dragop

Geolocation is another reason ncr is useful, when using VPNs.

I'm pretty much in the same situation - problem is just adding /ncr to the URL is easy to remember, especially when not on your own computer, ?gfe_rd=cr&gws_rd=cr doesn't exactly stick in the mind! I'm also increasingly leaning towards using ddg, wasn't aware of the g! option, thanks for that.

I don't where google's web search team is based, but I imagine it's mainly in the US, where this isn't likely to be a problem. Of course, for the vast majority of google search users, localized is what they want.

There's a nice model of a gyro monorail shown in the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGYXJjRfgTM

I may be possible to do the same with Lego Mindstorms - certainly you can make self-balancing two-wheel robots: http://robotsquare.com/2014/07/01/tutorial-ev3-self-balancin...

No evidence was found of wrong-doing at the Climate Research Unit. The only result was it provided a source of comments to be taken out of context by climate sceptics. Which is exactly what Lamar Smith is hoping to achieve here.

> The above graph is the source data for the famous "Hockey Stick" graph. The one below it is similar data taken from another location (IIRC one was taken in Arizona, the other California). Why they chose to use one and not both is beyond me.

The hockey stick graph is based on a aggregation of global or hemispherical temperature records. It is most certainly not based on a single temperature record from Arizona.

You can find NOAA's current climate model here, with source code, compile scripts, and sample data:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cm2-5-and-flor

However, as mrow84 points out, you will need a supercomputer, unless you have a lot of time on your hands.

> That means it has to treat the globe as a grid of 18 mile cubes

Although this is made somewhat easier in that the vertical component is done in pressure "levels", somewhat simplifying the equations to be solved. However that shouldn't underestimate the scale of the problem. IIRC a model with a surface resolution of 100km means solving for something of the order of 30 million variables for each time step.

Full scale climate models can get even harder, as you need to couple an ocean circulation model to a atmospheric circulation model - ocean circulation is less important for a weather model as its time scale is of the order of up to 1000 years.

The title suggests this is unusual, but it's not really.

The simplest way to look at a glacier's changes over time is mass balance. A glacier accumulates mass, principally from snowfall in winter, which compacts into ice and flows downhill. It losses mass through what's called ablation - for a typical mountain glacier this is principally surface melt in summer, or for a glacier in polar regions it may be ice calving into the sea.

For obvious reasons, the accumulation zone for a mountain glacier will be at higher altitudes, and the ablation zone will be at lower altitudes. The equilibrium line altitude is the altitude at which mass lost equals mass gained.

As Mount St. Helens' glaciers disappeared following the eruption, the glacier(s) will start to regrow as snowfall causes ice accumulation above the equilibrium line altitude. Eventually, as the articles hints, the glacier will come back* into mass balance.

I've simplified this all somewhat, as there can be lots of other factors that influence mass balance (as the article mentions, rock cover will reduce surface melting).

*I say come back, as because of the natural variations in climate from year to year, mass balance is never steady-state.

The web interface login page recently changed so first you type in your username, then have to switch to the mouse to click "next", then type in your password. (Perhaps not as bad as one website I know that disables tabbing between the two fields!)

Anyone know if there's a reason behind such a clunky interface change?

The distance between New York and Washington DC is about 225 miles and takes just over 4 hours by car.

Assuming a dedicated high speed rail line based on highway distances, at the best TGV speeds[1] (173mph, includes start and stop, not just high speed running) that would take approximately 1 hour 20 minutes.

[1] http://www.railwaygazette.com/fileadmin/user_upload/railwayg...

Now corrected.

Given the subject, would it be amiss to point out that the title as written here is missing a comma?

It's Stefan Rahmstorf, Professor of Ocean Physics at the Potsdam Institute.

I missed that discussion, thanks, although this link is a better read than the bloomberg article.

To add to this post though, there is an interview with one of the researchers (Lewis) on the BBC World Service Science in Action. Podcast is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scia

That's a little unfair to later generals as the nature of warfare has changed. No longer is the general the king, emperor, consul, tribal leader, etc.

One of Hitler's mistakes* was to believe he was a good general. Stalin at least had the good sense to let his generals get on with it.

* Thankfully.

Wellington couldn't come to Blücher's aid as Napoleon blocked him with his left wing under Ney at Quatre Bras.

Your argument seems to be coming from the historical revisionism that Hofschröer puts forward, about how Waterloo was somehow a German victory and Wellington simply took the credit.

It was neither, it was a coalition victory by both Wellington and Blücher in close cooperation. Close cooperation by the standards of the day that is, in personal meetings and messages conveyed on horse-back.

Neither knew from which direction Napoleon would attack, and when he did he took both Blücher and Wellington by surprise. Moving from the south-west he defeated Blücher at Ligny, whilst pushing his left wing under Ney to block Wellington to the north at Quatre Bras. Arguably Napoleon's biggest mistake was not to make sure he had decisively beaten Blücher at Ligny.

Blücher withdrew to reorganise, and Wellington pulled back north along the Brussels road to Waterloo. Crucially Blücher also withdrew northwards, parallel to the French advance, and Wellington was well aware of this, the French not.

The rest is history. Wellington's army held the field all day, the Prussians arrived on the French right in the late afternoon, and with Napoleon's attacks exhausted, the French army routed.

To quote Wellington himself written immediately after the battle "I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them"

Khalid ibn al-Walid

Some others, often overlooked from a Western viewpoint, would be Subutai, Timur the Lame (Tamerlane), Belisarius, Zhukov, and Suleiman I. There are more.

Arguably Marius and Sulla were the equal, if not better than, Caesar. And Pompey was no slouch either. And another great Roman general was Scipio.

Some more modern generals not mentioned are Fredrick the Great and Gustavus Adolphus, plus Rommel.

Strictly speaking that should be association football, although everyone calls it football outside the US of course.

"Football" existed before, but simplifying somewhat, just about all the modern games of football derive from rules codified at British private-education schools in the 19th century. So for example, rugby football originated at Rugby private-education school, which then developed into American football. Off the top of my head I can think of association football, American football, Canadian football, rugby football, Australian rules football and Gaelic football.

When you say "translations" I assume you mean just the admin. But does Wagtail support multilingual websites (nothing seems to be in the docs)?

It's a problem of how fast. If the Earth's climate slowly changed over thousands of years, we could probably adapt. Fast climatic changes would be a problem as the biosphere would take time to adapt. For example, remove all the ice from Antarctica (and ignoring most of it is currently below sea level and needs to rebound). You'd have a rocky landscape with no soil. Not very useful for growing crops.

In the current ice age, the cycle between glacials and inter-glacials is primarily driven by variations in the Earth's orbit, and therefore the distribution of incoming solar radiation over the Earth's surface by season and latitude. Obviously, as you mention, this then interacts with global climate through atmospheric and ocean circulation. They're called Milankovitch cycles after Milutin Milanković, who calculated them all (by hand!) at the beginning of the 20th century.

Obviously orbital forcing would exist in "greenhouse" times, to answer the parent comment.

If you are interested, there are three variations:

- eccentricity, change in the ellipticity of the orbit around the Sun, ie how close to a circular orbit it is. So if it's close to circular, temperature variations by season will be low. If it's more eccentric, you will get greater variation by season.

- tilt of the axis of rotation, which varies around 22-24 degrees. So when the Earth is tilted over more, at the poles it will be hotter when facing the Sun, colder when facing away.

- axial precession, which is the wobble of the axis of rotation, a bit like if you put a toy gyroscope on a table. This has a latitudinal and seasonal effect, particularly at the poles.

These cycles are approximately 100, 41 an 25 thousand years respectively. Put them together and the periods very closely follow the current ice age climate variations.