Slashdot Mirror

Well, it is interesting that this directly contradicts a few other recent papers, which say pretty much the opposite.

Like this one.

Hmmm... and this one.

Let's not forget this one.

And this one...

And so on, and so on.

Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.

Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.

I think that the issue you mention is that so many women identify first as women, while most men identify as individuals. Wow - that's an impressive bit of stereotyping and victim-blaming rolled into a single sentence.

But I'm sure you have plenty of cherry-picked anecdotes to support your position.

Actually, I am not going to do anything but ask you to explain your accusations. Explain how a bit of psychological analysis is stereotyping. Explain how this is victim blaming.

Then I'll offer a few links of the literature by professionals.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.o...

Shaming tactics have pretty much stopped working. Try conversation.

Since when does the "sniff test" trump a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, written by scientists from the US Geological Survey? The introduction to the paper suggests a mechanism (with citations) by which mercury is concentrated in the permafrost.

That a popular article doesn't give a perfectly accurate description shouldn't be shocking but if you go to the actual research article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL075571/full?wol1URL=/doi/10.1002/2017GL075571/full there concern is pretty clear about airborne and water soluble organic mercury compounds which are far more dangerous than metallic mercury or most inorganic mercury compounds. Metallic mercury and inorganic mercury is pretty safe. You can hold a ball of mercury in your hand without any real consequences. But organic mercury compounds can be much more dangerous. It took just a drop of dimethyl mercury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury on the outside of a glove to kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Wetterhahn. Of course, no one is going to directly die from this, but an increase in atmospheric and oceanic mercury levels could have a real negative impact on both the ecosystems and general human health.

Have you actually ever done this yourself?

Yeah. This book describes it well

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Ga...

You don't need much platform specific code to get an OpenGL capable window and redirect touch events into it. I've seen the same technique used for cross platform OpenGL Win32/Mac applications - platform specific code creates a window, listens for events and then makes callbacks into cross platform code.

Admittedly I couldn't get breakpoints to work on any of my Android devices. But they did on iOS.

Pleco is structured like this, even though Pleco must have a lot of native UI code - it's not just getting an OpenGL window and drawing into it

https://www.plecoforums.com/th...

And I bet a lot of games are like this - e.g. Angry Birds on Android is a native library and a small amount of Java

Basically if your app resembles Angry Birds more than it does Pleco it's not a bad approach.

But I'm not really satisfied with either the "mostly portable C/C++, platform specific wrapper" approach or the "Write in C# for Xamarin" one as I've said in each and every comment in this thread.

So I was sort of hoping someone would come up with some concrete alternatives for a cross platform app.

Since you sound almost rational, you do know that the sea level has been rising at a roughly constant rate since the end of the last Ice Age?

It hasn't, if you look at figure 4.31 on this page. You notice a rapid rise in sea level after the end of the glacial period, followed by a leveling off of sea level rise. Natural forces would eventually turn that into a slow sea level fall as we descended into the next glacial period. Instead sea level rise is now accelerating due to anthropogenic factors.

I agree the earth is warming, it has been warming since the last Ice Age.

No, it hasn't "been warming since the last Ice Age", global temperatures have, in fact been declining since they peaked about 7,500 years ago.

We don't really know if the rate of warming is unusual, but judging by HADCET, it would appear that the period since 1800 has seen temperature rises over decades that are not unusual.

Yes we do, anthropogenic forces have inverted the direction of the climate change (see previous point), and I doubt any actual climate experts would agree with your amateur assessment of the HADCET data.

As to CO2, yes the fossil fuel emissions do hang around in the atmosphere, and so CO2 has increased. But, the greenhouse effect is due to CO2 is small, and easily overwhelmed by changes in water vapor and albedo.

I'm sorry, but that's also wrong. Water vapour concentrations are determined by air temperature so increases in CO2 concentration cause a feedback effect that also increases the greenhouse effect of water vapour by increasing air temperature and therefore also increasing the amount of water vapour as well. While Albedo may have the potential be larger than CO2 forcings, current measurements do not show a significant change in the earth's albedo.

The albedo effect is the dominant part of the equation, and none of their computer models account for changes in albedo in the future.

I sincerely doubt the veracity of a claim that none of the computer models account for changes in albedo. Can you prove this claim? Because this 2014 paper claims to be examining the accuracy of surface albedo feedback in 11 different models. It seems it would be difficult to do that if none of the models accounted for surface albedo feedbacks.

It kind of seems like everything you think you know about the climate and climate modelling is wrong. You might want to go back and check your sources, if they are telling you things that aren't true, you need to find better sources.

Well, nice to know you fail at reading comprehension.

You continue to project your own failings on to me and James Damore, in typical social "justice" idiot fashion.

Yes, yes he [the researcher] did [say he misunderstood the science].

No, he did not. I did what you failed to do, which is quote from your link exactly what the researcher said. James made a general statement based on the paper, and the researcher agreed his general claim was correct. He did NOT say James "misunderstood the science".

But he never said it was genetic, and neither did any of the other studies Damore "cited", and yet that's the conclusion that Damore drew.

Bullshit. From the abstract:

"Gender differences in personality tend to be larger in gender-egalitarian societies than in gender-inegalitarian societies, a finding that contradicts social role theory but is consistent with evolutionary, attributional, and social comparison theories. In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences."

And that's why he was fired.

He was fired for wrongthink rooted in science, while Google illegally allows open prejudice against white males, both in culture and policy, without any science to back it up.,

The traditional revival technique for frozen animals was the application of a red hot teaspoon to the chest of the resuscitee. Some people didn't think that was nice - or didn't like the smell of burned flesh - and so turned to the microwave oven.

The very first sentence of the article says they tried to adjust for health (which is not a surprise):

For older people, getting out of the house regularly may contribute to a longer life - and the effect is independent of medical problems or mobility issues, according to new research from Israel.

The article is available for money from here, but the abstract says they adjusted for:

* social (sex, marital status, financial status, loneliness)
* functional (sex, self-rated health, fatigue, depression, physical activity, activity of daily living difficulty)
* medical (sex, chronic pain, visual impairment, hearing impairment, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, ischemic heart disease, chronic kidney disease)

Aren't you the guy that wants to ban wifi routers because they damage dna? I do not have to take your crazy nonsense seriously.

No need to. Here is an IAEA report supporting my position. What's this? Hey it looks like the Russian Federation has also produced a report , with the effects on males. One moment, looks like the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report, I must have forgot to mention that in my original post.

As opposed to nonsense there seems to be growing consensus on this matter. You should educate yourself instead of relying on ideological rhetoric because it shows how little you know about nuclear power if you don't know about wifi.

Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.

To demonstrate how desperately wrong you are, see if you can answer this question:

What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?

Since you can't answer any of the points I've raised, lets agree that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about so that you don't humiliate yourself any further.

Your Nuclear Ideology is immoral.

Meteoritic iron differs significantly from cast iron (more nickel, less carbon), but your point still holds. An investigation into the hardness of meteorites found Rockwell B hardness ranging from 60 to 92.

That TFA of this submission we're discussing goes straight to AGW as the only possible cause to explain the evidence cited is disturbing. Perhaps they should have gotten together with the scientists from the Slashhdot story I linked below and compared notes first before publishing.

"NASA Discovers Mantle Plume That's Melting Antarctica From Below"

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

And link to the original study from the above article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Strat

Just because they recently discovered the mantle plume under Antarctica doesn't mean it's something new. Given what we know about mantle plumes chances are it's been there for millions of years and it's unlikely that the amount of melting it is doing has changed significantly in the recent pass. But I'm open to evidence for that if you can find it.

The parable of the boy that cried wolf seems very apt for this story.

That TFA of this submission we're discussing goes straight to AGW as the only possible cause to explain the evidence cited is disturbing. Perhaps they should have gotten together with the scientists from the Slashhdot story I linked below and compared notes first before publishing.

"NASA Discovers Mantle Plume That's Melting Antarctica From Below"

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

And link to the original study from the above article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Oops!

And as far as the people in low-lying coastal cities, they'll have to move. It's not like they're dry one day and suddenly swept away by a wall of water without warning the next.

"Gosh, the water's at my feet, and it'll be up to my ankles in only a few short decades! How will I ever escape!? I shall surely drown!! glurglurglurg"

I don't think so. Not even government bureaucrats are that dumb, at least in that one instance. Other instances, however...

Strat

Because the effect of cosmic rays on 14C production in the atmosphere has been directly measured, and while there is a measurable shortfall there, the production from lightning can't amount to very much or the amount being produced from cosmic rays would be far off the observed atmospheric concentration. There's also a good historical record of 14C concentration in the atmosphere thanks to tree rings, glacial ice cores, and corals going back thousands of years. Example. Other than the mess made by 14C production since ~1945 thanks to atmospheric nuclear bomb testing, those concentrations jive with what would be expected primarily from the cosmic ray production. If lightning contributes too, it would have to be a relatively small proportion or the equilibrium achieved between 14C production and decay would be at a much higher concentration.

It's also worth noting that the gamma-ray production from lightning, which is associated with the process producing 14C, is only observed for the most extreme lightning events, detected at rates of around 50 per day world-wide versus the millions of individual lightning strikes that presumably aren't strong enough.

It would be fun to be able to design these bots, though that is not a task my company does. Still, I wonder if we can't go ultra simple? What about something like a bot based only on hydraulic lines, with a fiber optic camera? Can you pass a video image with pure fiber and no electronics? I'm assuming the hydraulic fluid could be controlled by a pneumatic valves. By using air to control movement, you don't need a return line for it. That leaves you with a fiber optic bundle, a send and return hydraulic line, and some smaller bundle of low pressure air lines.

It has been discussed.

The major issue is that the amorphous microscopic structures are particularly prone to radiation induced discoloration of the fiber optic lines. This is worse for the transparent and translucent thermoplastic copolymers, such as methylmethacrylate or polycarbonate.

You'd be replacing the optical fiber fairly frequently, particularly if it were a modern plastic, rather than true glass, although glass will have similar issues.

You end up with coloring in both the visible light regions, and in the IR and UV bands.

This is commonly known as "browning".

While technically, you could throw a laser through the fiber to heat and/or otherwise cause fading.

However, it's going to happen in and around 10^10 Rad.

You can read the original paper by W.H. Cropper here; it was published in 1962:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

[Note: fees may be involved, if you access this through the Wiley site]

I think we can assume that any water definitely would be in the form of ice?

The bit about water/ice being potentially present in this multi-billion-year-old system of lava tubes is pure speculation on the part of "Zorro", the submitter of TFS, and/or the /. editor msmash, who posted it to the front page. No such theory is presented in the article from The Guardian (to which TFS links), by the press release from JAXA, as published on phys.org (from which The Guardian's article is most likely drawn), or in the abstract of the actual Geophysical Research Letters article (full "text" - meaning PDF, of course - paywalled courtesy of Wiley).

Which makes that part complete bullshit, added by someone who had no basis to include it as part of TFS, other than for the purpose of enhancing its clickbait potential. Or, in other words, business as usual for the new, steadily-deteriorating /.

Damn, I miss CmdrTaco ...

Related: http://newsroom.wiley.com/pres...

It's not quite clear why there are different people for both pizes, though.

Background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There is no such thing as unstable equilibrium. Either you are at equilibrium or you are not. To be more accurate, we have to talk about stable oscillation (period one year + some other phenomena with longer period).

Let's suppose we are not at equilibrium (even if what you are saying has no meaning at all):

>why hasn't there been runaway carbon dioxide warming in the past?

There was a lot of them (but knew it, isn't it?). And this is not a "runaway", we are talking about an instability period until a new equilibrium is reached (more than probably unsustainable for humans).

We are talking about dynamical systems. These kinds of systems is very well modeled and understood. The basics are very simple as explained in this paper. First try to understand this paper, then try to move to more complex models. If you are not able to understand the basic models, please shut up, your are just noise. A pain in the ass ignorant noise.

Did you read the memo? Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?

I have read the memo, and you don't have to think a group is inferior in order to stereotype them.

His paper does often say women on average have differences from men. But the important thing is not whether there are differences, but the extent of those differences. When he says "women on average are more prone to anxiety" it is both a very true and very inflammatory statement without context. Women indeed do have higher rates of anxiety, but then again individuals from Euro/Anglo cultures on average have higher levels of anxiety than average women.

The reality is that this study found about 7 in 100 women suffer from anxiety as compared to 4 in 100 men. Sure it is nearly double, but how useful is it to even discuss this when bringing up gender in the workplace? Especially when in most cases there is medication to remove most symptoms. Where is the research to show to what extent anxiety affects a person's career? The mere fact he brought up higher anxiety rates at all is inflammatory and worthy of derision. It is a way to be discriminatory while maintaining you are only being fair. It is intellectually dishonest.

Any time people complain about SJWs wanting a 50/50 split in any given profession, it is nearly guaranteed everything else they say will be full of crap. Some of what they say may be factual, but only in an attempt to distract from the ignorant core of their argument. No one is fighting for a 50/50 split in STEM fields, since there are real differences between the genders and a real biological reason why childbearing affects women careers more than men. But a 60/40 or 55/45 split is likely attainable in a more discrimination free culture, and none of the minute differences between genders will inhibit that goal.

[citation needed]

Here are a few to start from. You can follow their references cited sections to thousands of related studies.

Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists
Fraser 2009 Am J Clin Nutr September 1999 vol. 70 no. 3 532s-538s

Dietary Relationships With Fatal Colorectal Cancer Among Seventh-Day Adventists
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. David A. Snowdon, Ph.D., M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 74, Issue 2, 1 February 1985, Pages 307–317

Coronary heart disease mortality among Seventh-Day Adventists with differing dietary habits: a preliminary report
Roland L. Phillips, Frank R. Lemon, W. Lawrence Beeson, and Jan W. Kuzma. Am J Clin Nutr October 1978 vol. 31 no. 10 S191-S198

Diet and Lung Cancer in California Seventh-day Adventists
Gary E. Fraser W. Lowrence Beeson Ronald L. Phillips. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 133, Issue 7, 1 April 1991, Pages 683–693.

Association Between Reported Diet And All-Cause Mortality: Twenty-One-Year Follow-Up On 27, 530 Adult Seventh-Day Adventists
HAROLD A. Kahn Roland L. Phillips David A. Snowdon Warren Choi. American Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 119, Issue 5, 1 May 1984, Pages 775–787.

Dietary and hormonal interrelationships among vegetarian Seventh-Day Adventists and nonvegetarian men.
B J Howie and T D Shultz. Am J Clin Nutr July 1985 vol. 42 no. 1 127-134

Animal product consumption and mortality because of all causes combined, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and cancer in Seventh-day Adventists.
Snowdon. Am J Clin Nutr September 1988 vol. 48 no. 3 739-748.

Mortality Among California Seventh-Day Adventists for Selected Cancer Sites
Roland L. Phillips, M.D., Dr. P.H. Lawrence Garfinkel, M.A. J. W. Kuzma, Ph.D. W. Lawrence Beeson, M.S.P.H. Terry Lotz, M.S.P.H. Burton Brin, M.P.H. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1 November 1980, Pages 1097–1107.

Diet and Serum Cholesterol Levels A Comparison between Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians in a Seventh-day Adventist Group
RAYMOND O. WEST, M.D., M.P.H. and OLIVE B. HAYES, M.P.H.. Am J Clin Nutr August 1968 vol. 21 no. 8 853-862.

Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men
Mills, P. K., Beeson, W. L., Phillips, R. L. and Fraser, G. E. (1989), Cohort study of diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer in adventist men. Cancer, 64: 598–604.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-...

It's the first thing that pops up if you google "animated temperature anomaly map"

Feel free to also google the multitude of peer-reviewed data that demonstrates the same, such as this:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

(third time I've cited this paper so far today)

I do have a glaring opinion, based upon actual, real, peer-reviewed results. Those results are true whether I hold a glaring opinion on them or not.

This article is an example of the US climate trend being different than the global trend.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

(Same link as my post below)

Point is that daytime temperatures have been dropping slightly in the US, but the globe and the northern hemisphere have seen opposite trends - daytime highs have been rising.

we can't extrapolate from the US to the planet

Here's what you asked for - a detailed analysis of diurnal trends globally (and northern hemisphere, and US):

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The important data (in my opinion) is in Figure 1(a). Note that the Tmax time derivative (K/decade) is positive globally and for all seasons in the NH. The Tmin time derivative is more positive than that of Tmax, which is saying that the nights have been warming more quickly than days. But both have been rising.

The second major point is shown in Table 1. The Tmax time derivative for the USA has decreased from 1950-1990 (negative value), like you observe in the climate report. But global Tmax has been increasing shown in Figure 1 and Table 1.

They also have a nice discussion of why the nights are warming faster than the days, having to do with the boundary layer reduction/collapse at night.

He actually didn't use any citations of scientific publications, that may be where some quotes originated but no sources are shown.

Perhaps you read one of the early, incomplete copies of the document that circulated late last week, rather than the original, full document that he published internally (it wasn't an e-mail), which contained footnotes and citations? In just a quick skim, I found that he linked to at least five separate papers in the first six pages alone, as well as including numerous additional links to articles, Wikipedia, and other sources that he used to back up his points or clarify the way he was using various phrases.

Moreover, he recommended against Google continuing what he is saying are illegal hiring practices that, contrary to California laws against affirmative action, disproportionately favor minorities. He's calling for the same standard to be applied to all candidates, rather than for some to be measured against a more lenient standard, as he's suggesting is currently the case. That, in and of itself, is not a bigoted statement, since calling for equal treatment is not bigotry, though I'll agree with what I assume would be your viewpoint that a bigot would use those same arguments as a guise to push their agenda.

The word "neurotic" does not exist in the essay. He wrote this:

Personality differences
Women, on average, have more:

-Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ).
  These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

-Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

-Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
  -This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs

Taken from: https://motherboard.vice.com/e...

He was the epitome of diplomatic civility in making his point. People read nefarious intent through their own biases and paranoia.

Basically, there is no such thing as a "perfect" catalyst. All catalysts eventually undergo some sort of degradation process as a side reaction and fail. So the trick is usually not finding a catalyst that can promote a particular chemical reaction (the reaction mechanisms for most of these things have been known for decades), but a combination of catalyst+stabilizer+reaction conditions that provide decent yields at reasonable costs.

In this particular case, electrolysis of water takes place as two half reactions: a hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and an oxygen evolution reaction (OER). While the reactions must take place simultaneously, they are nonetheless fundamentally different reactions that take place at the cathode and anode, respectively. The HER is relatively facile, but the OER is much more thermodynamically unfavorable. Different catalysts are used at the cathode and anode to promote these two half reactions, but the problem usually resides with the OER. To get good OER catalysis using cost-effective materials, you usually need to perform the reaction under alkaline conditions. But under alkaline conditions the HER takes a major hit, both uncatalyzed and using common catalysts, such as platinum. A nice review here,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

So there you go, that's the basic problem that this group is trying to solve. Haven't looked at the article carefully, but looks promising.

15 seconds with google -- estimates of bird deaths, especially endangered raptor species, of millions per year.

Smallwood, 2013

In the US?

http://nypost.com/2013/11/18/c...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

And so on, as long as you dig.

The number have been manipulated since Nixon (at least) and maybe as far back as The New Deal. The imaginary numbers are generally misrepresented in language as a "unemployment", when referring to the unemployment rate. This is known by anyone who starts to mentally track them. This unemployment rate is itself, of little use in relation. It is simpler to falsify, serving the political winds without needing to worry about concrete census/CBO data at times. I contend that the unemployment gimmick is as obvious as the ignorance of legislators, in service of their own sponsored bills ("we have to pass the law to know what's in the law"). This is business as usual in the US.

The northern hemisphere spring thaw has been advancing by about one day per year since 1988:
- https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqne...
- http://www.foodnutritionscienc...
- http://climatechange.lta.org/c...
- http://flatheadcore.org/featur...
- https://earthobservatory.nasa....
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Perhaps you should read the links you post. Spring thaw of 'snow' and 'ice' in mountains or far south of the arctic circle are completely irrelevant for what is going north of the arctic circle.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The first link I posted, for example was not about "snow and ice in mountains," it was about "boreal forests and tundra". ("Boreal" means "northern", but in context it's almost always used to mean the far north, Arctic and subarctic. By the way, your post says "north of the arctic circle," but I was talking about Russia. Much of Russia is subarctic, but very little is "north of the Arctic circle".)

Here is a quote from that first link, saying specifically what it was covering:

"Research scientists have been studying freeze/thaw dynamics in North America and Eurasia's boreal forests and tundra to decipher effects on the timing and length of the growing season. These regions encompass almost 30 percent of global land area. ... Large expanses of boreal forest and tundra are underlain by permafrost, a layer of permanently frozen soil found underneath the active, seasonally thawed soil.

Are you really such an idiot? None of you links has on the first glance ANYTHING to do with what we where talking about before. Who cars that land that already is farmland is thawing a week or two more early? You claimed that climate change would create new farmland in Russia, which it won't.

Are we talking about the same thing?

The "shortness of summer" is bounded by temperature, not sunlight
Wrong.
This will happen earlier, and it will stay thawed later.
How many days? 1or 2?

The northern hemisphere spring thaw has been advancing by about one day per year since 1988:
- https://www.nasa.gov/home/hqne...
- http://www.foodnutritionscienc...
- http://climatechange.lta.org/c...
- http://flatheadcore.org/featur...
- https://earthobservatory.nasa....
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Before there is not enough sun, it won't thaw. Plain and simple. And that is depending on the length of the day, not on a magic temperature that comes from somewhere. (where should it come from? Hu? Polar night is polar night and everything is frozen ... )

Tell you what, why don't you do some research here and get back to me when you've learned enough to form an opinion

You don't happen to be with this bunch, do you?

Considering that Sam Colt died a year and a half before Henry Ford was born, i think we can safely assume that Ford probably borrowed his idea from Colt.

Actually he got it at the Chicago stockyards.

The boss himself claimed to have found the inspiration for the greatest breakthrough of all, the moving assembly line, on a trip to Chicago: "The idea came in a general way from the overhead trolley that the Chicago packers use in dressing beef," Ford said. At the stockyards, butchers removed certain cuts as each carcass passed by, until nothing was left. Ford reversed the process.

http://www.wiley.com/legacy/pr...

If acupuncture's the benchmark here, then chiropractors are in trouble...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Does chiropractic manipulation also work on rubber limbs?

http://theness.com/neurologica...

He didn't want to do something he didn't have to, but someone else did something that "forced his hand".

You seem to suffer from a complete and utter inability to navigate counterfactual statements.

Counterfactual Discourse in Context — January 2017

The classic Lewis-Stalnaker semantics for counterfactuals captures that Sobel sequences are consistent sequences, for example:

• If Sophie had gone to the parade, she would have seen Pedro dance.

• But if Sophie had gone to the parade and been stuck behind someone tall, she would not have seen Pedro dance.

But reverse a sequence like this one and it no longer sounds so good, which is surprising on the classic semantics.

This observation motivated Kai von Fintel (2001) and Thony Gillies (2007) to propose dynamic semantic accounts of counterfactual conditionals.

Subsequently, Sarah Moss (2012) defended the classic semantics against the charge that it need be abandoned in the face of these order effects, arguing that the infelicity of the reverse sequences is pragmatic.

I argue that both accounts are ultimately untenable, but each account has strengths. Seeing what works and what doesn't in each account points the way to the right positive view.

With this in mind, I defend a contextualist account of counterfactuals that takes conversational relevance to play a central role.

What a person "would have preferred" tends to scamper down this rabbit hole in a big hurry.

Jump, jump, you should follow.

Better down a dark rabbit hole than standing in the bright sun boxing with your own shadow.
 

More processing power, models refined over the decades for more accurate forecasting.

...And they *STILL* can't get the computer climate models to even somewhat-accurately track *PAST* climate changes!

WTF makes anyone think that their predictions about *future* climate changes are any more reliable?

Strat

For anyone wanting something more than the parent's word on this, the IPCC backs him up on it in their 5th assessment report you can read about here:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).

One of the referenced papers comments on the reason tuning is desirable:
The choices we make naturally depend on our preconceptions, preferences and objectives. We choose to tune our model because the alternatives - to either drift away from the known climate state, or to introduce flux-corrections - are less attractive. Within the foreseeable future climate model tuning will continue to be necessary as the prospects of constraining the relevant unresolved processes with sufficient precision are not good.

So, our inherent understanding of some processes is still not accurate enough for the job and tuning is a necessary evil. Regrettably, the corrections we tune for are bad enough that they are "essential to prevent the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state".

The challenges still faced from tuning are outlined in another of the referenced papers:
CM3w predicts the most realistic 20th century warming. However, this is achieved with a small and less desirable threshold radius of 6.0 m for the onset of precipitation. Conversely, CM3c uses a more desirable value of 10.6 m but produces a very unrealistic 20th century temperature evolution.
So the tuning process means using less realistic values for parameters just to make sure the TOA energy balances.

That same paper ends with the following note:
Furthermore, in order to predict a realistic evolution of the 20th century, models must balance radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, resulting in a well-documented inverse correlation between forcing and sensitivity [Schwartz etal. 2007; Kiehl, 2007; Andrews etal. 2012]. This inverse correlation is consistent with an intercomparison-driven model selection process in which “climate models’ ability to simulate the 20th century temperature increase with fidelity has become something of a show-stopper as a model unable to reproduce the 20th century would probably not see publication

So, as even the IPCC and many jumping on after me here will be liable to observe, the published climate models out there all more or less are able to recreate the historical temperature record. Of course, as noted this isn't necessarily a comment on inherent merit to the models as the authors note their own model tuning meant the choice between picking a parameter value that better fit the known data, or the parameter that would yield a better hindcast and unless you choose the hindcast you don't get published. If the only models that can get published are tuned for hindcasts, it's less surprising that a sampling of published models manages to do that. The question of HOW they manage to hindcast is key, and the inability to properly control TOA energy without hand balling things is huge.

"Scientists have tracked alarming declines in domesticated honey bees, monarch butterflies, and lightning bugs. But few have paid attention to the moths, hover flies, beetles, and countless other insects"

In other news,:birds eating those missing insects are declining rapidly as well.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Except that the treatment itself is gender reassignment, and it's effective. Example study:.

RESULTS: After gender reassignment, in young adulthood, the GD was alleviated and psychological functioning had steadily improved. Well-being was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population. Improvements in psychological functioning were positively correlated with postsurgical subjective well-being.

Example:

Results

A difference in SCL-90 overall psychoneurotic distress was observed at the different points of assessments (P0.003), with the most prominent decrease occurring after the initiation of hormone therapy (P<0.001). Significant decreases were found in the subscales such as anxiety, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, and hostility. Furthermore, the SCL-90 scores resembled those of a general population after hormone therapy was initiated. Analysis of the psychosocial variables showed no significant differences between pre- and postoperative assessments.

Conclusions
A marked reduction in psychopathology occurs during the process of sex reassignment therapy, especially after the initiation of hormone therapy.

Example:

Longitudinal outcome studies of gender dysphoric individuals suggest improved psychological functioning after gender reassignment treatment.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

You're wanting to withhold effective treatment, why exactly? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Is your identity or sexuality so fragile that you can't deal with existing in a world with transpeople, and as a consequence want them to remain untreated? Because that is the treatment.

It's quite true that transpeople have higher suicide rates than the general population both before and after treatment (although not the same before and after). But what exactly do you expect when dealing with family rejection, workplace discrimination, medical discrimination, parenting discrimination, huge medical costs that they have to bear unlike people being treated for almost any other condition (aka, they pay in their insurance premiums for other peoples' treatments but other people don't do the same to them) and (combined with workplace discrimination) correspondingly higher rates of homelessness, higher rates of sexual assault, higher rates of physical assault, pricks passing "bathroom laws" and the like, and general anti-trans assholery, e.g. like you find here at Slashdot?

Note that explosives are sometimes (somewhat euphemistically) called "high energy materials". And the whole nuclear-weapons-fall-under-DoE's-purview thingy...

Citation to back this up (and a PDF of the full study).

Posting as AC to preserve mod points.

Since you're keen on ditching corporate welfare, you'll agree we need to make fossil fuel companies cover their external costs too, which for coal alone in the US comes to hundreds of billions annually. Not only would this free up huge amounts of public and taxpayer money, it would nearly double the price of fossil fuels - the situation you just agreed was cool - with the notable point that carbon-neutral alternatives would now be obviously better value, meaning we could drastically reduce our CO2 emissions and actually save a large chunk of that money.

With hidden energy costs dealt with, we could then tackle the external costs of CO2 emissions from other industries, which also has many, well-studied public costs.

About a year ago it was discovered that the common dietary substance quercetin is able to kill senescent endothelial cells in the gi tract.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12344/abstract

By transcript analysis, we discovered increased expression of pro-survival networks in senescent cells, consistent with their established resistance to apoptosis. Using siRNA to silence expression of key nodes of this network, including ephrins (EFNB1 or 3), PI3K, p21, BCL-xL, or plasminogen-activated inhibitor-2, killed senescent cells, but not proliferating or quiescent, differentiated cells. Drugs targeting these same factors selectively killed senescent cells. Dasatinib eliminated senescent human fat cell progenitors, while quercetin was more effective against senescent human endothelial cells and mouse BM-MSCs. The combination of dasatinib and quercetin was effective in eliminating senescent MEFs. In vivo, this combination reduced senescent cell burden in chronologically aged, radiation-exposed, and progeroid Ercc1/ mice. In old mice, cardiac function and carotid vascular reactivity were improved 5 days after a single dose.

Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.

It's a Chinese hoax.

Here's the google scholar result, 1.4 million hits: https://scholar.google.com/sch... Is that enough?

Here's a summary of the peer-reviewed science: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
and here's another: http://science.sciencemag.org/...

I have the opposite question: is there any peer-reviewed research showing a credible alternative hypothesis to the greenhouse effect hypothesis? If so, I haven't seen it.

and only care about profits. This is more proof of that.

Doctors = legalized crack dealers

You wouldn't say most patients then are "legalized crackheads", would you? So why then, since most doctors don't give pain medicine to make money (see below) like a crack dealer, nor do doctors give pain medications because they know a large portion (most don't) will become addicts like crack dealers, would you say that about doctors?

There is also a bit of cultural shift - some of it driven by the pharmaceutical industry pushing "pain free" and away from the thought process of our grandparents that some aches and pains were just associated with "growing old". I see many elderly patients with "plain" old osteoarthritis because they tell their docs their knees hurt or hips hurt. Some of it driven by the 5th vital since, Joint Commission, and your doctors "patient satisfaction survey" (HCAHPS):

(1) Did you need medicine for pain?

(2) How often was your pain well-controlled?

(3) How often did the hospital staff do everything they could to help with your pain?

It's a perverse goal. I probably can get your pain to zero. You might end up a drooling heap of drowsiness, but it will be an incoherent zero when I ask what your pain score is....This perverse goal has incentivized over treatment and allowed for much abuse by a small number of patients, some of whom are abusing the system for profit or to get high, and by those with, essentially unrealistic expectations - for some people pain is not zero even when they are in a drooling heap of slumber. Any docs will tell you stories of patients admitted for "pain crisis" who are seriously sawing some logs, dead asleep, literally need to be shaken to be awoken and when asked will still claim their pain score is 10/10 or, even better 20/10 or 50/10...... *sigh*

Most of us come to work everyday to alleviate some suffering and misery. Cure, treat or ameliorate disease. There is no nefarious conspiracy to turn people into addicts. Here are the real factors....and this is by no means an exhaustive list

The association between chronic pain and obesity

Association of body mass index with symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fibromyalgia

Depression and chronic pain

Depression and pain

Pain and Depression: A Neurobiological Perspective of Their Relationship

Back Pain and Obesity

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

The odds that the absurd methods they used to recreate the recipe have anything to do with how beer tasted 5000 years ago is exactly the same as the odds that anything else in a history book about people 5000 is remotely realistic. Exactly Zero.

It isn't noted in anything I can find, but its almost certain that they determined the ingredients via proteomics and chromatography. The vegetable matter used in the process would have left proteins that would have been identifiable. The vessel used would give a good clue as to the purpose of putting those things in the vessel. Nothing is 100 percent sure, But Occam's razor will give you a good idea that a liquid holding vessel that contained the products that were determined by their protein signatures was probably used for making an alcoholic beverage.

Here's a site with a very short example http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... So let's all relax and have a beer!

I'm sorry, your argument is completely invalid. Not only has there been significant historical debate over both climate change and AGW, but there are still contrarian researchers publishing in respected journals. The reason that no one takes them seriously is because the foundational science for AGW was done over 100 years ago, and we have tried and failed to rule out alternatives since then.

There are two ways to approach the question, "How do we know x?" Obviously with empirical facts it's a question of what observations were made, but you can either approach it from a perspective of, "What are the current best obvservations?", or you can take the historical approach and ask, "How did we get here?" Did you know that the theory of CO2-induced climate change was considered completely disproven up until the mid 1950s? Ice ages were accepted as having happened historically, but the default position was that the climate did not change, that while it might have warmer or cooler cycles that these would always balance out in the long run. The need to explain ice ages was the driving force for theories of climate change beginning in the late 1850s. Now, Arrhenius did correctly identify CO2 as a potential climactic influence, and his seminal 1896 paper gives a factor of sensitivity that still agrees well with the IPCC estimates.

However, Arrhenius was considered debunked, for a couple of reasons, until the mid 1950s when better analyses of the upper atmosphere were being conducted. Studies like Callendar 1949 "Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate? provided a new understanding for the behavior of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, and helped to dispel the idea of a static or cyclical climate. Also another key observation was that the oceans turned over much more slowly than had been suspected. These things led to calls for increased research and eventually the tide of opinion accumulated behind AGW in the space of about fifteen to twenty years. Nobody was fired or lost funding, because then the science wasn't politically useful to anyone. The only thing that universities and funding institutions care about is where the facts lead to. It's also worth noting that internal research by the oil industry in the 1970s reached similar conclusions about the validity of the AGW theory.

You are trying to make this a political subject. You do not know the science in question, you are simply saying it is wrong, and wrong because of some political reason. You need a scientific argument. Your political argument is also bankrupt, because not only do we have legitimately conducted and published contrarian research, but Dr Roy Spencer, frequent contributor to WUWT and perhaps the most notable contrarian, was lead author on sections of the IPCC reports. That's not exactly what I would call silencing dissent.

The evidence available in the 19th Century was sufficient to advance a theory of CO2-induced climate change. The evidence gathered over the intervening years has been conclusive. If you would like some exposure to what exactly has happened in climate science in the last century, you might start here, or just get on Google Scholar and start going through the publications. There's only a handful of papers published before 1950 so it's not like you have to go poring through a lot of articles. Armed with the evidence, you might then be able to suggest defects in it, and gather counterevidence. As things stand, that would basically require radically new physics, but that's science for you. You can put what buildings you like to the torch, but you can't burn down a scientific institution without doing better science.

The original paper does not say that:

>The decline in cancer mortality over the past 2 decades is the result of steady reductions in smoking and advances in early detection and treatment, reflected in considerable decreases for the 4 major cancers (lung, breast, prostate, and colorectum) (Fig. 7)

The coverage is quite good and more than sufficient for evaluating global temperature trends (and much more besides!). In fact, the ARGO buoys are of sufficient resolution to be used in the study of mesoscale eddies!

The most correct distinction to make about climate change vs global warming is to distinguish between the overturning of the theory that the climate was cyclical and self-moderating, and the subsequent understanding that not only could it be changed, that it is being changed, and that human activity is the primary cause. The idea that the climate was (somehow) static persisted through the 1950s. I found a textbook the other day printed in that year which explicitly dismissed CO2 as a source of warming, and Callendar 1949 ("CAN CARBON DIOXIDE INFLUENCE CLIMATE?") paints an equally explicit picture of the theory's "chequered history". Evidence for ice ages of course had been known since the early 19th century, and were widely accepted by the latter half of that century, so there were many theories of climate change which did not discuss warming, and indeed Arrhenius' foundational 1896 paper presents the warming scenario merely for comparison.

There is absolutely a difference between "climate change" and "global warming", and both concepts did have to establish themselves separately. One imagines that it is still possible to research paleoclimate without necessarily taking explicit note of ongoing climatic changes. However, the study of the current climate is synonymous with the study of global warming.