But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
Whether the science is correct is not a political issue. The facts are the way they are regardless of your political viewpoint.
What we chose to do about it (or even, whether we should chose to do anything about it) is a political issue. But that is completely different from the science question.
When I hear people denying the validity of the science, and when you question them they say the science is wrong because they don't agree politically with some of the proposed solutions: this is denialism. (You can tell these people because within about one minute of opening their mouth they start talking about Al Gore. Deniers are obsessed with Al Gore.) The validity of the science doesn't depend on whether your political ideology is able to solve problems or not.
Science needs skeptics, but one-sided skepticism is worse than nothing. "I'm skeptical about anything that science says, but I completely and uncritically believe any blog post by any idiot disbelieving science if it fits my pre-existing mindset" is not skepticism.
Skepticism would be asking questions and then listening to the answers.
They could spray or spread the sulfur as a powder, no need to burn it, one would think. The volcanoes pumped out sulfur dioxide, but the original link says sulfur particulates, particles, powder.
no: Sulfate particulates, not sulfur. Sulfate is oxidized sulfur.
Zharkova? Her sunspot modelling was in the news several years ago, but turns out that what she actually did was theoretical modeling of the solar dynamo, she did nothing whatsoever that predicted temperature. The news was quite seriously hyped by the usual scare media. (the fact that you had to go to a fringe site like electroverse should have been a warning that this was more hype than real science.)
Here's a discussion
Scientific American has an obvious leftist political bias. Science Daily isn't as bad, but they're hardly neutral.
You might rethink your judgment of sources: the easiest possible way to stay inside an echo chamber is to dismiss actual sources of science information with "they have a leftist bias" and are "hardly neutral". Science does not have a "leftist bias" (nor, for that matter, a "rightist bias"). Science is science. If you are going to dismiss Scientific American, you're pretty much saying that you don't want to hear about actual science.
The Express article claims a global temperature drop of 1.3 C, which is enough to cause some harm to humanity as far as we know.
You dismiss Scientific American as "biased" and instead you take your news from the Express?!
The Express article talks about the "Maunder minimum", and then--without actually claiming causation--says that there was a temperature drop of 1.3 C "during this period". Unfortunately, there is some pretty good dating now showing that the temperature drop of the "little ice age" started MORE THAN A CENTURY before the Maunder minimum. Here's a good article: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
On the other hand, the wikipedia article on the Maunder Minimum casts doubt on the hypothesis that the Maunder Minimum caused that much temperature drop.
Ah, good. After dismissing science-centered sources like Scientific American, you go to Wikipedia. Actually, that's not a bad strategy, turns out that Wikipedia is often a decent source: even when they make dubious statements, they usually have good links to reputable sources. In any case, it's accurate on this one.
The sun is already doing a great job of dimming itself, thanks much.
The sun is not "dimming itself". This is the sunspot cycle, which involves a "dimming" in total solar irradiance (TSI) of 0.1%, not enough to make a difference in climate... and the sun's been doing this for as long as we've been observing.
The part of the article you linked saying that the "thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking" refers to the thermosphere, which is the part of the atmosphere above 100 km altitude-- basically, orbital altitude and above. That has nothing to do with the lower atmosphere, which is where we live.
Try to avoid getting your science news from the Express; they're not scientifically literate. Check real science sites, maybe Scientific American or Science Daily.
How is it not viable? It's very feasible to build 100 planes. It's also feasible to fly them 3-4 times per month. 20 million tons spread across 4000 flights isn't all that much.
4000 flights the first year. And then increasing by 4000 per year until they reach 60,000 flights per year.
Which is as far as their analysis goes. They end with "at this point, we'll probably think of a better way of dispersing the SO3."
Did you look at this? They said 4000 flights per year in the first year, increasing to 60,000 flights per year in year 14.
Yow.
...and, yes, I'm not sure what other impacts of 1.5 million tons of sulfur burned into the upper atmosphere per year will be, but "acid rain" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Likely to protect the inside source of of the intelligence. The Chinese government isn’t exactly known for exorcising due process and the protection of human and civil rights.
G. Bush allowed (this is well documented, BTW) allowed the
Chinese to assassinate a dissonant reporter on U.S. soil.
The phrase "this is well documented", posted without any documentation, can be translated as meaning "this is not documented; I heard it from some conspiracy paranoid on the internet somewhere".
Designing a robot to fold clothes isn't impossible, but nobody would pay $200,000 for a robot that folds clothes to replace a worker making $7.25 an hour.
Hospitals would easily pay $200,000 for a robot that does some of the work of a $1,000,000/year physician, if it allows that doctor to see 10% more patients
Excuse me sir, but your comment really makes you sound like a selfish, raging asshole; was that your intention?
At last report 70000 acres have been decimated,
A total of 7,299 fires have burned an area of 1,548,814 acres in CA so far this year, and there's almost two months yet to go. So, the 70,000 acres in Paradise are worth reporting but I guess the other 1,478,814 acres weren't?
an uncounted number of structures (including more or less the entire town of Paradise) and I'm sure there have been human deaths;
None reported in the news.
yet you say this is all 'unimportant' somehow?
One fire among many. It's important, but no more important than the Mendocino Complex fire in July (459,123 acres), or the Carr fire, which burned from mid July through August 30th.
It's not where *I* live therefore it's unimportant That's what you sound like; again: was that your intention?
Perhaps you'd like to consider walking back your comment
Nope.
before someone gets the wrong idea about you, friend.
What I'm saying is that 45 could at least bring the tragedy up, tell the people of Paradise that their country will do what they can to help... in times of devastation it is comforting to know that a leader is taking time to at least ACKNOWLEDGE what's going on. He is not, and has not.
So if it was in Marin it would be important enough to be on the site? Class is the key?
I'm not sure about "class," but apparently the fire makes the news simply because it's a town, not, say, an apartment building
Yes, I'd say magnitude makes a difference. A house burning down doesn't make slashdot. An apartment building burning down doesn't make slashdot. A dozen other wildfires in California didn't make slashtod. Why should this one? Are we interested in fires now?
What prevents me from entering in any random address?
"knowledge based authentication".
They ask you a question that, supposedly, only the resident of the address can answer. Krebs says that this is pretty weak security.
Article didn't say what kind of question that is, but a hint comes from the fact that if you freeze your Equifax credit rating, they can't ask the question. So it seems to be something that Equifax knows.
Do they send a postcard to the address stating "your mail is being monitored" ??
Didn't you read the article? That was the whole point: no, they don't.
It's a pretty small town in a relatively low-population part of California (that is, far from the expensive coastal real estate.) Hard to see how a fire there is really important news.
Ok they get to see the outside of the envelope with your name and address that they already know.
As far as I can tell, what they are doing is looking at the scans to know when credit cards are being delivered. If you get a new credit card on the average of once a year, this means that they only have to steal your mail once a year, and don't have to steal it the other 313 days a year that there ISN"T a credit card in the mail.
Unless the mailboxes are unlocked for them to get the actually mail how does this allow them to commit identity fraud?
Most people in the U.S. don't have locked mailboxes.
...Party affiliation is a good example. If you live in a strong blue or strong red district and you vote the other way, that's none of your friends business.
Keep in mind that "party affiliation" does not say who you vote for in the election. It only says which of the primaries you vote in.
Do these Kenyans know that in 15 years their cab and truck driving jobs are going bye-bye?
That will happen whether or not they work for companies classifying images.
And if you're poor in an impoverished city in Africa, you're going to care more about getting a job, any job, now, and not what is going to happen to possible future jobs fifteen years down the road.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing rate of change emission with rate of emission, but not understanding derivatives is par for the course for anonymous cowards.
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
Whether the science is correct is not a political issue. The facts are the way they are regardless of your political viewpoint.
What we chose to do about it (or even, whether we should chose to do anything about it) is a political issue. But that is completely different from the science question.
When I hear people denying the validity of the science, and when you question them they say the science is wrong because they don't agree politically with some of the proposed solutions: this is denialism. (You can tell these people because within about one minute of opening their mouth they start talking about Al Gore. Deniers are obsessed with Al Gore.) The validity of the science doesn't depend on whether your political ideology is able to solve problems or not.
Skepticism would be asking questions and then listening to the answers.
They could spray or spread the sulfur as a powder, no need to burn it, one would think. The volcanoes pumped out sulfur dioxide, but the original link says sulfur particulates, particles, powder.
no: Sulfate particulates, not sulfur. Sulfate is oxidized sulfur.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Zharkova? Her sunspot modelling was in the news several years ago, but turns out that what she actually did was theoretical modeling of the solar dynamo, she did nothing whatsoever that predicted temperature. The news was quite seriously hyped by the usual scare media. (the fact that you had to go to a fringe site like electroverse should have been a warning that this was more hype than real science.)
Here's a discussion
Scientific American has an obvious leftist political bias. Science Daily isn't as bad, but they're hardly neutral.
You might rethink your judgment of sources: the easiest possible way to stay inside an echo chamber is to dismiss actual sources of science information with "they have a leftist bias" and are "hardly neutral". Science does not have a "leftist bias" (nor, for that matter, a "rightist bias"). Science is science. If you are going to dismiss Scientific American, you're pretty much saying that you don't want to hear about actual science.
The Express article claims a global temperature drop of 1.3 C, which is enough to cause some harm to humanity as far as we know.
You dismiss Scientific American as "biased" and instead you take your news from the Express?!
The Express article talks about the "Maunder minimum", and then--without actually claiming causation--says that there was a temperature drop of 1.3 C "during this period". Unfortunately, there is some pretty good dating now showing that the temperature drop of the "little ice age" started MORE THAN A CENTURY before the Maunder minimum. Here's a good article: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary....
On the other hand, the wikipedia article on the Maunder Minimum casts doubt on the hypothesis that the Maunder Minimum caused that much temperature drop.
Ah, good. After dismissing science-centered sources like Scientific American, you go to Wikipedia. Actually, that's not a bad strategy, turns out that Wikipedia is often a decent source: even when they make dubious statements, they usually have good links to reputable sources. In any case, it's accurate on this one.
The sun is already doing a great job of dimming itself, thanks much.
The sun is not "dimming itself". This is the sunspot cycle, which involves a "dimming" in total solar irradiance (TSI) of 0.1%, not enough to make a difference in climate... and the sun's been doing this for as long as we've been observing.
The part of the article you linked saying that the "thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking" refers to the thermosphere, which is the part of the atmosphere above 100 km altitude-- basically, orbital altitude and above. That has nothing to do with the lower atmosphere, which is where we live.
Try to avoid getting your science news from the Express; they're not scientifically literate. Check real science sites, maybe Scientific American or Science Daily.
How is it not viable? It's very feasible to build 100 planes. It's also feasible to fly them 3-4 times per month. 20 million tons spread across 4000 flights isn't all that much.
4000 flights the first year. And then increasing by 4000 per year until they reach 60,000 flights per year.
Which is as far as their analysis goes. They end with "at this point, we'll probably think of a better way of dispersing the SO3."
Did you look at this? They said 4000 flights per year in the first year, increasing to 60,000 flights per year in year 14.
Yow.
...and, yes, I'm not sure what other impacts of 1.5 million tons of sulfur burned into the upper atmosphere per year will be, but "acid rain" is the first thing that comes to mind.
Likely to protect the inside source of of the intelligence. The Chinese government isn’t exactly known for exorcising due process and the protection of human and civil rights.
Well, yes, if the Chinese figure out how the US got their information, people will die. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22952/chinas-dismantling-of-cia-spy-ring-highlights-growing-dystopian-like-surveillance-state, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-found-cia-spies-leak-2018-8
--
(*"exercising", I think. Although "exorcising due process" is an apt bon mot)
G. Bush allowed (this is well documented, BTW) allowed the Chinese to assassinate a dissonant reporter on U.S. soil.
The phrase "this is well documented", posted without any documentation, can be translated as meaning "this is not documented; I heard it from some conspiracy paranoid on the internet somewhere".
China does execute more people than rest of world combined
Hospitals would easily pay $200,000 for a robot that does some of the work of a $1,000,000/year physician, if it allows that doctor to see 10% more patients
The article says there's a longer article at Wall Street Journal, but it's paywalled: https://www.wsj.com/articles/c...
an uncounted number of structures (including more or less the entire town of Paradise) and I'm sure there have been human deaths;
None reported in the news.
OK, the news has now reported five deaths. I withdraw that statement.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-camp-fire-20181109-story.html
Excuse me sir, but your comment really makes you sound like a selfish, raging asshole; was that your intention? At last report 70000 acres have been decimated,
A total of 7,299 fires have burned an area of 1,548,814 acres in CA so far this year, and there's almost two months yet to go. So, the 70,000 acres in Paradise are worth reporting but I guess the other 1,478,814 acres weren't?
an uncounted number of structures (including more or less the entire town of Paradise) and I'm sure there have been human deaths;
None reported in the news.
yet you say this is all 'unimportant' somehow?
One fire among many. It's important, but no more important than the Mendocino Complex fire in July (459,123 acres), or the Carr fire, which burned from mid July through August 30th.
It's not where *I* live therefore it's unimportant That's what you sound like; again: was that your intention? Perhaps you'd like to consider walking back your comment
Nope.
before someone gets the wrong idea about you, friend.
Lots of people have many silly ideas.
What I'm saying is that 45 could at least bring the tragedy up, tell the people of Paradise that their country will do what they can to help... in times of devastation it is comforting to know that a leader is taking time to at least ACKNOWLEDGE what's going on. He is not, and has not.
Well, maybe that's fair. Obama did: https://www.chicagotribune.com...
Donald, on the other hand, seems to be more interested in cancelling regulations: https://observer.com/2017/10/t...
He is tweeting, though! He says environmental laws are the problem! https://newrepublic.com/articl... But environmental laws are not the problem https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07...
He says that water is the problem! https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07... Although turns out water is not the problem: https://abcnews.go.com/Politic...
So if it was in Marin it would be important enough to be on the site? Class is the key?
I'm not sure about "class," but apparently the fire makes the news simply because it's a town, not, say, an apartment building
Yes, I'd say magnitude makes a difference. A house burning down doesn't make slashdot. An apartment building burning down doesn't make slashdot. A dozen other wildfires in California didn't make slashtod. Why should this one? Are we interested in fires now?
What prevents me from entering in any random address?
"knowledge based authentication".
They ask you a question that, supposedly, only the resident of the address can answer. Krebs says that this is pretty weak security.
Article didn't say what kind of question that is, but a hint comes from the fact that if you freeze your Equifax credit rating, they can't ask the question. So it seems to be something that Equifax knows.
Do they send a postcard to the address stating "your mail is being monitored" ??
Didn't you read the article? That was the whole point: no, they don't.
A map of the extent of the fire is here: https://wildfiretoday.com/2018...
You are perfectly aware that guns do not have safety regulations anywhere as seriously cars.
Ok they get to see the outside of the envelope with your name and address that they already know.
As far as I can tell, what they are doing is looking at the scans to know when credit cards are being delivered. If you get a new credit card on the average of once a year, this means that they only have to steal your mail once a year, and don't have to steal it the other 313 days a year that there ISN"T a credit card in the mail.
Unless the mailboxes are unlocked for them to get the actually mail how does this allow them to commit identity fraud?
Most people in the U.S. don't have locked mailboxes.
...Party affiliation is a good example. If you live in a strong blue or strong red district and you vote the other way, that's none of your friends business.
Keep in mind that "party affiliation" does not say who you vote for in the election. It only says which of the primaries you vote in.
How do they make this work as the force of gravity is not constant over the surface of the Earth? Does it only work in one place?
You use a balance, which works by comparing weights, not a scale, that works by measuring force.
Do these Kenyans know that in 15 years their cab and truck driving jobs are going bye-bye?
That will happen whether or not they work for companies classifying images.
And if you're poor in an impoverished city in Africa, you're going to care more about getting a job, any job, now, and not what is going to happen to possible future jobs fifteen years down the road.
Sounds like a perfect job to outsource to the third world.