Not in my experience. Maybe it only works well with games, but most programs I try to run (aka, not games) fail. Just tried running GRAPE (FEM software) the other day, no luck.
It's kind of like recent decades of of the political process
Voting machine: "When do you want to schedule a vote for Donald Trump? 1) Choose a time, 2) Vote for Trump now, or 3) Skip." User: "3) Skip." Voting machine: "Your scheduled vote for Donald Trump has not been changed and will take effect shortly." User: "Hey!"
(calls the manufacturer)
User: "Your voting machine is rigged! The skip button doesn't actually skip the vote. Manufacturer: "Our sincere apologies; we'll get it fixed immediately."
(A short time later...)
Voting machine: "When do you want to schedule a vote for Donald Trump? 1) Choose a time, or 2) Vote for Trump now" User: "Hey!"
No, this is a common myth. Saudi has always been in opposition to Daesh. Their dog in this game is Ahrar ash-Sham, who works with the US's dog in the game, the FSA. Note that each of these have a number of subgroups.
While the FSA has until recently been rather undersupported by the US, Ahrar ash-Sham has always received ample patronage from Saudi Arabia and its allied gulf states. And while the US has often tried to keep the FSA on a leash to mainly fight Daesh, Saudi supports Ahrar ash-Sham's fight against both them and Assad.
I don't know about other people, but my father is a president of an oil company and I was just chatting about this issue with another former oil exec, so....
The US has been en route to become the world's largest producer. Canada's been on a big upswing as well. Most of this production costs significantly more per barrel than what Saudi Arabia can produce it for. Hence Saudi Arabia can crush them by flooding the market. It's not painless to Saudi Arabia, mind you, it's definitely hurting their budget. But they can start to raise the cost somewhat as their competition dies off.
Concerning Russia, they've long been a thorn in Saudi Arabia's side (and indeed, all of OPEC). They've driven that thorn in and twisted with the Syria conflict, having undone most of what Saudi Arabia had been working toward with their bombing campaign and increased weapons shipments. The decreased oil price has done more to hurt the Russian economy than all of Europe and America's punitive actions combined.
That said, the Iran reason (and to a lesser extent, Iraq) is indeed worth mentioning. Daesh, not so much. They're such a trivial producer (and most of their production capability has been since destroyed) that it's not a meaningful way to fight them, it's much cheaper just to fund others to attack them.
Physicists gladly admit that there are some serious issues about the universe that they don't understand. Gravity, inflation, black holes... here, there's a full Wikipedia article on major unsolved problems in physics.
One of the things that astronomy is most useful for us helping gather data that will help us decipher the nature of what really drives the universe. We know a lot of it. A damned lot. But not everything, and finding those last missing pieces is the source of a vast amount of research across the world. Physicists don't hide their lack of understanding of these sorts of things, they talk about them with every chance they get. These are the things that pay their salaries. These are the things that could earn them the Nobel Prize if they can find and prove a solution.
It could more simply mean that inflation is not some sort of magical one-off event, but a fundamental part of the universe that simply varies in intensity with other parameters, such as density, and thus slows as the universe expands.
A density-correlated inflationary dilation gravity is part of some theories of black holes - they let you construct a black hole suchly that there is no singularity, no disjoint, eternally-inaccessible region of spacetime, no firewall, or any of those other things that physics finds awkward. In such a regime, infalling matter/energy collapses into a topologically flat environment around the event horizon. When the black hole finally dissolves (an ungodly length of time into the future), it explodes/expands into empty universe around it, with the first part of that explosion/expansion dominated by inflation which quickly weakens as everything moves apart.
Of course, the price of oil is in the tank largely because they want it to be. They're trying to squeeze small US and Canadian producers out of business as well as hit Russia.
Or the fact that the head of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party just stated that he thinks that Russia should obliterate the Faroe Islands as a show of force?
66 meters. That would certainly "affect" Iceland if it happened all of the sudden, but in terms of the amount of land we'd lose, it's quite little, and from the perspective of "timeframes involved" vs. "land lost", pretty insignificant. And as mentioned, that's not in actual risk of 66 meters happening. As per the study, the planet would warm about 10 degrees if all fossil fuels were burned (the arctic more, but not the antarctic - they're very different environments, the antarctic lacks the arctic's sea ice feedback mechanism and has somewhat of an inverted one). At a 10 degree temperature rise, the average midsummer high at the South Pole would still be fifteen degrees below freezing. Furthermore:
1) Nobody's ever going to burn "all the fossil fuels", even if there was no attempt to control fossil fuel consumption and no technology changes, because the vast majority are simply inaccessible. 2) Burning "all the fossil fuels" would take centuries; and 3) Sea level rise lag times are huge, many centuries, compared to planetary temperatures, as there's a very large mass of water to heat (and mass of ice to melt).
But even ignoring all of that? Even with a 66 meter sea level rise, the ocean would barely top the glacial moraine at the end of my valley. It might reach a bit into my canyon... that would be pretty cool, actually;)
FYI, river floods are not a significant threat here. Well, one special kind is, but global warming has no impact on that;) (jökulhlaups**) Our land is in general quite steep and well drained; rivers rip themselves nice canyons through the soft basalt and glacial sediments to flow in. Our biggest summer threat from water is landslides, as our soils are poorly anchored. But increased plant growth would run counter to that.
The concept that "warming is bad for everyone everywhere on the planet" is false. Iceland's carrying capacity would rise dramatically, as we go from "almost no arable land" to "the whole country arable". Even if fish stocks collapsed (which is hard to say, they're just as likely to rise, although fish populations will certainly change - and more to the point already have), it'd be a massive boon for us. Environment-wise, we'd lose our glaciers (some will be gone soon, and we've gotten a new highest waterfall out of the deal), and some of our bird species may suffer (potentially enough to put them under threat), while others would thrive. It should have no effect on our (very limited) land mammal populations, although it might put us at more risk for introduced species. But economically - and in terms of temperature "comfort levels" - warming would greatly benefit Iceland.
That said, we still don't want it, for the sake of the world and its ecosystems.
** Re: jökulhlaups: Then again, rebound volcanism appears to probably be a real thing. Of course, that's only over long timespans.
I'd take the incorporated-ads if they'd undo the long span of terrible changes they've made to the service (particularly web, but also mobile) over the years. How is it that one of the most popular products of one of the world's largest corporations has such a mishmash / poorly thought-out interface, a low detail-level which can't be altered by the user, and terribly drawn graphics (their terrain in particular is an embarrassment)? If they'll fix the interface and our penalty as users is to suffer through ads... then bring on the ads.
Honestly, "promoted pins" could be done in a non-intrusive manner.
1) Only show things relative to the layers that the user has enabled. If they don't have restaurants on, don't insert pins for promoted restaurants.
2) Handle them via the culling algorithm. Map details must inherently be culled when zoomed out so that the screen isn't just a giant jumbled mess; as you zoom in and objects on the map move further apart, you have more room to insert more objects, so you cull less. When it comes to "promoted pins", a fair way to deal with them would be to give them a higher priority than unpromoted pins in the culling algorithm, so that they're more likely to show up when zoomed further out.
To put it another way: about as many people live here as live in Anaheim, California. Would you think it a joke if someone posted that they live in Anaheim?
Did you seriously just request that I post tens of thousands of papers? Was that some kind of a joke?
Here, want starters? Open the reference section of the IPCC WGs. Or a climate journal. There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref and ref. So sure, you can go and cherry pick to your heart's content from that remaining three percent. But that just makes you a kook, akin to someone who goes to 33 doctors, is told by 32 of them that he has late-stage cancer and needs immediate surgery, but decides "Nah, I'm going to listen to Dr. Nick over here instead...."
Looking more deeply, the graph you linked to is one measurement (an estimation based on averaging land based thermometers), whereas the one I linked to shows two different satellite measurement sequences.
All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.
You're free to claim otherwise. Your claim would be wrong.
I don't think you realize how much complete melting of the ice would raise sea levels. I've seen estimates that it would raise is nearly a kilometer.
You've seen wrong. The complete melting of all ice would raise sea levels by 66 meters / 216 feet. Iceland would be little affected, in terms of land area..
Waterworld was a work of fiction. Even 66 meters is in absolutely no danger of happening. The average midsummer high temperature at the South Pole is -26C.
The "If you really live in Iceland" is because your answer sounded like a joke.
Contrary to popular myth, we're a real country with real people who live here.
The link I posted was specifically to debunk BS like the graph you posted. You can't just draw a line on a chart, call it "reality", and let that be that. Here's actual reality. Over 0.8 degrees since 1976, not 0.2.
Your Nature links demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the topic. The second article, first off, is about the northern hemisphere. Are you under the impression that the northern hemisphere is the entire planet? Secondly, the article is about precipitation, not temperature, so I don't think you even read it. Concerning both of them: there are literally tens of thousands of climate papers out there. You may feel smug by handpicking the few contrarian ones, but that's not how actual science works.
Iceland is in no danger of going underwater, even if every last drop of ice on Earth melted; it's not some coral atoll, this is one of the most volcanically active places on Earth. 90% of the country is "hálendið" (the Highlands), an area generally at least 1km over sea level, that in particular could use some warming.
And what's with the "If you really live in Iceland" stuff anyway? Shocked that we own computers? : (we actually have one of the highest broadband connectivities on Earth.... Facebook ranks as #1 per capita in usage of their site, as do many other sites)
A friend of mine was joking the other day about his coffee machine. It's always warm, even when it's not on, and far larger than is needed to make coffee, which he finds suspicious - maybe it's actually a clever ploy to mine bitcoin on stolen electricity, he suggested. The more I think about it, the more I think that's genius, a perfect scheme for a nefarious manufacturer in China;) The cost of a sim card dongle won't add much to the cost of the mining hardware the cost of the electricity is over half the total cost of mining, and people would actually pay to acquire the hardware and host it in their own climate-controlled "data center" (home). They could make them, then sell them on ebay for cut-rate prices. So long as it actually makes coffee and doesn't break in that regard, I really doubt many people would notice. And of those who noticed, who would think to break it open to see if there's any bitcoin-mining hardware inside, rather than just defective wiring?
They can't explain the mechanism, nor can they explain why Earth was so much colder during times when CO2 concentration was 10 times what it is today.
You mean the Precambrian? Where every bloody factor involved in our planet's climate system was also different? Or were you under the impression that there's only one factor that determines Earth's surface temperature, carbon dioxide?
The most important factor is that the sun emitted much less light early in Earth's history. Here's a graph. Lest you think that those sorts of differences don't matter much, it should be pointed out that a 10% increase in solar radiation is predicted to be capable of boiling off Earth's oceans. Over the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the light from the sun changes by quite relevant amounts, as it slowly progresses towards its inevitable end as a red giant. Over the scale of hundreds of years? Not so much. It's also one of the most observed objects in the universe; when something changes with the sun, we know about it, and have for quite a long time.
I'm sorry, I interrupted your rant about all those idiot scientists and their pre-kindergarten education... please continue.
Temperatures are tracking, on long running average, right on what has been forecast. Sea level rise is well on the high end. As it stands, our arctic sea ice models predict significantly less loss than we actually see (we're not very good with sea ice right now, and this is well acknowledged by the IPCC).
I know there's been this contrarian myth circulating claiming that climate models predicted warming that never occurred. There's a nice, well-referenced debunking of it here.
Hey, I live in Iceland, where the average January low is -3C and the average July high is 13C. Such warming would make us the new California. Bring it on;) I own some land, you can start booking your timeshares now.
It's funny, when you hear people talking about forestry here, they talk about things as if they only apply to our current climate. They plant douglas fir, sitka spruce, etc, trees that can become true giants in the right climate, but insist that they'll stay (comparatively) short and grow slowly because our climate is too cool for their optimal growth. Yes, our current climate, but these are trees that can live for much of a millennium. Heat up the country 4-5 degrees and you've turned the climate into that of coastal Washington / British Columbia where they reach their record heights; we have similar sun, soil, precipitation, summer/winter temperature differences, etc (windier, but that's in large part due to the shortage of trees).
Iceland once even had redwood forests. Washington/British Columbia species are not going to stay short forever if the climate keeps warming.
Cheap: These days, sub-$4k/kg would do. Access: Ability to reach LEO or beyond. Achieve: Private companies and government agencies pay huge amounts of money for you to launch their payloads for them.
Batteries don't run at optimum efficiency all the time either.
Far closer to it. At low charge/discharge rates li-ions can be over 99% efficient. At high rates, they're usually more like 92-96% efficient. Whoop-di-doodly-do.
Fuel cell efficiency heavily hinges on the rate of power production. The more power you want of a stack, the lower the efficiency you get, by a large margin. Which is why FCVs use battery buffers, to try to minimize how much they have to do this. However, because fuel cells are expensive and heavy per unit power, FCV stacks are generally run out of their optimal band regardless.
For better fuel cell technologies, maybe, maybe not.
The answer is quite simply, "Not".
The lower potential mass of a fuel cell system
Oh dear me, yes, FCVs are so light! Which is why the most "mainstream" of them, the FCX Clarity is 83% as heavy as the Model S, a vehicle with 75% more seating, dramatically higher top speed and less than half the 0-60 time, right? But hey, the estimated unit price is only in the low to mid six figures and you can fill it up with an explosive fuel that costs 10 times as much and is 1/3rd as efficient per unit energy, so what a steal!
If your energy storage tanks end up being far heavier than the hydrogen they store
You mean, like they inherently are? Nearly 20 times heavier?
Corn isn't necessary for most animal feed, it just gets animals to market quicker. Cattle were domesticated long before corn
Today's mass-produced low-cost beef industry in the US is built upon a foundation of feeding cattle high-calorie diets. The fact that it's possible to produce meat with other means is irrelevant in a discussion of the ability to mass produce meat at low cost. If they could produce an equivalent amount of meat for the same price without using corn, they'd already be doing it.
And yes, everything comes down to money. Which is a finite resource. Technically we could be growing mangoes in Greenland in giant greenhouses. Got the cash for that?
Slashdot Mirror
Not in my experience. Maybe it only works well with games, but most programs I try to run (aka, not games) fail. Just tried running GRAPE (FEM software) the other day, no luck.
Voting machine: "When do you want to schedule a vote for Donald Trump? 1) Choose a time, 2) Vote for Trump now, or 3) Skip."
User: "3) Skip."
Voting machine: "Your scheduled vote for Donald Trump has not been changed and will take effect shortly."
User: "Hey!"
(calls the manufacturer)
User: "Your voting machine is rigged! The skip button doesn't actually skip the vote.
Manufacturer: "Our sincere apologies; we'll get it fixed immediately."
(A short time later...)
Voting machine: "When do you want to schedule a vote for Donald Trump? 1) Choose a time, or 2) Vote for Trump now"
User: "Hey!"
No, this is a common myth. Saudi has always been in opposition to Daesh. Their dog in this game is Ahrar ash-Sham, who works with the US's dog in the game, the FSA. Note that each of these have a number of subgroups.
While the FSA has until recently been rather undersupported by the US, Ahrar ash-Sham has always received ample patronage from Saudi Arabia and its allied gulf states. And while the US has often tried to keep the FSA on a leash to mainly fight Daesh, Saudi supports Ahrar ash-Sham's fight against both them and Assad.
I don't know about other people, but my father is a president of an oil company and I was just chatting about this issue with another former oil exec, so....
The US has been en route to become the world's largest producer. Canada's been on a big upswing as well. Most of this production costs significantly more per barrel than what Saudi Arabia can produce it for. Hence Saudi Arabia can crush them by flooding the market. It's not painless to Saudi Arabia, mind you, it's definitely hurting their budget. But they can start to raise the cost somewhat as their competition dies off.
Concerning Russia, they've long been a thorn in Saudi Arabia's side (and indeed, all of OPEC). They've driven that thorn in and twisted with the Syria conflict, having undone most of what Saudi Arabia had been working toward with their bombing campaign and increased weapons shipments. The decreased oil price has done more to hurt the Russian economy than all of Europe and America's punitive actions combined.
That said, the Iran reason (and to a lesser extent, Iraq) is indeed worth mentioning. Daesh, not so much. They're such a trivial producer (and most of their production capability has been since destroyed) that it's not a meaningful way to fight them, it's much cheaper just to fund others to attack them.
Physicists gladly admit that there are some serious issues about the universe that they don't understand. Gravity, inflation, black holes... here, there's a full Wikipedia article on major unsolved problems in physics.
One of the things that astronomy is most useful for us helping gather data that will help us decipher the nature of what really drives the universe. We know a lot of it. A damned lot. But not everything, and finding those last missing pieces is the source of a vast amount of research across the world. Physicists don't hide their lack of understanding of these sorts of things, they talk about them with every chance they get. These are the things that pay their salaries. These are the things that could earn them the Nobel Prize if they can find and prove a solution.
It could more simply mean that inflation is not some sort of magical one-off event, but a fundamental part of the universe that simply varies in intensity with other parameters, such as density, and thus slows as the universe expands.
A density-correlated inflationary dilation gravity is part of some theories of black holes - they let you construct a black hole suchly that there is no singularity, no disjoint, eternally-inaccessible region of spacetime, no firewall, or any of those other things that physics finds awkward. In such a regime, infalling matter/energy collapses into a topologically flat environment around the event horizon. When the black hole finally dissolves (an ungodly length of time into the future), it explodes/expands into empty universe around it, with the first part of that explosion/expansion dominated by inflation which quickly weakens as everything moves apart.
Sound like anything in our past?
Of course, the price of oil is in the tank largely because they want it to be. They're trying to squeeze small US and Canadian producers out of business as well as hit Russia.
Or the fact that the head of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party just stated that he thinks that Russia should obliterate the Faroe Islands as a show of force?
I immediately thought of that when I heard of the original report.
I'm wanting to know more about this gender-selective, life-extending-tumor causing radiation.
The question is not whether these results are right, but why they're wrong.
66 meters. That would certainly "affect" Iceland if it happened all of the sudden, but in terms of the amount of land we'd lose, it's quite little, and from the perspective of "timeframes involved" vs. "land lost", pretty insignificant. And as mentioned, that's not in actual risk of 66 meters happening. As per the study, the planet would warm about 10 degrees if all fossil fuels were burned (the arctic more, but not the antarctic - they're very different environments, the antarctic lacks the arctic's sea ice feedback mechanism and has somewhat of an inverted one). At a 10 degree temperature rise, the average midsummer high at the South Pole would still be fifteen degrees below freezing. Furthermore:
1) Nobody's ever going to burn "all the fossil fuels", even if there was no attempt to control fossil fuel consumption and no technology changes, because the vast majority are simply inaccessible.
2) Burning "all the fossil fuels" would take centuries; and
3) Sea level rise lag times are huge, many centuries, compared to planetary temperatures, as there's a very large mass of water to heat (and mass of ice to melt).
But even ignoring all of that? Even with a 66 meter sea level rise, the ocean would barely top the glacial moraine at the end of my valley. It might reach a bit into my canyon... that would be pretty cool, actually ;)
FYI, river floods are not a significant threat here. Well, one special kind is, but global warming has no impact on that ;) (jökulhlaups**) Our land is in general quite steep and well drained; rivers rip themselves nice canyons through the soft basalt and glacial sediments to flow in. Our biggest summer threat from water is landslides, as our soils are poorly anchored. But increased plant growth would run counter to that.
The concept that "warming is bad for everyone everywhere on the planet" is false. Iceland's carrying capacity would rise dramatically, as we go from "almost no arable land" to "the whole country arable". Even if fish stocks collapsed (which is hard to say, they're just as likely to rise, although fish populations will certainly change - and more to the point already have), it'd be a massive boon for us. Environment-wise, we'd lose our glaciers (some will be gone soon, and we've gotten a new highest waterfall out of the deal), and some of our bird species may suffer (potentially enough to put them under threat), while others would thrive. It should have no effect on our (very limited) land mammal populations, although it might put us at more risk for introduced species. But economically - and in terms of temperature "comfort levels" - warming would greatly benefit Iceland.
That said, we still don't want it, for the sake of the world and its ecosystems.
** Re: jökulhlaups: Then again, rebound volcanism appears to probably be a real thing. Of course, that's only over long timespans.
I'd take the incorporated-ads if they'd undo the long span of terrible changes they've made to the service (particularly web, but also mobile) over the years. How is it that one of the most popular products of one of the world's largest corporations has such a mishmash / poorly thought-out interface, a low detail-level which can't be altered by the user, and terribly drawn graphics (their terrain in particular is an embarrassment)? If they'll fix the interface and our penalty as users is to suffer through ads... then bring on the ads.
Honestly, "promoted pins" could be done in a non-intrusive manner.
1) Only show things relative to the layers that the user has enabled. If they don't have restaurants on, don't insert pins for promoted restaurants.
2) Handle them via the culling algorithm. Map details must inherently be culled when zoomed out so that the screen isn't just a giant jumbled mess; as you zoom in and objects on the map move further apart, you have more room to insert more objects, so you cull less. When it comes to "promoted pins", a fair way to deal with them would be to give them a higher priority than unpromoted pins in the culling algorithm, so that they're more likely to show up when zoomed further out.
To put it another way: about as many people live here as live in Anaheim, California. Would you think it a joke if someone posted that they live in Anaheim?
Did you seriously just request that I post tens of thousands of papers? Was that some kind of a joke?
Here, want starters? Open the reference section of the IPCC WGs. Or a climate journal. There have been ample metastudies assessing the percentage of climate papers supporting AGW - it's the 97% range, ex. ref and ref. So sure, you can go and cherry pick to your heart's content from that remaining three percent. But that just makes you a kook, akin to someone who goes to 33 doctors, is told by 32 of them that he has late-stage cancer and needs immediate surgery, but decides "Nah, I'm going to listen to Dr. Nick over here instead...."
All of the actual climate records track each other closely - GISS, HADCRUT, NOAA, RSS, UAH, etc. If you're posting something that significantly different, you're posting something not in line with actual science.
You're free to claim otherwise. Your claim would be wrong.
I don't think you realize how much complete melting of the ice would raise sea levels. I've seen estimates that it would raise is nearly a kilometer.
You've seen wrong. The complete melting of all ice would raise sea levels by 66 meters / 216 feet. Iceland would be little affected, in terms of land area..
Waterworld was a work of fiction. Even 66 meters is in absolutely no danger of happening. The average midsummer high temperature at the South Pole is -26C.
Contrary to popular myth, we're a real country with real people who live here.
The link I posted was specifically to debunk BS like the graph you posted. You can't just draw a line on a chart, call it "reality", and let that be that. Here's actual reality. Over 0.8 degrees since 1976, not 0.2.
Your Nature links demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the topic. The second article, first off, is about the northern hemisphere. Are you under the impression that the northern hemisphere is the entire planet? Secondly, the article is about precipitation, not temperature, so I don't think you even read it. Concerning both of them: there are literally tens of thousands of climate papers out there. You may feel smug by handpicking the few contrarian ones, but that's not how actual science works.
Iceland is in no danger of going underwater, even if every last drop of ice on Earth melted; it's not some coral atoll, this is one of the most volcanically active places on Earth. 90% of the country is "hálendið" (the Highlands), an area generally at least 1km over sea level, that in particular could use some warming.
And what's with the "If you really live in Iceland" stuff anyway? Shocked that we own computers? : (we actually have one of the highest broadband connectivities on Earth.... Facebook ranks as #1 per capita in usage of their site, as do many other sites)
Iceland is a wee bit more rugged than you're envisioning ;)
My land is within a stone's throw of the coast, for example, but is still at 100m altitude.
There might come a day. ;)
A friend of mine was joking the other day about his coffee machine. It's always warm, even when it's not on, and far larger than is needed to make coffee, which he finds suspicious - maybe it's actually a clever ploy to mine bitcoin on stolen electricity, he suggested. The more I think about it, the more I think that's genius, a perfect scheme for a nefarious manufacturer in China ;) The cost of a sim card dongle won't add much to the cost of the mining hardware the cost of the electricity is over half the total cost of mining, and people would actually pay to acquire the hardware and host it in their own climate-controlled "data center" (home). They could make them, then sell them on ebay for cut-rate prices. So long as it actually makes coffee and doesn't break in that regard, I really doubt many people would notice. And of those who noticed, who would think to break it open to see if there's any bitcoin-mining hardware inside, rather than just defective wiring?
Yes indeed, if only scientists could establish a mechanism.....
You mean the Precambrian? Where every bloody factor involved in our planet's climate system was also different? Or were you under the impression that there's only one factor that determines Earth's surface temperature, carbon dioxide?
The most important factor is that the sun emitted much less light early in Earth's history. Here's a graph. Lest you think that those sorts of differences don't matter much, it should be pointed out that a 10% increase in solar radiation is predicted to be capable of boiling off Earth's oceans. Over the scale of hundreds of millions of years, the light from the sun changes by quite relevant amounts, as it slowly progresses towards its inevitable end as a red giant. Over the scale of hundreds of years? Not so much. It's also one of the most observed objects in the universe; when something changes with the sun, we know about it, and have for quite a long time.
I'm sorry, I interrupted your rant about all those idiot scientists and their pre-kindergarten education... please continue.
Models being too extreme? Hardly.
Forecast: 1990 IPCC sea level rise predictions vs. actuality
Forecast: 1988 Hansen temperature predictions vs. actuality (Scenario B was described as most likely)
Forecast: IPCC temperature predictions vs. actuality vs. contrarian models
Backtest: IPCC AR1 sea ice loss models vs. actual
Temperatures are tracking, on long running average, right on what has been forecast. Sea level rise is well on the high end. As it stands, our arctic sea ice models predict significantly less loss than we actually see (we're not very good with sea ice right now, and this is well acknowledged by the IPCC).
I know there's been this contrarian myth circulating claiming that climate models predicted warming that never occurred. There's a nice, well-referenced debunking of it here.
Hey, I live in Iceland, where the average January low is -3C and the average July high is 13C. Such warming would make us the new California. Bring it on ;) I own some land, you can start booking your timeshares now.
It's funny, when you hear people talking about forestry here, they talk about things as if they only apply to our current climate. They plant douglas fir, sitka spruce, etc, trees that can become true giants in the right climate, but insist that they'll stay (comparatively) short and grow slowly because our climate is too cool for their optimal growth. Yes, our current climate, but these are trees that can live for much of a millennium. Heat up the country 4-5 degrees and you've turned the climate into that of coastal Washington / British Columbia where they reach their record heights; we have similar sun, soil, precipitation, summer/winter temperature differences, etc (windier, but that's in large part due to the shortage of trees).
Iceland once even had redwood forests. Washington/British Columbia species are not going to stay short forever if the climate keeps warming.
Cheap: These days, sub-$4k/kg would do.
Access: Ability to reach LEO or beyond.
Achieve: Private companies and government agencies pay huge amounts of money for you to launch their payloads for them.
Any more questions?
Far closer to it. At low charge/discharge rates li-ions can be over 99% efficient. At high rates, they're usually more like 92-96% efficient. Whoop-di-doodly-do.
Fuel cell efficiency heavily hinges on the rate of power production. The more power you want of a stack, the lower the efficiency you get, by a large margin. Which is why FCVs use battery buffers, to try to minimize how much they have to do this. However, because fuel cells are expensive and heavy per unit power, FCV stacks are generally run out of their optimal band regardless.
The answer is quite simply, "Not".
Oh dear me, yes, FCVs are so light! Which is why the most "mainstream" of them, the FCX Clarity is 83% as heavy as the Model S, a vehicle with 75% more seating, dramatically higher top speed and less than half the 0-60 time, right? But hey, the estimated unit price is only in the low to mid six figures and you can fill it up with an explosive fuel that costs 10 times as much and is 1/3rd as efficient per unit energy, so what a steal!
You mean, like they inherently are? Nearly 20 times heavier?
Today's mass-produced low-cost beef industry in the US is built upon a foundation of feeding cattle high-calorie diets. The fact that it's possible to produce meat with other means is irrelevant in a discussion of the ability to mass produce meat at low cost. If they could produce an equivalent amount of meat for the same price without using corn, they'd already be doing it.
And yes, everything comes down to money. Which is a finite resource. Technically we could be growing mangoes in Greenland in giant greenhouses. Got the cash for that?