For example, in my hometown other than the terminal, there were no buildings within a mile of the weather station at the airport and only five scheduled flights a day when I was born. When I went with my father to maintain the weather station, it was rare to see any planes.
In the earliest days of aviation "airfields" literally were fields. Now even a fairly small airport is an urban area.
Also, there was only one concrete runway. Now there's an Interstate, about 4,500 houses, 35 office buildings taller than two stories, twenty-five acres of asphalt parking lots, and nearly three miles of asphalt runway all within a mile of the weather station.
The point of airport weather stations has ALWAYS been to help with aviation. Ideally pilots would want the temperature at wing height in the middle of the runway, but it's obviously impractical to put measuring station there. Possibly the only reason that the air there is warmer compared with the surrounding area is having been through a few 900C internal combustion engines:) Only a fool would expect an airport to be anythng other than warmer than typical for it's location.
Which is why additional methods are used to verify: tree rings and ice cores, for example.
Tree rings are a measure of how good growing conditions were for the tree at the time. Temperature is only one contributing factor. Along with rainfall there is likely to be an optimal range for the plant too. Also what you'd be measuring by such techniques would, at best, be some kind of long term averaged temperature. Not necessarily "averaged" in the same way that thermometer readings are. (Often a combination of the midpoint of extremes and arithmetic means.)
Nobody in their right mind is saying that it wasn't cooler 200 years ago; there are enough accounts of both the Thames and Hudson rivers routinely freezing over back then, even if you completely ignore temperature readings.
The typical "warmist" response to well well documented cold (and especially warm) periods in the past is to claim that these are "local" but the current warm period is "global". (Very rarely are these people able to give an objective definition of "local" or "global". Or for that matter "weather" and "climate")
However, thermometers back then were nowhere near as accurate as they are now, and the idea of using those records to get a global temperature that's accurate to.1 degree Celsius from measurements that were, at best, accurate to half a degree is just plain ludicrous.
Even with modern thermometers 0.1 C might well be "pushing it" when it comes to real world temperature measurements. Yet you will see 0.01 C, even 0.001 C as claimed accuracies...
And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data
Typically the kind of "fiddling" which goes on are poorly explained "adjustments". Rather than outright fabication. Even without that there would still be unresolved (and quite possibly impossible tor resolve) issues with the accuracy and precision of the data gathered.
Yep and can measure the co2 levels in the air trapped in the article ice. And it's at it's highest concentration.
The problem here is that ice does not immediatly (if ever) form an inert gas tight container. So comparing air "trapped" in ice with current air samples is somewhat "apples and oranges". Indeed the "elephant in the room" with "climate science" is a frequent inability to understand concepts like the need to compare "apples with apples". Or even the physical limits of the methods used in general. Typically the closer one looks at it the worst things look.
You can tell whether it's a fossil fuel or not, but not whether a person burned it, or where it came from. You can't even tell it if came from coal or oil, since both are made of C13. You simply cannot determine the original of an individual atom of carbon once it has been released into the atmosphere, only what kind of course it came from.
IIRC where the carbon ratios of oil, coal and (petro) methane have actually been measured they have been found to vary. Even in some cases including C14. AFAIK nobody is currently monitoring the carbon ratios of what comes out of the ground, never mind fuels which wind up being burned. Other fractors which could easily affect observed ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide include agriculture and even temperature.
Much like the US president can only run for two terms, wouldn't it be grand if there was something similar for the politicians lower down the tree! Politicians _should_ be people who've been out in the real World. They should _not_ be people who go to university with the desire to be politicians.
It might make more sense to have a "term limit" more along the lines of "Maximum of X years total in any elected office". A rule to the effect of "You can't be a candidate for position Y if you currently hold position Z" would also work against "career politicans".
AWS has one of the best security systems out there. IF you decide to enable the features. The production AWS configs I've used have mandated multi factor auth (using the number generator on the phone) as well as network source network restrictions. You can also setup a large number of ACLs to restrict things like the ability to create additional accounts.
It's more a case of "if you understand how to actually use that feature". Such complex systems are unlikely to be an enable/disable case. Similarly MS Windows, since NT, has a highly sophisticated "security model". Which many people, including those writing programs which could make effective use of it, don't really have much of a clue about.
How about this, a compromise: You create a GMO strain of a plant, great, go ahead and patent it. If I replicate your patented strain and sell the seed, sue me. If I happen to be growing a similar plant, downwind of a neighboring farm that grows your strain, and the resultant seed from that contains some of the genetic material from your strain, then sue nature because I didn't do that shit.
Unlikely to be an issue with bananas unless the ones in question actually produce viable seeds rather than all being clones.
The whole "calorie" idea is probably the biggest piece of junk in the whole mess that is nutrition. In practice you can't even measure either "in" or "out" with anything like a useful precision. With quoted "energy values" being more meanignful to a steam engine than a mammal. The other complications include that proteins and fats are "construction materials" for animal cells; adsorbsion in the small intestine is an active process with the needs of the body being a factor if a specific molecule will be taken into the bloodstream or not; many metabolic processes can operate at several levels of "efficiencency"; plenty of "foods" can act as "drugs" able to produce disproportionate shifts in metabolic processes (including respiration).
The fact that genetics is routinely ignored or outright dismissed is the first sign that our current view on nutrition is pseudo-science.
The biggest problem with most governement sponsored nutritial advice is that it tends to be "one size fits all". Even including such daftness as people actually diagnosed with type 2 diabeties should eat vast quantities of glucose. When it would make rather more sense to tell anyone who shows signs of "insulin resistance" to cut back on this, even if their HBa1C is currently fine.
You may take exception to the "organic" versus "non-organic" point, but that's a very minor point - any serious paleo advocates will easily tell you that "given the choice between a twinkie and a non-organically-produced salad, you eat the fucking salad.
One thing that "paleo advocates" tend to agree on is avoiding highly processed "food". Even though they may disagree about exactly what foods should or should not be eaten. A salad, even if made up entirely of fruits and vegetables which existed nowhere in paleolithic times, is still similar to something a Paleolith (even a Roman) would consider "food". People have been eating leaves, bulbs and fruits raw since prehistoric times. "Twinkies" simply didn't exist 85 years ago.
Even if it did, there's no evidence to suggest that adopting a paleo diet is healthier than simply following the nutritional, exercise, and lifestyle recommendations laid out by modern science.
The problem is that the low fat and (very) high sugars diet has never been supported by actual science in the first place. Indeed plenty of what's been promoted as "healthy" for the last 30 odd years is at odds with chemistry, biology or both. Even some of the parts which arn't outright quackary are dubious at best.
Speaking of being deceptive, let's not merely gleam over the true demon here. Those "vast" amounts of carbohydrates you speak of kicked off in the 70s and 80s in the form of HFCS being used as the primary form of sweetener in "vast" amounts of products.
Actually amylopectin and amylose would comprise the majority of these "vast amounts". Sugars have the odd property that they don't tend to taste of anything when several are joined together. (Not even all maltodextrins taste sweet. But the human digestive system can hydrolise just about any alpha glucose-glucose glycosidic bond.)
HFCS is actually glucose, fructose and a little water. There's nothing in it to indicate what plant it actually came from. Rather ironically you'd probably be able to create "fake" HFCS by adding a little fructose to hydrolised cane sugar. Since both Maize and Sugar Cane use C4 photosythesis. Similary if the initial starch source was wheat or rice, which are also C4 plants.
Outside of the US no food manufacturer would care about anything other than the glucose/fructose ratio anyway...
Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet.
Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit.
The term "omega-3" covers a wide variety of fatty acids anyway. Alpha-Linolenic acid is one specific fatty acid, Which is specifically omega-3(cis), omega-6(cis) and omega-9(cis).
Also chemists tend to count from the "alpha end" of such molecules. Thus would refer to it as "all-cis-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid".
Both the alpha and omega terms only indicate where the pi bonds are. They don't indicate if the configuration is cis or trans. The other EFA is Linoleic acid "all-cis-9,12-octadecatrienoic acid". Which is omega-6 and omega-9. You probably wouldn't want to eat trans-2-proponoic acid, even though that would be "omega-3":)
I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.
Paleo diets tend to be based around minimally processed foods. Whereas the food industry is often about highly processed products.
The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s. So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets.
The craze actually started in 1977 in the US. Another part of the Low Fat, (very) High Sugars (primarily glucose) diet is the idea that unsaturated fatty acids are somehow better than saturated fatty acids. Which may well be where the omega-3 comes from. Another possible factor is if the people in question are now eating "healthy" food from the US, Canada or Denmark.
They are not even a single class. In the 19th century they were divided into "reptile hip" and "bird hip". So even that long ago it was clear that at least two distinct types of animals were involved.
Some of them developed feathers and went on to become birds
Whilst theropods are related to modern birds (Aves) it's unclear how, and when, feathers evolved.
some stayed in the water and went on to become Nessies
Plesiosauria, and other aquatic animals are not technically "Dinosaurs" anyway. Possibly they evolved from land animals, in a similar way to Cetacea. Pterosauria arn't "Dinosaurs" either.
You start talking about global warming and now you're talking about global stats. How is the sea going to CONSISTENTLY be higher in one part of the world then another if its all really one giant body of water? That doesn't make any sense.
Most likely what is actually going on here is that the land is sinking. Something which can easily be a local effect.
It obviously didn't and so direct your outrage into action for change. All police departments need a citizen oversight committee stacked with regular folks from the community not members of police officers association.
Might not be a bad idea to bar any police officer or closer relative from being on such a committee at all.
The committee needs full power to review police actions and records and actually fire officers not just make recommendations.
Such "full power" would also include the ability to have police officers arrested and criminally charged. It dosn't make much sense to fine a crook's employer rather than prosecuting them.
There are STILL open issues in Windows 8.1 that have existed since Win2000, that are actively being exploited today with no fix in sight. Major flaws that have survived supposed "complete rewrites" even though the steps to exploit are the exact same.
On the other hand it is possible to find situations where things are changed between different versions of Windows for no obvious reason. (Except possibly to deliberatly break old or third party software.) Sometimes even when the new behaviour is noticably inferior to the old behaviour. e.g. The more recent the version of Windows the longer the login process appears to take.
Open source is no better or worse than closed source.
The latter tends to explicitally prevent "outsiders" looking at the code. It's very possible for authors to be "too close" that they will see what should be there rather than what actually is there. Hence in other industries there are the likes of "proof readers". The other difference is with OSS anyone who spots a bug is able to publish a fix.
Slashdot Mirror
For example, in my hometown other than the terminal, there were no buildings within a mile of the weather station at the airport and only five scheduled flights a day when I was born. When I went with my father to maintain the weather station, it was rare to see any planes.
:)
In the earliest days of aviation "airfields" literally were fields. Now even a fairly small airport is an urban area.
Also, there was only one concrete runway. Now there's an Interstate, about 4,500 houses, 35 office buildings taller than two stories, twenty-five acres of asphalt parking lots, and nearly three miles of asphalt runway all within a mile of the weather station.
The point of airport weather stations has ALWAYS been to help with aviation. Ideally pilots would want the temperature at wing height in the middle of the runway, but it's obviously impractical to put measuring station there. Possibly the only reason that the air there is warmer compared with the surrounding area is having been through a few 900C internal combustion engines
Only a fool would expect an airport to be anythng other than warmer than typical for it's location.
Which is why additional methods are used to verify: tree rings and ice cores, for example.
Tree rings are a measure of how good growing conditions were for the tree at the time. Temperature is only one contributing factor. Along with rainfall there is likely to be an optimal range for the plant too.
Also what you'd be measuring by such techniques would, at best, be some kind of long term averaged temperature. Not necessarily "averaged" in the same way that thermometer readings are. (Often a combination of the midpoint of extremes and arithmetic means.)
Nobody in their right mind is saying that it wasn't cooler 200 years ago; there are enough accounts of both the Thames and Hudson rivers routinely freezing over back then, even if you completely ignore temperature readings.
.1 degree Celsius from measurements that were, at best, accurate to half a degree is just plain ludicrous.
The typical "warmist" response to well well documented cold (and especially warm) periods in the past is to claim that these are "local" but the current warm period is "global". (Very rarely are these people able to give an objective definition of "local" or "global". Or for that matter "weather" and "climate")
However, thermometers back then were nowhere near as accurate as they are now, and the idea of using those records to get a global temperature that's accurate to
Even with modern thermometers 0.1 C might well be "pushing it" when it comes to real world temperature measurements. Yet you will see 0.01 C, even 0.001 C as claimed accuracies...
It's weird how those old thermometers were always inaccurate in the negative direction.
:)
Also that a modern thermometer in close proximity to large (and moving) gas turbine engines is incapable of being inaccurate in a positive direction
And at the same time, there's a story that the NOAA has been fabricating their temperatures for years: The scandal of fiddled global warming data
Typically the kind of "fiddling" which goes on are poorly explained "adjustments". Rather than outright fabication. Even without that there would still be unresolved (and quite possibly impossible tor resolve) issues with the accuracy and precision of the data gathered.
Yep and can measure the co2 levels in the air trapped in the article ice. And it's at it's highest concentration.
The problem here is that ice does not immediatly (if ever) form an inert gas tight container. So comparing air "trapped" in ice with current air samples is somewhat "apples and oranges".
Indeed the "elephant in the room" with "climate science" is a frequent inability to understand concepts like the need to compare "apples with apples". Or even the physical limits of the methods used in general.
Typically the closer one looks at it the worst things look.
You can tell whether it's a fossil fuel or not, but not whether a person burned it, or where it came from. You can't even tell it if came from coal or oil, since both are made of C13. You simply cannot determine the original of an individual atom of carbon once it has been released into the atmosphere, only what kind of course it came from.
IIRC where the carbon ratios of oil, coal and (petro) methane have actually been measured they have been found to vary. Even in some cases including C14. AFAIK nobody is currently monitoring the carbon ratios of what comes out of the ground, never mind fuels which wind up being burned.
Other fractors which could easily affect observed ratios in atmospheric carbon dioxide include agriculture and even temperature.
Much like the US president can only run for two terms, wouldn't it be grand if there was something similar for the politicians lower down the tree! Politicians _should_ be people who've been out in the real World. They should _not_ be people who go to university with the desire to be politicians.
It might make more sense to have a "term limit" more along the lines of "Maximum of X years total in any elected office".
A rule to the effect of "You can't be a candidate for position Y if you currently hold position Z" would also work against "career politicans".
AWS has one of the best security systems out there. IF you decide to enable the features. The production AWS configs I've used have mandated multi factor auth (using the number generator on the phone) as well as network source network restrictions. You can also setup a large number of ACLs to restrict things like the ability to create additional accounts.
It's more a case of "if you understand how to actually use that feature". Such complex systems are unlikely to be an enable/disable case.
Similarly MS Windows, since NT, has a highly sophisticated "security model". Which many people, including those writing programs which could make effective use of it, don't really have much of a clue about.
How about this, a compromise: You create a GMO strain of a plant, great, go ahead and patent it. If I replicate your patented strain and sell the seed, sue me. If I happen to be growing a similar plant, downwind of a neighboring farm that grows your strain, and the resultant seed from that contains some of the genetic material from your strain, then sue nature because I didn't do that shit.
Unlikely to be an issue with bananas unless the ones in question actually produce viable seeds rather than all being clones.
Ideal diet: Calories in = calories out.
The whole "calorie" idea is probably the biggest piece of junk in the whole mess that is nutrition. In practice you can't even measure either "in" or "out" with anything like a useful precision. With quoted "energy values" being more meanignful to a steam engine than a mammal. The other complications include that proteins and fats are "construction materials" for animal cells; adsorbsion in the small intestine is an active process with the needs of the body being a factor if a specific molecule will be taken into the bloodstream or not; many metabolic processes can operate at several levels of "efficiencency"; plenty of "foods" can act as "drugs" able to produce disproportionate shifts in metabolic processes (including respiration).
Our standard measurement, the BMI, is a horrific measure of health.
The BMI idea was never intended to be applied applied to individuals in the first place. It's a tool which is being misused!
The fact that genetics is routinely ignored or outright dismissed is the first sign that our current view on nutrition is pseudo-science.
The biggest problem with most governement sponsored nutritial advice is that it tends to be "one size fits all". Even including such daftness as people actually diagnosed with type 2 diabeties should eat vast quantities of glucose. When it would make rather more sense to tell anyone who shows signs of "insulin resistance" to cut back on this, even if their HBa1C is currently fine.
You may take exception to the "organic" versus "non-organic" point, but that's a very minor point - any serious paleo advocates will easily tell you that "given the choice between a twinkie and a non-organically-produced salad, you eat the fucking salad.
One thing that "paleo advocates" tend to agree on is avoiding highly processed "food". Even though they may disagree about exactly what foods should or should not be eaten. A salad, even if made up entirely of fruits and vegetables which existed nowhere in paleolithic times, is still similar to something a Paleolith (even a Roman) would consider "food". People have been eating leaves, bulbs and fruits raw since prehistoric times.
"Twinkies" simply didn't exist 85 years ago.
Even if it did, there's no evidence to suggest that adopting a paleo diet is healthier than simply following the nutritional, exercise, and lifestyle recommendations laid out by modern science.
The problem is that the low fat and (very) high sugars diet has never been supported by actual science in the first place. Indeed plenty of what's been promoted as "healthy" for the last 30 odd years is at odds with chemistry, biology or both. Even some of the parts which arn't outright quackary are dubious at best.
Speaking of being deceptive, let's not merely gleam over the true demon here. Those "vast" amounts of carbohydrates you speak of kicked off in the 70s and 80s in the form of HFCS being used as the primary form of sweetener in "vast" amounts of products.
Actually amylopectin and amylose would comprise the majority of these "vast amounts". Sugars have the odd property that they don't tend to taste of anything when several are joined together. (Not even all maltodextrins taste sweet. But the human digestive system can hydrolise just about any alpha glucose-glucose glycosidic bond.)
HFCS is actually glucose, fructose and a little water. There's nothing in it to indicate what plant it actually came from. Rather ironically you'd probably be able to create "fake" HFCS by adding a little fructose to hydrolised cane sugar. Since both Maize and Sugar Cane use C4 photosythesis. Similary if the initial starch source was wheat or rice, which are also C4 plants.
Outside of the US no food manufacturer would care about anything other than the glucose/fructose ratio anyway...
Yes, and many of those studies confirmed the beneficial effects of omega-3 essential fatty acids. Many of these later studies focused on the Mediterranean diet. Furthermore, the omega-3 essential fatty acids are not called essential just for fun and profit.
:)
The term "omega-3" covers a wide variety of fatty acids anyway. Alpha-Linolenic acid is one specific fatty acid, Which is specifically omega-3(cis), omega-6(cis) and omega-9(cis).
Also chemists tend to count from the "alpha end" of such molecules. Thus would refer to it as "all-cis-9,12,15-octadecatrienoic acid". Both the alpha and omega terms only indicate where the pi bonds are. They don't indicate if the configuration is cis or trans.
The other EFA is Linoleic acid "all-cis-9,12-octadecatrienoic acid". Which is omega-6 and omega-9.
You probably wouldn't want to eat trans-2-proponoic acid, even though that would be "omega-3"
Or just call them "aboriginal people", which is the politically/technically correct way to address any native tribe...
Attempts to create PC terms often end up offending people anyway.
I think the problem today is that there are few sources of "original" food sources available. As a species we've domesticated most of the plants and animals we eat, changing them over time. So it's hard to rely on the concept of "eat what we ate a million years ago". The best we can do to determine optimal nutrtion now is try to conduct solid double-blind studies based on the foods we have available. Unfortunately that is expensive to do and most of the money in nutrition research comes from the food industry, which has a vested interest in the outcomes of the research they fund.
Paleo diets tend to be based around minimally processed foods. Whereas the food industry is often about highly processed products.
The big change in western diets, where fat was demonised and everyone started stuffing themselves with vast amounts of carbohydrates, happened in the mid-80s.
So comparisons with western diets from the 70s has no relevance to modern diets.
The craze actually started in 1977 in the US. Another part of the Low Fat, (very) High Sugars (primarily glucose) diet is the idea that unsaturated fatty acids are somehow better than saturated fatty acids. Which may well be where the omega-3 comes from.
Another possible factor is if the people in question are now eating "healthy" food from the US, Canada or Denmark.
"Dinosaurs" werent just a single species.
They are not even a single class. In the 19th century they were divided into "reptile hip" and "bird hip". So even that long ago it was clear that at least two distinct types of animals were involved.
Some of them developed feathers and went on to become birds
Whilst theropods are related to modern birds (Aves) it's unclear how, and when, feathers evolved.
some stayed in the water and went on to become Nessies
Plesiosauria, and other aquatic animals are not technically "Dinosaurs" anyway. Possibly they evolved from land animals, in a similar way to Cetacea.
Pterosauria arn't "Dinosaurs" either.
You start talking about global warming and now you're talking about global stats. How is the sea going to CONSISTENTLY be higher in one part of the world then another if its all really one giant body of water? That doesn't make any sense.
Most likely what is actually going on here is that the land is sinking. Something which can easily be a local effect.
It obviously didn't and so direct your outrage into action for change. All police departments need a citizen oversight committee stacked with regular folks from the community not members of police officers association.
Might not be a bad idea to bar any police officer or closer relative from being on such a committee at all.
The committee needs full power to review police actions and records and actually fire officers not just make recommendations.
Such "full power" would also include the ability to have police officers arrested and criminally charged. It dosn't make much sense to fine a crook's employer rather than prosecuting them.
There are STILL open issues in Windows 8.1 that have existed since Win2000, that are actively being exploited today with no fix in sight. Major flaws that have survived supposed "complete rewrites" even though the steps to exploit are the exact same.
On the other hand it is possible to find situations where things are changed between different versions of Windows for no obvious reason. (Except possibly to deliberatly break old or third party software.)
Sometimes even when the new behaviour is noticably inferior to the old behaviour. e.g. The more recent the version of Windows the longer the login process appears to take.
Open source is no better or worse than closed source.
The latter tends to explicitally prevent "outsiders" looking at the code. It's very possible for authors to be "too close" that they will see what should be there rather than what actually is there. Hence in other industries there are the likes of "proof readers".
The other difference is with OSS anyone who spots a bug is able to publish a fix.