For the third time I have to point it out in this thread, underwater explosions are measured differently on the decibel scale than above water explosions, you need to subtract 61.5 from the decibel figures before comparing them with above-ground noise figures. That's over 6 orders of magnitude difference.

Also, when people talk about how the ships keep making pulses every ten seconds, they act like it's in the same spot. Which would be idiotic. "Okay, now that we know what's down here, what should we explore next? I know, let's keep exploring the exact same place!" The ships pulse every 10 seconds while moving across the vast survey area.

Lastly, see my comparison with lightning above, which strikes more frequently in the survey area, louder, and often hits the same area for hours on end.

Once again, people here at Slashdot seem completely unaware that underwater sounds are measured by a scale that's 61.5 db louder than sound in the air.

Nitrogen-based fertilizers generally come from natural gas, not oil, FYI. Of the three main sources of fossil energy (coal, oil, natural gas), oil is generally by far the most expensive per joule.

Also, I don't think your comparison is that simple that if yields decline, people die. If there was a global food shortage due to reduced yields per acre, the price spike would hit meat the hardest, practically driving grainfed meat off the market. A calorie of grainfed beef takes over 12 calories of grain to produce; all of that vast acreage dedicated to growing field corn for livestock feed would switch to the suddenly more valuable crops for human consumption. Meat from animals grazing on marginal lands wouldn't be more expensive to produce, although their profit margin would shoot up. The world's diet, although especially the poorer nations', would increasingly look more like it did in the past - calories primarily from plant sources with only the occasional meat supplementing it.

Also there's the fact that if price on food products skyrockets, all sorts of land that was previously considered marginal and uneconomical to produce on suddenly becomes economical.

Common screwup. Those are all atmosphere-rated decibel figures. Underwater decibel figures are listed at 61.5 dB louder than their atmospheric equivalents. 250 dB underwater is 188.5 atmospheric.

Adjusting your above examples to be underwater figures, we get:

271.5 dB 2.0 earthquake
296.5 dB 5.0 earthquake
309.5 dB atom bomb
371.5 dB loudest volcano

I'd think it obvious that an air cannon isn't going to produce sound levels equivalent to an atomic bomb. And actually one would expect an underwater atomic bomb to be much louder than a surface one, far more of the energy is going to go into creating a gigantic oscillating bubble. And lastly, your cited atomic bomb figure is only for the 16 and 21 kiloton bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Modern thermonuclear weapons are generally three orders of magnitude higher yield than that. A large thermonuclear weapon in deep water will create a bubble on the order of magnitude of a kilometer in size, which will then oscillate in a series of collapses and reexplosions. The oscillating bubbles created by air cannons are practically microscopic by comparison.

286 db at source? Air cannons are 250 db at source, so 3 and a half orders of magnitude less powerful. Lightning in the ocean is 260 db at source and your average square kilometer of ocean gets two strikes per year. These ships will be covering tens of millions of square kilometers. With a pulse rate of once every 10 seconds (3.2 million pulses per year per ship, if they run constantly, which they almost certainly won't), you're looking at an order of magnitude less per ship than lightning (and I doubt there will be many ships, and they won't always be in operation). And lightning striking water is an order of magnitude louder. It even causes shock waves in the water by the same mechanism - rapidly creating an air bubble in the water (in lightning's case, by boiling the water) which then oscillates as it implodes and explodes repeatedly.

Now, one could say that this is different because it's all in one place at a given time, and thus animals would be tempted to flee instead of it being a one-off thing. But then again, lightning strikes aren't spread out evenly over space and time either, they come in thunderstorms which do the exact same thing, repeatedly hitting the same section of sea for hours at a time.

I'm not saying that I think these ships are harmless - not at all. I just think that I think people are overplaying it when they make these apocalyptic pronouncements on what effect they'll have on sea life. I mean, people have been detonating underwater *atomic bombs* - how do you think that compares to the sound of a pop of air? At 400 feet, a blue whale's own calls (188db @ 1m) are louder than the air gun.

That doesn't mean deciding that one particular alternative is the right one. If there are externalities not being taken into account, tax/fine for them.

Even the $70k price for an average-performance car here is subsidized - Toyota has admitted that they're selling it at a loss. It's hard to make an electric car look cheap, but fuel cells do a great job at it. And they have shorter lives than batteries, are more complicated with more breakable parts, operate at 1/3rd the net system efficiency well to wheel, have a larger environmental footprint for manufacture, and FCVs still have to have a hybrid-size battery pack in order to average out consumption demands so you don't have to have a 3x larger fuel cell to meet peak demand. Just ignoring the issues with the fuel itself.

They make this sound new, but I read about this something like a decade ago. Not with CRISPR, but with "selfish genes" in general. It was proposed, as an example, to wipe out mosquitoes - or at least, one mosquito species that causes a large chunk of malaria cases but is not a major food or pollination source anywhere that it exists in the wild. They would simultaneously introduce into many parts of the population (trying to leave no breeding-isolated islands) mosquitoes bearing a selfish, recessive, lethal allele. They would spread throughout the population thanks to their gaming the laws of natural selection, without having any practial harm until it's spread throughout almost the whole population. Suddenly the population can no longer produce viable offspring, and after several generations, the species dies off.

One example of such a gene in nature was given - if I remember right, it was spotted in weevils. It causes the mothers to produce a chemical in the eggs that kills any young that don't also have the gene (aka, it codes for both a poison and its antidote). So if one parent has the gene, the only viable eggs that they get will also have the gene. It's clearly harmful - it kills off half the eggs if one of the parents has it and the other doesn't, and was detrimental in general - but like a parasite, the gene is only "concerned" with its own survival.

Not pitying the death of a murderer coming at the direct, immediate-aftermath hands of those he tried to kill is not "cheering for murderers"

I work with air traffic control systems and I think it's ridiculous people are trying to fault the ATC here. There's a *lot* of pressure from companies to fly the most direct, fuel-efficient route - they really don't like to divert. And controllers don't like diversions either. When Eyjafjallajökull erupted it diverted a large chunk of the traffic from the North Atlantic through our airspace, which made for some *very* busy, very overworked controllers. And unhappy sysadmins as well. Unless you think you have to, you don't close airspace. The costs for doing so are massive.

Yes, it is. According to the transcripts, they thought it was an AN-26 military transport plane.

It's not really hard to put two and two together.

* For the past week, Ukraine has been bombing - without success - the rebel stronghold of Snizhne, trying to break a key link between the two rebel bases of Donetsk and Luhansk.
* For the past couple days, Ukranian military planes have suddenly started falling out of the sky at high altitude, something that had never happened before. Ukraine seemed confused and blamed Russia for shooting them down, either a surface missile or a jet; the rebels had previously only had MANPADs.
* On Thursday, an AP reporter reports seeing a BUK launcher in Snizhne
* On Thursday, several hours before the shootdown, Strelkov (the top rebel commander) posted a message on multiple social media sites which he regularly posts from saying not to mess with "our skies".
* The plane is shot down and crashes in a field just northwest of Snizhne
* Strelkov posts again cheerful posts claiming that his forces have downed a military plane, literally minutes after the plane gets shot down, and brags about how they brought it down in fields near a mine in the area that the plane crashed in.
* A video gets posted showing rebels in Snizhne cheering about their shootdown
* The two later-released Ukranian phone intercepts are dated from this time period - first of Strelkov and a commander discussing the shootdown of what they think is a military plane, then confused commanders coming to the realization that it's a civilian jet.
* Strelkov deletes his previous posts from social media
* A large number of eyewitnesses interviewed say that they saw a rocket come up from Snizhne and hit the plane
* Another video gets posted showing a BUK driving on the road from Snizhne toward the Russian border.

Even if you doubt the Ukranian phone releases, even if you doubt every witness and video, I really don't know how much more damning you could get than that.

Not much for the US to do? So you presume, for example, that punitive sanctions aren't an option? This could finally be the impetus to lay on some "more than just a slap on the wrist" sanctions. I mean, they haven't even banned the export and import of luxury goods yet. There's a long way to go down that road. The big effects come in creating a business environment in which any company that has any operations in the US or Europe is afraid to touch Russia out of fear of massive fines, causing them to over-self-sanction as a precaution (this usually has the greatest effect on sanctioned countries).

There's really no way to ever *totally* stop travel between the borders, and even very strict measures well beyond what we could reasonably expect here would leak like a sieve. But the key is to ruin the ratios in Russia - to devalue their exports, hike the cost of their imports, and raise the interest rate on their borrowing. Which in turn would render most of their business activity except that with a very high profit margin uneconomical, as well as smashing their per-capita buying power.

Yeah, Russia's energy weapon can be used, and that's a big weapon, although it'd aim even more back at Russia (that's the foundation of their economy). Europe has the operational LNG terminals to import enough (even without usage displacement, which would happen en masse - welcome back, coal!) to replace Russian gas, for example, and there's more than enough exporters (Qatar alone could offset it). But Europe would pay out the nose for it - LNG is expensive to begin with and they'd be competing against other buyers all over the world. Again with oil, Saudi Arabia alone has nearly enough reserve capacity to offset Russian oil. But you better bet OPEC will let the price float up a several dozen dollars a barrel in the process. (OPEC really has to be thrilled about the prospect - Russia's been a pain in their side for ages).

So yeah, the EU, and to a lesser extent the US, would really hurt from such a full-out trade war - probably a 5+% loss of GDP in Europe, a brand new recession. I could even picture on the order of a 10% hit in some parts of Europe. But Russia would literally become a third world nation without that income.

A more interesting - and realistic scenario - would be if they can render new investment in the Russian oil and gas industry uneconomical, but not take sanctions too far otherwise. In that case, Russia would continue selling oil and gas from their existing fields - which are largely only set up to export to Europe - and Europe would continue to buy. But Russia's production - and economy - would keep slowly tapering away as the fields aged without replacement. The rest of the world would at the same time have ample time to develop alternative production and Europe would have ample time to adjust.

Whatever happens, I doubt we'd see the necessary support to lift any sanctions on Russia unless they give up Crimea. That is to say, I don't think we'll see anything lifted from Russia for a long, long time. Whatever hits Russia today is probably going to become the status quo for decades.

You mean those poor innocent 42 people who were part of a mob that was clearly only minding its own business, having done nothing more provocative than having just shot to death four people and injured a dozen at a football march, having converged with guns on the unarmed crowd - which I'm sure was in no way a pre-planned action (they were all just taking their guns to the cleaners, right?) Yeah, my pity cup runneth over for them, just like it does for the people who shoot down civilian airliners.

Oh come on now, how could anyone mistake this guy for being gay?

Seriously, though, some of his publicity stunts are almost Kim Jong-* level. While the "flying with geese to lead them home" one was funny, and the saving his camera crew from a savage tiger one was conveniently off camera, my favorite has to be the "finding ancient Greek pottery while diving in two meters of clear water on a popular beach" one. ;) Of course that one was so over the top even for him that they had to backtrack:

But his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview shown Tuesday on the Dozhd TV channel that the jugs had been found earlier by archaeologists and placed there for Mr Putin. ... 'Of course, they were left there or placed there. It's completely normal. There's no reason to gloat about this and everything else.'

Mr Putin is noted for his habit of appearing in vigorous and adventurous settings, including fishing and hunting while stripped to the waist and riding with leather-clad bikers.

Again, though, let me stress - not gay! ;)

The militias controlling Donbas have repeatedly complained about how little material support they've gotten from the locals and how few people have enrolled (although it supposedly varies a great deal from place to place). They get more than enough cheers and pats on the back (pre-conflict polling suggested about a quarter to a third would rather be a part of Russia than Ukraine and a majority are unhappy with Kiev - and I'm sure the remainder know well enough to keep their mouths shut), but the percent willing to put their lives on the line for Russia is apparently quite low. The local Ukranians involved are often reported a lot "softer" - the Russian commanders are more of the "shoot you if you don't obey orders" type.