, I have to say: pumping it back underground at Hellisheiði is probably a heck of a lot easier;)
No, it means that it was a pilot project and it's the first time they've tried this.
It's great news. I've been following as they've been working on this project. Most people wouldn't think we'd have much carbon dioxide here since virtually all of our power is either hydroelectric or geothermal, but we're actually abnormally high emitters per capita. Now, most of that's not easy to capture - we can pretty much rule out the fishing fleet, and two of the three aluminum smelters aren't that close to a geothermal plant (although I don't know if their technique needs to be directly coordinated with a geothermal plant or not). However, geothermal wells also can have surprising levels of CO2 emissions. They're quite varied, and generally far less than burning fossil fuels for power, but some of the worst wells can actually get up to a good fraction of the emissions of of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel power. So this experiment was conducted at Hellisheiði, which is the biggest geothermal plant in Iceland (and one of the biggest in the world), with the goal of making it eventually fully close-cycle. Maybe they'll also reduce their H2S emissions at the same time.
Concerning one thing in the article:
But Dr Matter said there was a risk of mobilising trace metals, potentially polluting downstream waterways. And any injection of water or CO2 into deep subsurface reservoirs carried the danger of “micro” earthquakes.
They're already making regular earthquakes on the production end, so what's the big difference? More to the point, who would even notice? Wow, gee, earthquakes in Iceland, we've never gotten those before;)
I also don't have much concerns about trace metals flowing into waters. Those are geothermal layers. Any waters there are geothermal waters. Which means that they're pretty "contaminated" to begin with. You don't drink geothermal waters, or anything that they flow into. I have a lot more concerns about 1) agricultural / livestock / septic system contamination, and 2) suspended particulate (aka surface water contamination). See Mývatn for the effects of both, Lagarfljót particularly for the latter. Our main areas of concern with bodies of water have generally been with either clouding them or causing algal blooms.
Then again, though, why should we even bother helping reduce CO2 levels? Make Iceland Covered With Redwoods Again!;)
A flying car is a FAR more difficult problem to solve than a self driving car
Yes, all of those flying pedestrians darting out into your path, other commuters slamming on the brakes to avoid a flying cat, drivers going the wrong way down a one-way air lane, your maximum rate of cornering varying by a couple orders of magnitude depending on conditions just like an icy vs. dry road...
There's a general rule of thumb for flying cars: it's either going to be a bad car, a bad plane, or both.
IMHO, choose "bad plane". Brute force yourself aloft (at the cost of range). Electric motors today have extreme power densities, and lithium ion batteries have impressive power densities as well. Accept a poor L/D ratio and thus short flight times, in favor of carlike safety and normal driving characteristics. You'll have a much more practical vehicle that way, and still something that can let you zip about in the air.
You know, you could come across a bit more haughty if you wrote that while riding in a gilded carriage and eating foie gras off the back of the underpaid immigrant footman who you hired to replace the last one who you had deported after he served you your St. Helena coffee too cold and didn't hum "God Save the Queen" while shining your designer shoes.
The British English term for reducing a substance with lithium is a lithiothermic reaction. The British English term for reducing a substance with magnesium is a magnesiothermic reaction. The British English term for reducing a substance with sodium is a sodiothermic reaction. The British English term for reducing a substance with calcium is a calciothermic reaction. The British English term for reducing a substance with aluminum is a aluminothermic reaction. No "i".
At least be consistent with your ahistorical, irregular naming conventions.
That is not correct. IUPAC did not take a stand until 1990, then reversed their stand three years later.
Fortunately they are sticking to their guns regarding the metric system.
1. The US needs to join with the rest of the world and ditch their antiquated system of measures for the reasonable system that the rest of the world uses. The British, mind you, are hardly leaders in this regard either.
2. The British need to get over themselves and realize that they have no more authoritative claim over the English language than anyone else, and while they have more historically accurate, reasonable terminology in some areas, they also have less historically accurate, unreasonable terminology in others.
Slashdot Mirror
The Gulf Stream does not reach Iceland. The tail end of the North Atlantic Drift and the Irminger current bound us.
Our winters are fairly mild compared to our latitude, although certainly colder than Scotland, we're significantly further north in the same basin. Winter lows are generally what you might find in the mid to upper US great plains or northern New England. But winters are very long here, and very windy.
My favorite is still having a fast internet connection when standing on top of a mountain ;)
It's published in Arabic, English, German and French. They use it for recruiting.
Exactly what I was thinking... this is a group that sells sex slaves for a profit....
I agree with others, that they should have deliberately planted false information. I know some groups have posted fake copies of Dabiq for that purpose (Dabiq = their professional-looking monthly magazine, named after the Syrian town (which they control) where they think that Armageddon will soon begin)
No, I'm not much of a gamer. I do deal in ISK, though ;)
Don't forget about http://my.freesite.com/users/~...!
Try again. CO2 levels 100k years ago were about 225ppm. The local peak was around 130kya, at around 280ppm.
No thanks to our current government :( Cutbacks here have been pretty terrible.
What impressed me more is broadband connectivity. We're highly ranked despite being a rugged, low population density country in the middle of the North Atlantic. And many sites report Icelanders as being #1 per capita, such as Facebook.
400k is generous, it's closer to 330k. And for most of Iceland's history it was closer to 60k.
The earlier carrying capacity was based primarily on livestock. Some increase was made possible with cold-weather caloric crops like potatoes, but especially with sea fishing. Today's big increase is made possible by imports.
Re: housing, though most of Iceland's history, it was turf houses. There are still a good number of people alive today who grew up in them. Today's housing is primarily concrete. You import a bit of portland cement and steel, use a lot of local aggregate, and get something that tolerates well our high winds.
Oh, and concerning fossil fuels, we have coal onshore and oil offshore
Maybe hard from a Mohs/vickers perspective, but in practice it's usually highly fractured and easy to erode. This is most visible in the dikes that, being harder, get left behind.
Iceland isn't very geyser-y. We only have one active geyser basin, and it's pretty far from hellisheiÃi.
But yes Iceland's basalts are MORB, not exactly the same as other places. But then again, not all of our layers are the same. Some aren't even basalt (rhyolite, andesite), and some aren't even lava flows.
I'm confused... do you generally evaluate most senior citizens on their fuckability?
You might as well say the same thing about smartphones. They exist. They're for sale. People buy them. And they use them. It's an existing market. And one that's growing very rapidly. And their performance is quite nice. A number now offer ranges of about 400km at cruising speeds, similar to electric cars.
It doesn't matter what "eye rolling" you do, these things exists, the scale of the market grows dramatically every year, and so do the performance specs.
(Skipping your silly pretending that navigating around obstacles and in orders-of-magntiude varying tractiion conditions and full of moving objects that you have no control over and no beacons on them is somehow easier than straight-line flight navigation)
Limited success. Nothing yet that I can confidently point to and say, "yep, that one's definitely going to make it"
Indeed, it was basically just a chatterbot. But it was still funny :)
Thank you, person-who-owns-nothing-made-of-wood. Damn all those other people!
As someone who's spent way too much time trying to get trees to grow in Iceland, I have to say: pumping it back underground at Hellisheiði is probably a heck of a lot easier ;)
No, it means that it was a pilot project and it's the first time they've tried this.
It's great news. I've been following as they've been working on this project. Most people wouldn't think we'd have much carbon dioxide here since virtually all of our power is either hydroelectric or geothermal, but we're actually abnormally high emitters per capita. Now, most of that's not easy to capture - we can pretty much rule out the fishing fleet, and two of the three aluminum smelters aren't that close to a geothermal plant (although I don't know if their technique needs to be directly coordinated with a geothermal plant or not). However, geothermal wells also can have surprising levels of CO2 emissions. They're quite varied, and generally far less than burning fossil fuels for power, but some of the worst wells can actually get up to a good fraction of the emissions of of an equivalent amount of fossil fuel power. So this experiment was conducted at Hellisheiði, which is the biggest geothermal plant in Iceland (and one of the biggest in the world), with the goal of making it eventually fully close-cycle. Maybe they'll also reduce their H2S emissions at the same time.
Concerning one thing in the article:
They're already making regular earthquakes on the production end, so what's the big difference? More to the point, who would even notice? Wow, gee, earthquakes in Iceland, we've never gotten those before ;)
I also don't have much concerns about trace metals flowing into waters. Those are geothermal layers. Any waters there are geothermal waters. Which means that they're pretty "contaminated" to begin with. You don't drink geothermal waters, or anything that they flow into. I have a lot more concerns about 1) agricultural / livestock / septic system contamination, and 2) suspended particulate (aka surface water contamination). See Mývatn for the effects of both, Lagarfljót particularly for the latter. Our main areas of concern with bodies of water have generally been with either clouding them or causing algal blooms.
Then again, though, why should we even bother helping reduce CO2 levels? Make Iceland Covered With Redwoods Again! ;)
Shh, don't tell these people!
Yes, all of those flying pedestrians darting out into your path, other commuters slamming on the brakes to avoid a flying cat, drivers going the wrong way down a one-way air lane, your maximum rate of cornering varying by a couple orders of magnitude depending on conditions just like an icy vs. dry road...
There's a general rule of thumb for flying cars: it's either going to be a bad car, a bad plane, or both.
IMHO, choose "bad plane". Brute force yourself aloft (at the cost of range). Electric motors today have extreme power densities, and lithium ion batteries have impressive power densities as well. Accept a poor L/D ratio and thus short flight times, in favor of carlike safety and normal driving characteristics. You'll have a much more practical vehicle that way, and still something that can let you zip about in the air.
I think Icelandic was right to just avoid the whole conflict altogether and just call it "ál" ;)
You know, you could come across a bit more haughty if you wrote that while riding in a gilded carriage and eating foie gras off the back of the underpaid immigrant footman who you hired to replace the last one who you had deported after he served you your St. Helena coffee too cold and didn't hum "God Save the Queen" while shining your designer shoes.
The British English term for reducing a substance with lithium is a lithiothermic reaction.
The British English term for reducing a substance with magnesium is a magnesiothermic reaction.
The British English term for reducing a substance with sodium is a sodiothermic reaction.
The British English term for reducing a substance with calcium is a calciothermic reaction.
The British English term for reducing a substance with aluminum is a aluminothermic reaction. No "i".
At least be consistent with your ahistorical, irregular naming conventions.
That is not correct. IUPAC did not take a stand until 1990, then reversed their stand three years later.
1. The US needs to join with the rest of the world and ditch their antiquated system of measures for the reasonable system that the rest of the world uses. The British, mind you, are hardly leaders in this regard either.
2. The British need to get over themselves and realize that they have no more authoritative claim over the English language than anyone else, and while they have more historically accurate, reasonable terminology in some areas, they also have less historically accurate, unreasonable terminology in others.