You know, the ones we were already supposed to have?
By 2010?
That was according to the United Nations Environment Program. You know, a bunch of those experts who are telling us about all of the disasters global warming was supposed to have caused by now.
All of the "endangered" places that they talked about have had population increases since then, and no serious out-migration.
Of course, they noticed that prediction had failed spectacularly, so in 2011 they changed the date to 2020.
Meanwhile, Politico is reporting that six electors, "mostly former Bernie Sanders supporters who hail from Washington state and Colorado," are already urging electors pledged to Clinton and Trump to instead coalesce around "a consensus pick like Mitt Romney or John Kasich.
Why do republican candidates get their favor as 'consensus' picks?
It's a sneaky way for them to try and get some Republican electors to vote for someone if they won't change to Hillary, just so Trump could lose some votes.
There's no actual promise by the Green Party to actually spend that money on the recount effort.
For that matter, they shouldn't need to spend much money at all on it. So why is Stein asking for even more cash?
Oh, yeah. Graft. So, Jill, who gave you all of that money? Since it's a political campaign donation, I'm sure you kept track of the names of all of those donors, right? And you'll give it back if the recount fails?
On election night, one of those fake news sites had an electoral college map that they were gaming the election with.
For example, they didn't list Georgia as being won by Trump until 100% of the votes were in, even though it was mathematically impossible for him to lose at that point (99% counted, Trump 5% ahead). They showed Pennsylvania as being officially won by Clinton for a while, too, and we know how that turned out. They also held off until much, much past the "can't beat the math" point for other states, when most other sites had already given him the win.
Meanwhile, they listed California and Oregon and Washington State as being won by Clinton before ANY of their election results were counted, at all. This was obviously a way to keep the Democrats from giving up early, just in case.
Uncompressed wireless, even at higher resolutions, doesn't have to be laggy. The latency of a straight-through digital signal is vanishingly small in this context.
The real problem is getting access to enough bandwidth to let it work. Wi-Fi certainly won't work with uncompressed 90 Hz VR signals. Getting FCC permission for very short range (less than 5 meters with no obstacles in the way), very high bandwidth connections is the real issue.
There's not a lot of deserts or ocean in the middle of France, and it's a fair distance from Antarctica.
I know a lot of people who live in cities have a very... provincial attitude about anything outside of their neighborhoods, but a lot of people actually do live outside of cities like New York or Paris. And almost all of the food in the world is grown outside of cities...
The thing about a modern fission-fusion device is that the fusion neutrons help "burn up" a lot of the primary. They've supposedly moved away from the heavy uranium tampers of the early weapons to help reduce fallout (while losing some efficiency), or have fine-tuned them so much that they're effectively being burned up completely in the detonation.
As you mention, part of it's that the fallout that's left disperses over a very, very wide area.
At least, they certainly didn't make a missile with that kind of damage potential.
While it could throw a single 40 megaton warhead, it would more likely carry a handful of weapons topping out at about 50 megatons, total. Maybe.
Which is a lot, but nowhere near big enough to "wipe out" a medium-sized country like France.
They could pretty much destroy up to 15 separate cities with 300 kiloton airbursts (if the MIRV systems gives them that much spread and control, which it probably doesn't), but everything in between would be effectively untouched, and with a single weapon, most of Paris itself would only be lightly to moderately damaged. Modern high-efficiency weapons don't drop a lot of fallout in air burst mode, so that's not a consideration.
If they used ground burst targeting, they could cause a lot of downwind fallout, but it would leave large areas untouched upwind.
Forty to fifty megatons sounds like a lot, but when you compare it with how big the world is...
...except the article is pretty much full of crap.
Sure, the scientists they interview claim it was warm water that caused the bleaching - but that warm water was a massive HALF A DEGREE above normal.
The daily variance in temperature in pretty much every coastal water in the world is several times that.
It's like a news story about a huge, complicated ecosystem that tries to pin the cause on one thing, when it was probably several things happening at about the same time. Or, to put it in your terms, "there were forty people shot in Chicago last night - that guy must have been really busy!"
"93 percent of individuals reefs had been affected by a condition known as coral bleaching (which happens when the water is too warm)"...or when the water is too cold, or when the sun shines too much, or when the corals die off from diseases brought in by ecologists who swim around the area while getting paychecks for goofing around on a boat in the tropics...
Enforce the laws on minor crimes, and major crimes go down. You don't have to be a hardass, or pick on anyone in particular, just enforce the common, everyday laws that help keep things working.
We know this works.
When people notice that nobody is enforcing the little stuff, they start assuming that they can get away with the larger crimes - and they're usually right.
The problem is that, after a few years of it working, everyone relaxes and thinks "hey, crime is down, we can slack off a bit," and it's okay, for a while. Then things start slowly getting worse again, and the "corrective measures" tend to be away from the policies that were in force a few years before, because "they stopped working."
...of course, the fact that EPA limits are still the guideline.
Lower state requirements mean pretty much nothing if the EPA doesn't specifically allow it. And they won't, no matter how much fearmongering some people use.
...according to someone who many or may not actually be rational about any given subject.
I've met a lot of high-reputation scientists and academics over the years, and far too many of them are pretty useless outside of their chosen profession. A significant number of them are pretty useless INSIDE their chosen profession, too - and those are the ones who would be talking the loudest about whatever government policies were in question. You wouldn't be getting Richard Feynman advising you about physics. You'd be getting that sociology professor who blathered their way to a doctorate setting everyone's social policy, with no way of stopping them.
Until we can figure out a way to rationally measure rational thinking, we'd be falling into the trap of believing "experts" who actually let their own self-interest control them.
No, Roviana is mostly handwaved - and the five islands that eroded away did just that: eroded. They didn't submerge to due the sea rising, they just disappeared due to wave action because of normal changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (which has not been tied to AGW in the real world), along with a few big hurricanes.
Roviana didn't experience as much loss because they're sheltered from the worst of the wave action. The islands that "disappeared" were on the side with both greatly increased wave action and a steep dropoff into deeper water (so the sand washed off of the shores would go away, rather than collecting in shallow water to be redeposited).
In pretty much the whole paper, when they talk about sea level increase, they really mean "relative" sea level increase, not absolute. Which really means subsidence in that region. In the islands with "low" tectonic uplift, the rate is claimed to be 1 mm per year - with an _error bar_ of 1.4 mm/year.
"Ten houses from one island were washed away at sea between 2011 and 2014"
Oddly enough, the Solomon Islands were struck by Tropical Cyclone Freda in 2012. What a coincidence. And they've lost five low-lying reef islands in the last 70 or so years. Out of ten THOUSAND islands in the Solomons.
Here's part of the paper's abstract:555
"Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these remote Pacific communities."
Actual story: "People built houses near the beach on islands that were being washed away in the first place, and we're going to blame it on the SIX INCHES of global sea level rise since the mid-1930s."
They also casually toss in the fact that the Solomons are very geologically active, and a lot of the sea level rise they refer to is RELATIVE sea level rise - in other words, the water didn't rise, the land sank - often by as much as three times the amount of actual sea level rise over time.
Actually, what you claim isn't really true. They try to make it seem scary in the article, but there's a helluva lot of handwaving to get from "the ethane releases are causing big ozone issues."
The normal ozone concentration at ground level - worldwide - is about 50 parts per billion.
They make a big deal (the red color in the scale in the article) of THREE parts per billion from the Bakken area.
The source is the article linked above. As in, the article you should have read before commenting.
"Ethane reacts with sunlight and other molecules in the atmosphere to form ozone, which at the surface can cause respiratory problems, eye irritation and other ailments and damage crops."
Slashdot Mirror
You know, the ones we were already supposed to have?
By 2010?
That was according to the United Nations Environment Program. You know, a bunch of those experts who are telling us about all of the disasters global warming was supposed to have caused by now.
All of the "endangered" places that they talked about have had population increases since then, and no serious out-migration.
Of course, they noticed that prediction had failed spectacularly, so in 2011 they changed the date to 2020.
And no, the trend still hasn't changed.
...is lower now than at any time since Jimmy Carter was President.
"Unemployment is low!"
"What about all of those people who have been out of work for over a year, and stopped looking?"
"They don't exist. Shut up."
Why do republican candidates get their favor as 'consensus' picks?
It's a sneaky way for them to try and get some Republican electors to vote for someone if they won't change to Hillary, just so Trump could lose some votes.
There's no actual promise by the Green Party to actually spend that money on the recount effort.
For that matter, they shouldn't need to spend much money at all on it. So why is Stein asking for even more cash?
Oh, yeah. Graft. So, Jill, who gave you all of that money? Since it's a political campaign donation, I'm sure you kept track of the names of all of those donors, right? And you'll give it back if the recount fails?
What? No? What a shock...
Complain to Slashdot, not me
Pretty freakin' awesome.
Flying over places like Manhaattan, the Fukushima power plant, Gibraltar, et cetera.
Looking up places you lived when you were a kid.
Humming the theme music to the first Superman movie... ...or maybe that was just me.
Yeah, the guy who worked on her campaign once.
Not exactly a poster boy for right wing violence, what with him being a Democrat and all.
On election night, one of those fake news sites had an electoral college map that they were gaming the election with.
For example, they didn't list Georgia as being won by Trump until 100% of the votes were in, even though it was mathematically impossible for him to lose at that point (99% counted, Trump 5% ahead). They showed Pennsylvania as being officially won by Clinton for a while, too, and we know how that turned out. They also held off until much, much past the "can't beat the math" point for other states, when most other sites had already given him the win.
Meanwhile, they listed California and Oregon and Washington State as being won by Clinton before ANY of their election results were counted, at all. This was obviously a way to keep the Democrats from giving up early, just in case.
The fake news site? The New York Times...
What usually makes lag is compression.
Uncompressed wireless, even at higher resolutions, doesn't have to be laggy. The latency of a straight-through digital signal is vanishingly small in this context.
The real problem is getting access to enough bandwidth to let it work. Wi-Fi certainly won't work with uncompressed 90 Hz VR signals. Getting FCC permission for very short range (less than 5 meters with no obstacles in the way), very high bandwidth connections is the real issue.
Since there's been over a hundred thousand copies of at least one Vive game sold, you might not have a realistic grasp on market size...
...and the Chinese web site wouldn't sell to people outside of China in the first place.
Other companies are working on similar products, though.
The biggest problem is that it takes a good solid 6 gigabit/sec connection to push the amount of bandwidth the Vive and other headsets need.
There's not a lot of deserts or ocean in the middle of France, and it's a fair distance from Antarctica.
I know a lot of people who live in cities have a very... provincial attitude about anything outside of their neighborhoods, but a lot of people actually do live outside of cities like New York or Paris. And almost all of the food in the world is grown outside of cities...
The thing about a modern fission-fusion device is that the fusion neutrons help "burn up" a lot of the primary. They've supposedly moved away from the heavy uranium tampers of the early weapons to help reduce fallout (while losing some efficiency), or have fine-tuned them so much that they're effectively being burned up completely in the detonation.
As you mention, part of it's that the fallout that's left disperses over a very, very wide area.
At least, they certainly didn't make a missile with that kind of damage potential.
While it could throw a single 40 megaton warhead, it would more likely carry a handful of weapons topping out at about 50 megatons, total. Maybe.
Which is a lot, but nowhere near big enough to "wipe out" a medium-sized country like France.
They could pretty much destroy up to 15 separate cities with 300 kiloton airbursts (if the MIRV systems gives them that much spread and control, which it probably doesn't), but everything in between would be effectively untouched, and with a single weapon, most of Paris itself would only be lightly to moderately damaged. Modern high-efficiency weapons don't drop a lot of fallout in air burst mode, so that's not a consideration.
If they used ground burst targeting, they could cause a lot of downwind fallout, but it would leave large areas untouched upwind.
Forty to fifty megatons sounds like a lot, but when you compare it with how big the world is...
...beside showing a smug academic that the Democrats actually hate him? That's a public good in and of itself.
A lot of academia needs a hard slap in the face to show them just how disposable they are to the people they keep following.
...except the article is pretty much full of crap.
Sure, the scientists they interview claim it was warm water that caused the bleaching - but that warm water was a massive HALF A DEGREE above normal.
The daily variance in temperature in pretty much every coastal water in the world is several times that.
It's like a news story about a huge, complicated ecosystem that tries to pin the cause on one thing, when it was probably several things happening at about the same time. Or, to put it in your terms, "there were forty people shot in Chicago last night - that guy must have been really busy!"
"93 percent of individuals reefs had been affected by a condition known as coral bleaching (which happens when the water is too warm)" ...or when the water is too cold, or when the sun shines too much, or when the corals die off from diseases brought in by ecologists who swim around the area while getting paychecks for goofing around on a boat in the tropics...
They make it sound like there was some sort of big explosion. There wasn't. One drum ruptured, and leaked some radioactive material.
The material wasn't high level, and only trace amounts made it through the facility.
Someone's looking for a lucrative payout.
Enforce the laws on minor crimes, and major crimes go down. You don't have to be a hardass, or pick on anyone in particular, just enforce the common, everyday laws that help keep things working.
We know this works.
When people notice that nobody is enforcing the little stuff, they start assuming that they can get away with the larger crimes - and they're usually right.
The problem is that, after a few years of it working, everyone relaxes and thinks "hey, crime is down, we can slack off a bit," and it's okay, for a while. Then things start slowly getting worse again, and the "corrective measures" tend to be away from the policies that were in force a few years before, because "they stopped working."
...of course, the fact that EPA limits are still the guideline.
Lower state requirements mean pretty much nothing if the EPA doesn't specifically allow it. And they won't, no matter how much fearmongering some people use.
...according to someone who many or may not actually be rational about any given subject.
I've met a lot of high-reputation scientists and academics over the years, and far too many of them are pretty useless outside of their chosen profession. A significant number of them are pretty useless INSIDE their chosen profession, too - and those are the ones who would be talking the loudest about whatever government policies were in question. You wouldn't be getting Richard Feynman advising you about physics. You'd be getting that sociology professor who blathered their way to a doctorate setting everyone's social policy, with no way of stopping them.
Until we can figure out a way to rationally measure rational thinking, we'd be falling into the trap of believing "experts" who actually let their own self-interest control them.
No, Roviana is mostly handwaved - and the five islands that eroded away did just that: eroded. They didn't submerge to due the sea rising, they just disappeared due to wave action because of normal changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (which has not been tied to AGW in the real world), along with a few big hurricanes.
Roviana didn't experience as much loss because they're sheltered from the worst of the wave action. The islands that "disappeared" were on the side with both greatly increased wave action and a steep dropoff into deeper water (so the sand washed off of the shores would go away, rather than collecting in shallow water to be redeposited).
In pretty much the whole paper, when they talk about sea level increase, they really mean "relative" sea level increase, not absolute. Which really means subsidence in that region. In the islands with "low" tectonic uplift, the rate is claimed to be 1 mm per year - with an _error bar_ of 1.4 mm/year.
Not climate change.
"Ten houses from one island were washed away at sea between 2011 and 2014"
Oddly enough, the Solomon Islands were struck by Tropical Cyclone Freda in 2012. What a coincidence. And they've lost five low-lying reef islands in the last 70 or so years. Out of ten THOUSAND islands in the Solomons.
Here's part of the paper's abstract:555
"Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local
knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a
further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has
destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations. Rates of
shoreline recession are substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a
synergistic interaction between sea-level rise and waves. Understanding these local factors that
increase the susceptibility of islands to coastal erosion is critical to guide adaptation responses for these
remote Pacific communities."
Actual story: "People built houses near the beach on islands that were being washed away in the first place, and we're going to blame it on the SIX INCHES of global sea level rise since the mid-1930s."
They also casually toss in the fact that the Solomons are very geologically active, and a lot of the sea level rise they refer to is RELATIVE sea level rise - in other words, the water didn't rise, the land sank - often by as much as three times the amount of actual sea level rise over time.
Actually, what you claim isn't really true. They try to make it seem scary in the article, but there's a helluva lot of handwaving to get from "the ethane releases are causing big ozone issues."
The normal ozone concentration at ground level - worldwide - is about 50 parts per billion.
They make a big deal (the red color in the scale in the article) of THREE parts per billion from the Bakken area.
Do the math.
The source is the article linked above. As in, the article you should have read before commenting.
"Ethane reacts with sunlight and other molecules in the atmosphere to form ozone, which at the surface can cause respiratory problems, eye irritation and other ailments and damage crops."