Not quite. The altitude depends on the local sea level, which not only depends on the tide, but also on the local gravity field and shape of the Earth. So, yes, you can get a 2D fix, but it won't be as accurate as a full 3D fix.
Thank you, but I was using the word triangulation on purpose so you can imagine the acute triangles in your head, and see that the uncertainty increases as the two long legs of the triangle are getting close together.
My 10 year old Garmin could already track 12 satellites. And yes, it really helps accuracy. With only 4 you're often limited. When one or more are close to the horizon, reception can be easily blocked by buildings or trees. When they are all above you, accuracy is limited by the acute angles of the triangulation.
Small turbines are easier and cheaper to install. Not a bad choice when there are already enough challenges. After some experience with small turbines, they can work on bigger ones. They didn't start with 6MW+ wind turbines either.
On the other hand, a stationary object in a strong current is an ideal place to sit there and catch food, so it's likely that sea life has evolved to take hold in such place.
I note, for example, that Germany and Denmark both have tried to go heavily renewable energy, resulting in much higher electricity costs for their residents.
Yes, but when fossil fuels get scarce and their prices go up, the price of wind and solar will stay the same. It's only a matter of time.
No, you misunderstand. Increased CO2 results in the Earth building more heat every year. Nature is just responsible for balancing it between ocean and atmosphere. If you make a graph of just the El-Nino years, you see the temperature going up in a consistent trend. The same thing happens for the La-Nina years. It's just that the La-Nina trend line is a bit lower.
http://www.bitsofscience.org/w...
We would expect to see a consistent rise, if all the heat was just going in the atmosphere. In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans, and the distribution between oceans/atmosphere has some variation. The most notable of those variations is caused by the ENSO cycle. During El-Nino years, more of the heat goes into the atmosphere, and during La-Nina years, more heat goes into the ocean. The year 1998 which you mention, had a record El-Nino, so a lot of the heat went into the atmosphere. We haven't had a big El-Nino year since then, so it's been slightly cooler.
The satellite records are a bit more sensitive to this effect because they don't really measure the surface temperature very well. Instead, they measure the temperature of the atmosphere a bit higher up.
That's not ignoring the sun. That's taking a careful look at the changes in the sun's output, and deciding that it's not a major factor. If you don't believe so, please find a graph of TSI (total solar irradiance) for the last century, and compare with a graph of global temperature anomaly during the same time.
And while they're at it, they should also do a research project and determine exactly who will benefit from continuing as usual. And maybe they can also study how long the fossil fuels will last at the required rate.
The so-called hiatus is about the atmospheric temperature, which is only a proxy for the real energy budget. Much more energy goes into the ocean, and it's only a matter of time before the process goes another way, and the heat comes back.
Slashdot Mirror
Not quite. The altitude depends on the local sea level, which not only depends on the tide, but also on the local gravity field and shape of the Earth. So, yes, you can get a 2D fix, but it won't be as accurate as a full 3D fix.
Thank you, but I was using the word triangulation on purpose so you can imagine the acute triangles in your head, and see that the uncertainty increases as the two long legs of the triangle are getting close together.
My 10 year old Garmin could already track 12 satellites. And yes, it really helps accuracy. With only 4 you're often limited. When one or more are close to the horizon, reception can be easily blocked by buildings or trees. When they are all above you, accuracy is limited by the acute angles of the triangulation.
3 satellites are sufficient to find your basic location and elevation
You need a 4th one for the time. Without an accurate time reference, you can't determine distance to satellites.
Maybe it helps that water isn't compressible.
Unless the cards also have an active CPU.
Small turbines are easier and cheaper to install. Not a bad choice when there are already enough challenges. After some experience with small turbines, they can work on bigger ones. They didn't start with 6MW+ wind turbines either.
Sounds like a perfect place to build stronger turbines.
You assume that the metals used in solar panels cannot be recycled.
On the other hand, a stationary object in a strong current is an ideal place to sit there and catch food, so it's likely that sea life has evolved to take hold in such place.
Planting trees seems easy, but how do you propose to prevent people from chopping them down for wood or other profitable purposes ?
Breaking through "The tragedy of the commons" requires legislation. Solitary action is pointless.
I note, for example, that Germany and Denmark both have tried to go heavily renewable energy, resulting in much higher electricity costs for their residents.
Yes, but when fossil fuels get scarce and their prices go up, the price of wind and solar will stay the same. It's only a matter of time.
Exactly right. What regular people want is feast on cheap oil and gas and cheap food, and give a big "fuck you" to the next generation.
You tell me. If there's no authority that tells them to stop, they will just continue on their own. No need to create exemptions for them.
No, you misunderstand. Increased CO2 results in the Earth building more heat every year. Nature is just responsible for balancing it between ocean and atmosphere. If you make a graph of just the El-Nino years, you see the temperature going up in a consistent trend. The same thing happens for the La-Nina years. It's just that the La-Nina trend line is a bit lower. http://www.bitsofscience.org/w...
The same authority that would tell them to stop, of course.
We would expect to see a consistent rise, if all the heat was just going in the atmosphere. In reality, most of the heat goes in the oceans, and the distribution between oceans/atmosphere has some variation. The most notable of those variations is caused by the ENSO cycle. During El-Nino years, more of the heat goes into the atmosphere, and during La-Nina years, more heat goes into the ocean. The year 1998 which you mention, had a record El-Nino, so a lot of the heat went into the atmosphere. We haven't had a big El-Nino year since then, so it's been slightly cooler. The satellite records are a bit more sensitive to this effect because they don't really measure the surface temperature very well. Instead, they measure the temperature of the atmosphere a bit higher up.
That's not ignoring the sun. That's taking a careful look at the changes in the sun's output, and deciding that it's not a major factor. If you don't believe so, please find a graph of TSI (total solar irradiance) for the last century, and compare with a graph of global temperature anomaly during the same time.
They use so little of it, that it won't hurt to give them a bit more time to switch to alternatives.
AC claims no such thing. AC is talking about the climate change we're experiencing now.
And while they're at it, they should also do a research project and determine exactly who will benefit from continuing as usual. And maybe they can also study how long the fossil fuels will last at the required rate.
The so-called hiatus is about the atmospheric temperature, which is only a proxy for the real energy budget. Much more energy goes into the ocean, and it's only a matter of time before the process goes another way, and the heat comes back.
What does it matter if it's man's fault?
Knowing the process and the source helps to find a way to do something about it.
When first world countries reduce their fossil fuel demand, there will be more left for the poor.