No. The measured numbers are well below the range projected by RCP 8.5. Figure 1 in the study shows a "mid point" of IS92a closely matching a certain data set with ~6cm rise over 30yr = 3mm/yr. So extrapolating to year 2100 would be 23.1 cm additional for a total of ~29 cm at year 2100. Well below the original 50cm "best estimate" from IS92a.
IPCC SAR (Scenario IS92a): The "best estimate" projection for global mean sea level rise by 2100 was about 50 cm from the present. The full range of projections for this scenario was 15 to 95 cm, which included a wide range of uncertainties about emissions and climate sensitivity. The SAR also noted that sea levels would continue to rise for centuries even if greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized.
IPCC AR5 (Scenario RCP 8.5): The projection for total global mean sea level rise by 2100 (relative to 1986–2005) is 53 to 97 cm, with a median estimate of 73 cm. The AR5 report notes that a rise of up to 1 meter is possible under this scenario, and a more recent special report suggests a rise of up to 1.1 meters is likely, with a low-confidence but possible upper range of over 2 meters by 2100 if rapid ice sheet disintegration occurs.

well said!

don't the solar core pressure estimates assume a non-metal core? They looks like gas pressure equations to me... Obviously there's the temperature dimension still to explore - star cores are likely much warmer than 83 Kelvin.

Monitors, like many electronic devices today, have factory-use port that is usually not intended for use after the product ships. The "flaw" to fix is allowing unsigned firmware to be accepted on this port. Or at least cover it with foil tamper tape...

networkworld
tomsguide

Oxbo raspberry harvester

this will pick an entire field... certainly smaller options exist, but i doubt the ROI would be worth it - much like this gardening bot...

The tire wear numbers look good to me

assume 2000 g of tread mass per tire (~20%)

assume 4 tires

6.1mg / 4 tires = 1.525 mg tire wear "emissions" per vehicle km per tire

assume total tire wear is 10x higher than "emissions": 15.25 mg total tire tread wear per vehicle km per tire

allows for ~131,000 km of tire life.

I am not so sure about the rational of classifying "re-suspension" as an "emission" however.

Efficiency is all about what you are willing to pay for. Most low power and small transformers are much lower efficiency.

20W output at 66% full load efficiency

Some transformers can have high efficiency when running at light loads - but that means you just paid extra for an oversized transformer. In general, copper losses go up with the square of load current and iron (core) losses go up with the square of voltage. Of course a 30MW transformer will be designed for higher efficiencies - no one wants to pay for 10MW of losses or deal with all that heat.

Super capacitors are a super pain to design for. The charge/discharge curve is far worse than any battery. They have permanent capacitance degradation if held at rated voltage or at high temp, so you can't top them up and hold the energy for a rainy day. Its expensive/challenging to design circuits to pull the last few volts out, so typical designs have them stacked in series for high voltages with degraded peak load efficiency (ESR). Poor part tolerance combined with charge/discharge cycles requires active balancing ($$$). In the end designs need WAY more total energy storage than useful/usable energy storage.

Compared to gasoline (according to wikipedia), 300kJ is about 0.01 Liters of gasoline = about 1 cent worth. So 1 penny worth of kinetic energy is lost every time you have to emergency stop on the freeway with your SUV? At normal highway speeds its less than half that energy (E=1/2 m v^2).

"the technology still producing electricity after over 12,000 compression and release cycles" So, assuming an average walking speed that's about *2 hours* before you need new pants. Washing the clothes would most definitely wear them out! And think about what detergent would do to this...

I believe you're thinking of encoding HD resolution using MPEG2 on DVD? Yes, the bit rate for that is prohibitive (can't fit a whole move), and it will probably need to spin at 8x or faster.
That's the beauty of MPEG4/DivX/VC1,etc - they are much more efficient than MPEG2 (standard DVD encoding) - you can actually fit HD quality movies on a regular DVD (as mentioned earlier).