OcTave (as TFA's author would probably write it) is a sufficiently good clone of Matlab. I write many of my scripts ins Octave on a Mac at home, for use at work on PCs.
So given that conventional atmosphere models have ignored this to date, if the oceans are storing 90% of the excess heat, why aren't the conventional models showing temperature rises 10 times as great as what is observed, say 5-10 deg C?
Either the summary or the article are slack in the extreme.
If the Earth's atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C (approximately the size of the hockey stick) then that heat energy would warm the Earth's oceans by an unmeasurable 0.001 deg c. Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.
the air in your lungs is at the external pressure and so is the nitrogen in the joints etc, IF no additional high pressure nitrogen is injected into the system, the lungs and joints are in equilibrium no matter what the external pressure, they all compress together.
Subtract all fossil fuels from your current lifestyle. And all plastic, unless you are using casein(rendered cheese).
I think you'll find that your lifestyle will be about Cuban on the level of energy intensity. That is obviously feasible, but not without sacrifice. Unlike your idol Al Gore you won't be flying ANYWHERE ever again.
Um, that's a bit of a puzzle, the whale breathes in air at atmospheric pressure, therefore to a first order approximation the air in its body can't be at much more than that after compression and then surfacing.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I can't see what pressure is driving the nitrogen deep into joints etc, it should all be in equilibrium.
the whole point with bends and SCUBA is that you are breathing high pressure air, and so high pressure nitrogen diffuses into the parts of the body with lower partial pressures of nitrogen, then when you surface the high pressure nitrogen wants to diffuse out again, but can't easily. If the whole lot starts in equilibrium then it all compresses together. This loosely is why duck diving into quite significant depths is safe without a decompression stage.
I wonder how loud they are compared with underwater explosions, volcanoes and seaquakes?
" when a chemical reaction caused a glass glove box to explode"
any idea what that was?
My engineering brain struggles to find a heavy metal reaction that is unexpected. Oh, and enormous sympathy to HM, that's a horrible way to die.
Sorry, I misread the article, they are capping the growth in new WT installation for the next 6 years to about 80% of recent growth rates, and are building several new coal plants, whether that results in a net reduction in % windpower depends on economic growth achieved, ie crystal ball.
Which part of 'additional' didn't you understand?
Oddly enough both of the calculations in the OP were correct, yes, the wind turbine generates energy equivalent to its energy of manufacture quite quickly, and yes it is still a bad idea to rely on wind energy for use in a national grid except for a tiny percentage, each MW of wind turbine relies on an additional MW of conventional generators if you want 24/7 availability, or I suppose you could try energy storage, which ought to be added to the turbine operating cost and energy payback.
Interesting to see such knee jerk support for an inappropriate technology. I wonder if the posters above have ever thought through why Germany is
I think you've missed the point. Engineering software in general, including the stuff with a $4000 per seat per year maintenance contract, comes with a EULA that basically says the software provider is not liable for the results from that software.
Even if it is used in accordance with the help manual by trained users.
Even if the problem is directly caused by a fault in the software.
I read a few of the above. While the dental flossists seem to have taken over, here is my advice to a young real engineer-
-Yes, fair enough, wear clean clothes, shower, brush your teeth. You'd have to be VERY clever to make up for being stinky
-carry a notebook. When you ask a stupid question (probably all of them) note the answer down. That way you'll never ask the same person the same question twice.
-enthusiasm- we're fucking good at being cynical. Your attempt
-sense of humour- you will need one
- stupid hours- I regard people who work long hours as people who can't organise themselves, or production-workers. Others may differ.
BTW, computer engineers aren't real engineers. There may be different rules for them.
Sorry, I haven't read any of the above inspiteful commentary.
here's my take.
Most good games are too long.
80 bucks Australian for a game, I'd really like to know I've done it at 40 hours or less.
Here's the big name games I've played through, and thought the length was about right
Terra nova (several times - actually this is due to be played again)
System Shock (the original-I'd play this again if Barry gives me the CD back)
Warcraft 2 (bit dull now)
Mechwarriors- 2 and 4 (was there a 3?)
HalfLife was brilliant except the last mission was stupidly hard and I gave up and I won't play it again
Syndicate was brilliant, the last mission was stupidly hard but I did it once, and I'll play it again but ignore the last msiiosn
UFO - I've played a couple of times quite a long way through, without really getting to the end. Quite happy to do it again from scratch, the early msiisons are much more fun.
Biggest playability award goes to Gunship 2000 - in squad mode, or railroad tycoon.