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.
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.
> 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.
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"
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.
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.