crygin

EDIT: I think I misread initially -- you can use it for multiple bottles, but only their prepackaged wines? No one with this money to burn on wine accessories is going to want the narrow range of wines they're going to be able to offer.

Long story short, this paper received a lot of press attention when it was published to the ACPD last summer for discussion: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/whiplash-warnin...

Which led to a fair number of climate scientists upset about what they saw as the press reporting on preliminary results. It's linked in that article but the key point is that Hansen has spent the last ~10 years calling out what he sees as a reticent attitude among climate scientists towards (what he feels is justified) alarmism: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext/

I'd summarize but anyone interested in the near-term (this century) effects of climate change and already on HN should be willing to read the actual paper.

Surface contamination is deadly, particularly to bird/shore life, but dispersed oil is deadly throughout the water column (until it resurfaces, at which point it becomes deadly to birds again). There's relatively little life at the surface compared to the pelagic zone, so the impact of dispersants doesn't merely multiply the effect of the oil by the depth of the water, but actually moves that oil into the regions where life is densest.

This is also an interesting and well-known report discussing the non-mechanical response to the Valdez spill from 2006: http://www.pwsrcac.org/wp-content/uploads/filebase/programs/...

I can't be clear enough on this -- the impact of dispersants on the environment and their lack of efficacy at actually decomposing oil (see: resurfacing) was well-known at the time of the Deepwater Horizon spill. There's ample discussion from the actual professionals in this field at the time of the incident regarding the obviously inadequate cleanup process. The responses from both BP and the EPA were meant to reduce metrics like visible sheen while ignoring the environment (it's even worse in the gulf since current variation at depth results in a much broader resurfacing pattern than simply leaving the oil on the surface would have done).

I agree that blinding would be preferable, but when the material itself reveals the author it's simply not possible.

Heh, given that land out there east of the Arsenal refuge is almost free and the cost of building an elevated structure in an earthquake zone... this comparison is the first time the AirBART replacement has sounded cheap!

I'd be very interested in hearing more comparisons between your device's caramelization abilities and e.g. pressure-cooker caramelization with or without added alkaline agents. My experiments doing temp-controlled caramelization in ambient air (rather than the hydrating environment of a pressure cooker) have had mixed results.

Will you have any physical demos in the bay area?

This is not a possible shift to an environment with a recent (human-timescale) analogue. If it comes to pass, we will not be able to farm or live in the same places or at the same volumes as we are currently capable of.

It's not thinking critically about the issues in play or how they would affect the lives of millions or billions of people, let alone the animals, plants, and microorganisms involved. It's not heresy, it's just hubris.

And if you find good stuff, post the links!

EDIT: And we did attempt to virtualize it, but at least at the time were unable to do so successfully (timing issues, I think).

This is pretty basic stuff for high-profile executive appointments...