... well, considering the supposedly the purpose of the medallion was to keep meanie drivers out of cabs, then they should reflect the deemed safety of the -driver-, not the car.

The trick is that the light source varies with different samples. What this apparatus appears to be computing is a dot product (overall image intensity) with a series of 2D wavelets. Then inverse-transform the coefficients to a 2D image.

Thanks for the links. I was indeed feeling a little lazy.

"How should the writer of the article know what you want to know?"

That seemed like a natural enough question. The writer ought to set the context. If we were talking about only a pittance of generation overall, then its exact decomposition of renewable vs. not would not be interesting. As it is, scotland produces some 15% of the UK total, so not too shabby.

... plus they don't talk about energy *consumed* in scotland, only generated. It would be more useful if there were a statement that scotland is a net importer vs. exporter of electricity.

OK. So the original question remains how the temperature of the object can be multiple degrees cooler, in the steady state, than the ambient air. Why would those two heat flows not apprx. balance?

If the air is in contact with the painted surface (at constant pressure etc.), will the warmer air not transfer its heat, so as to produce an equilibrium of equal temperatures?

"it becomes cooler than the surrounding air by around 9F (5C)"

Sorry, not possible, as per the first law of thermodynamics.

The paper seems even lamer than that:
part 1 - REC failed
part 2 - Hansen says we're doomed
part 2a - we'd be doomed even if REC succeeded
part 3 - solution: "spend more money on R&D"

Autocannon rounds aren't rectangular prisms.

"that's merely an opinion."

So, we will thank goodness you're powerless to impose your totalitarian streak.

There exist photos of Buk-style warhead shrapnel, still embedded in the MH17 crew seats.

It's a laughably bad fake ... but speaks volumes about the lack of math or science training amongst reporters to propagate this stuff.

"SUVs and other monstrosities that have no place on roads and inside cities"

Does your totalitarian streak run in the family, or only in your social clique?

Not at all - but you must at least try to say something with good-faith plausibility, to make it worth our time.

That doesn't seem like a productive contribution to the discussion. But assuming you enjoyed the verbal onanism, carry on.