Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mirroring US climate data

climatemirror.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 166 posts

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#141

Post by dghughes »

sandworm101 wrote: post #121
jcranmer wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/49616000/jpg/_... what you are referring to? Second result for me when searching Google Image Search for "bbc uk stuck submarine."

But find the image of the prop half out of the water. Thats the super-secret thing they were so embarrased about. Those images have been surgically removed from the internet. The full story involves a dilema between forcing the boat off the ground, and risk stripping its super-secret rubber coatings that might then be collected by russian agents, or letting the tide go out and expose the prop to the media.

The Canadian government bought some used subs from the UK 10 or 15 years ago. One of the subs had a huge dent and I mean Oldsmobile sized. The Brits seem to have a tough time navigating their subs.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#142

Post by jstanley »

sandworm101 wrote: post #113
wybiral wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government can't make all of the real scientists out there just disappear. Climate models have an impact on many different fields of research and unless there's a total shutdown of science (which seems absurd) those people and facts will still be there. There's a portion of the population who's wanted to deny climate change for a long time and I believe they'll accept the alt-facts to justify their position. B…

Go look at any list of recently-cancelled television shows. You will be shocked at the number of them that you liked, but have now slipped from your mind. Public memory is fickle and it is very possible to remove even widespread facts. Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at le…

Interesting about the propellor of HMS Astute. I found this page: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/hms-astute-aground... which links to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8p2LuvoXKmU which is apparently not available.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can drag up an archive of that video.

EDIT: Might be this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgX4OYIFl-c but doesn't contain any view of the propellor.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#143

Post by glenra »

danbruc wrote: post #91
Turing_Machine wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In the end the topic is gone in both cases." No, it isn't. It went to the National Archives, where it is still available in its original form. The same thing happened and/or will happen with all the other records of the Obama presidency.

I didn't mean gone in that sense, I meant gone from the list of topics on the White House website, gone from the list of topics the government wants to be associated with if you want.

If you use the Wayback Machine you should be able to verify that the Obama website didn't have a page on climate (or on lgbt, for that matter) when he first took office - it took years to put one there.

Administrations tend to put up a page at whitehouse.com on issue X when they want to trumpet or otherwise refer to what the administration has DONE about issue X. Since Trump just got elected, he hasn't done anything noteworthy on climate, so there's no page describing what he's done - speeches he's given, bills he's signed, etcetera. Since there's no such page, there's no such topic. Simple as that.

The topics there now seems to be cut-and-paste from his campaign site; it's essentially a placeholder to be filled out later.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#144

Post by cema »

As much as I maintain a skeptical attitude to all sides of this scientific (and political) issue, I absolutely support the effort to keep the data available to the public. Science cannot move forward without the data (and metadata) available for everyone. Even more generally, society would suffer if it is not available.

(When I say "metadata", I refer to the data sources, methods of the data acquisition and so on. When a scientific field is politicised it is not only hard to trust the models but even the data, so I think the metadata are very important, if they are available.)

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#145

Post by simonbarker87 »

czep wrote: post #79
simonbarker87 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but the general complaint is that we shouldn't switch from a cheap energy source (coal) to expensive renewables which are relatively untested at scale if the human impact of climate change is minimal or already past the point of no return. I don't personally believe this but this is a not unreasonable argument I have heard.

Contribution to climate change shouldn't be the only criteria for evaluation of an energy source. Shouldn't we also keep in mind pollution? Coal burns, it releases fine particulates into the air that cause cancer in people's lungs. Pollution sucks. We should stop talking about climate change and go back to the 70s when people were talking about pollution.

Yeah, I agree with you - there a many many reasons why we should get off fossil fuels and reduce our energy consumption beyond climate change. I was just giving an example of about the most reasonable sounding excuse for inaction in this area. Regardless of one's political views there are plenty of solutions that appeal to the full breadth of the political system but the primary thing that they can't address is oil and gas company's desire to protect quarterly growth, people's misplaced political reasoning (I'm against action because the left is for it type arguments) and the fact that some people just don't like change that may indicate the way they have previously been doing something is wrong.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#146

Post by tracker1 »

simonbarker87 wrote: post #74
tukelully wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your first sentence which actions are you referring to?

Not OP but the general complaint is that we shouldn't switch from a cheap energy source (coal) to expensive renewables which are relatively untested at scale if the human impact of climate change is minimal or already past the point of no return. I don't personally believe this but this is a not unreasonable argument I have heard.

I'm not against trying to replace high polluting resources like coal... I am saying, that perhaps the investment in public solar grids make a lot less sense in many areas, and there is a relatively big impact in mining the materials and shipping the panels, many of which come from China, which is bad about clean build, not to mention shipping itself.

Likewise, trying to push for electric cars doesn't make a lot of sense in that the environmental impact of an electric car takes 5+ years to outweigh that of a gas car, not counting how the electricity is generated. Also, not accounting for the overall impact of replacing said batteries, or other maintenance.

And yes, cost is another issue... depending on what is the replacing technology, there are other cost-benefit analysis that should be done on a case by case bases against the larger impact. I also feel that if we take the premise at reducing pollution, vs. "omg the world is going to die" kind of reactionism it's a bit easier to sell more broadly to conservatives.

Fighting/reducing pollution should be enough of a goal by itself, a large enough portion of the population lives in large enough cities to understand smog and feel it when breathing, some cities far worse than others. The broader (saving the world) mentality doesn't do much on its' own, is much harder to sell, and too big.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#147

Post by tracker1 »

czep wrote: post #79
simonbarker87 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but the general complaint is that we shouldn't switch from a cheap energy source (coal) to expensive renewables which are relatively untested at scale if the human impact of climate change is minimal or already past the point of no return. I don't personally believe this but this is a not unreasonable argument I have heard.

Contribution to climate change shouldn't be the only criteria for evaluation of an energy source. Shouldn't we also keep in mind pollution? Coal burns, it releases fine particulates into the air that cause cancer in people's lungs. Pollution sucks. We should stop talking about climate change and go back to the 70s when people were talking about pollution.

I completely agree... I mainly mean that some resources are less of an impact or more cost effective than others. I'm all for working to reduce pollution for the sake of, and if that means less carbon in the air, awesome. However, if your goal is really reducing some footprints then what materials are used/needed for construction and distribution have a huge impact. Not to mention the infrastructure security of potentially key infrastructure (power grid) relying on parts from an adversarial foreign state.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#148

Post by danbruc »

sandworm101 wrote: post #113
wybiral wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government can't make all of the real scientists out there just disappear. Climate models have an impact on many different fields of research and unless there's a total shutdown of science (which seems absurd) those people and facts will still be there. There's a portion of the population who's wanted to deny climate change for a long time and I believe they'll accept the alt-facts to justify their position. B…

Go look at any list of recently-cancelled television shows. You will be shocked at the number of them that you liked, but have now slipped from your mind. Public memory is fickle and it is very possible to remove even widespread facts. Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at le…

According to Wikipedia Astute-class submarines use a hydrojet [1] instead of a classical propeller. That explains the unusual encased look. Here is an image [2] with the propulsion system hidden behind some fabric covers but still giving away the general shape. And this thread [3] has a few images of a hydrojet of a Sowjet Kilo-class submarine.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Propuls...

[2] http://www.shipwrecklog.com/log/2010/10/h-m-s-astute-aground...

[3] http://www.betasom.it/forum/index.php?showtopic=29393

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#149

Post by sandworm101 »

danbruc wrote: post #148
sandworm101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go look at any list of recently-cancelled television shows. You will be shocked at the number of them that you liked, but have now slipped from your mind. Public memory is fickle and it is very possible to remove even widespread facts. Example: a few years back a uk submarine was stuck high aground. As the tide went out the prop was exposed. I and a billion other people saw it live on bbc news. (Blue poly fins, at le…

According to Wikipedia Astute-class submarines use a hydrojet [1] instead of a classical propeller. That explains the unusual encased look. Here is an image [2] with the propulsion system hidden behind some fabric covers but still giving away the general shape. And this thread [3] has a few images of a hydrojet of a Sowjet Kilo-class submarine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Propuls... [2] h…

The new tech seems to be many more but thinner blades made out of composite material. It is so secret because if you know the surface area of the blades you can work out the availible horsepower, speeds, and likely frequencies emitted. So they are covered to hide then even from crew. Many people working inside subs dont know what props actually look like.

Propulsion tech was part of the accident because, i believe, these subs do not have rudders. They vector thrust like a jetski and therefore have issues when moving slowly.

Re: Mirroring US climate data

#150

Post by danbruc »

sandworm101 wrote: post #149
danbruc wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia Astute-class submarines use a hydrojet [1] instead of a classical propeller. That explains the unusual encased look. Here is an image [2] with the propulsion system hidden behind some fabric covers but still giving away the general shape. And this thread [3] has a few images of a hydrojet of a Sowjet Kilo-class submarine. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#Propuls... [2] h…

The new tech seems to be many more but thinner blades made out of composite material. It is so secret because if you know the surface area of the blades you can work out the availible horsepower, speeds, and likely frequencies emitted. So they are covered to hide then even from crew. Many people working inside subs dont know what props actually look like. Propulsion tech was part of the accident because, i believe, t…

I didn't even know that submarines no longer use classical propellers. I was surprised when I read it on Wikipedia and then again when I noticed that this is not unique to the Astate-class while trying to find images of hydrojet submarines. You can see this in the way I worded my comment, I guess it was pretty obvious to you.
Post reply on HN