OT: The Life Scientific

[jgh]

They even manage to mis-spell standardised international units.

jgh

[Nightjar]

I would prefer to see numbers, so that I could compare them for myself. The graph seems to suggest that rather than accelerating in recent years, the rate of rise has been fairly steady since the mid 1960s. In fact, if you take the lower end of the uncertainty bands, it could have been similar since the 1870s. Much easier to be sure with actual figures and tolerances than somebody else's graphical interpretation.

[Bill Wright]

It's very poor and misleading, that. They've just used the contours and assumed, for instance, that if the sea rises 1m then everywhere below the 1m contour will flood. In fact there are lots of places below sea level already and they are pumped. The map shows these as flooded if you set it to 0 metres.

Bill

[alan_m]

Just because digital scales have lots of digits in the read-out doesn't mean they are accurate.

[alan_m]

Where I work the foot per nanosecond is commonly quoted, or slightly less for PCB traces when explaining to someone that all the track lengths to a fast memory device need to be matched.

[michael adams]

It's not poor and misleading at all. A lot of the Netherlands is under sea level and has been for centuries. That's what all the windmills were for, that you see in old Dutch paintings. They were there to work pumps. Or did you think the Dutch have always eaten an awful lot of bread ?

The point is that an equilibrium is reached where its economical to produce power to run a certain number of pumps and to maintain dykes, to keep a certain area of polder drained. However as the sea rises the cost of building higher dykes and powering even more pumps becomes increasingly uneconomical. Basically it would be cheaper to pay the affected population to move somewhere else and import the food that would otherwise have been grown on the polders.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

Indeed.

That's been the case ever since computers could calculate to 8 decimal places and print out the results in nice neat columns.

Complete bollocks in, beautifully formatted, high precision, complete bollocks out.

michael adams

...

[michael adams]

The only problem with additive method I find, is the problem off adding just too much of any ingredient, the water in this case which its then impossible to rectify.

If the water is measured out first in a separate container then any surplus can be simply poured off. Then the whole thing can be poured into the mix on the scales.

michael adams

...

[Adrian]

Plus, of course, if you pump water away, it still has to go _somewhere_...

[john james]

I don?t do that, I tare it between the two ingredients.

Easy to decant a bit and add some more.

Just as easy when doing it my way.

Don?t need to my way.

[michael adams]

Same difference. Whether you rest the scale is immaterial.

I was referring to adding each ingredient to the tin and using the scale as measure. Rather than measuring any ingredient independently.

That would depend on how deep your tin is. In tipping over the tin to decant some excess water, there's always the possibility that you might pour away some of the breadmix as well.

Whereas if you've already weighed the water that's no problem.

Which you could already have decanted to your heart's content, without there being any possiblility of pouring away any other ingredient.

michael adams

...

[Mike Barnes]

Do you not have a spoon or ladle to hand?

[Mike Barnes]

They're possibly not as accurate as the displayed precision, but that's beside the point.

[john james]

They are all quite deep..

Not enough to matter.

Still easier to be careful when adding the water.

[Tim Streater]

If I did that with my bread pan, I could pour out some unmeasured amount of water, but the flour would start to tip as well. This would expose the yeast which is at the bottom of the pan.

[john james]

Not a problem when you add more water after that.

No, there is plenty of water so you don?t lose any breadmix.

The yeast goes in after the water.

[michael adams]

Surely something which is easy to do, by definition, requires less care, than something which is more difficult to do ?

michael adams

...

[newshound]

I'm with Bill, it *is* poor and misleading. There are also areas of the planet which are well below sea level, but which don't flood because of natural barriers. It's worth having the current Thames barrier against storm surges. As sea level rises (and the South East sinks), then as with your crop growth example a cost-benefit analysis will decide what investments in protection will be worth while. And having energy prices inflated by uneconomic investments will mean there is less capital around for flood protection, increasing the cost of housing.

[Tim Streater]

I use one when adding the flour on top of the yeast, otherwise not needed. Panasonic thoughtfully supplied a plastic beaker with ml markings on it. I fill that up roughly as first action while putting first yeast then flour in the tin. Once I've added the salt and Stork, I then check the water level in the beaker. Once I've got that correct I pour it in. Simples.

[michael adams]

What's misleading about it ? If the pumps had all been turned off

- capacity 6,000m? per minute plus another 4,000 m? per minute on standbye - that area would all be flooded by now .

Irrelevant. They're not artificially dry as a result of using external energy. And if the natural barriers were high enough and they're inland they could withstand substantial rises in sea level.

The polders were drained artificially using energy, and require energy to maintain and are right next to the Sea.

michael adams

...