Think throwing a rock on a target, shooting a target with an arrow. Only with more complex gadgets.
I think you missed the part where the missile's on board guidance tracks the missile onto whatever it happens to find.
That's why it's really risky to leave an AI (That could be hacked or spoofed) to make the decisions.
Seems to me that you're just as dead, if the missile hits you because you're there and radar reflective, rather than hits you because you're there and it thought you needed killing.
It isn't clear to me that it was a large security breach, compared to other possibilities.
Ok, so what? Just because something is not clear to you doesn't mean much to anyone else.
2) Using her own private server instead of a government one has already allowed her to evade [newsweek.com] FOIA requests. It also hid her emails from the rest of the Obama administration. And if it can be shown that she constructed this email server in part to evade FOIA requests, then that is a felony.
Mishandling of FOIA requests is unfortunately common. Your last sentence is speculation.
The "if" turns it from speculation to fact. Deliberately evading or refusing FOIA requests on unlawful grounds is a felony. But conviction is entirely dependent on evidence of the crime.
I think that she did indeed set up that server to unlawfully evade FOIA requests and illegally hide her communications from the public and the law. That is real speculation, but reasonable given what's going on.
How culpable is Clinton for stuff emailed to her? The article you cite mentioned cases in which classified material was sent to her, and says that there are investigations against staffers who mailed her such.
Very culpable. When someone emails you spy satellite photos (broadly known classified information that was emailed around on her server) inappropriately, you are committing a crime, if you don't report the breach.
Both Powell and Rice used private email services, and I don't know how much investigation went into theirs.
Did they have classified information on those private email services?
Apparently, Clinton found herself unable to do something important because of that. I don't know how this sort of thing has been handled in the past, and would like to know how often major department heads have violated classification laws to get something done, and how they have been handled.
It's a felony no matter how convenient it would be to Clinton. Your money in your wallet may be really important to me, but for some bizarre reason the law doesn't consider that factor when it sentences me for mugging you.
The stuff is murky because I don't know everything, and because I'm not willing to accept the New York Post and hotair.com as definitive sources of truth. Until the FBI investigation is finished, I won't know exactly what she did or did not do. Until I know more about how other Secretaries of State acted and were treated in similar situations, I won't know the exact context.
As I noted, we have glaring evidence of two felonies in my previous post, perhaps three. Your ignorance is irrelevant to whether these are crimes or not.
And, having watched a major partisan effort to blame Clinton for Benghazi, among other things, I'm really dubious about attacks on her or her husband. (Remember the big sexual harassment case? Eventually, it was found that what the plaintiffs claimed didn't amount to anything illegal, bearing in mind that being an asshole is not itself illegal. Attacking the Clintons without good basis has been going on for nearly twenty years.)
Was there something inappropriate about the blame in any of those cases? All I see here is a pathological degree of apologia. Just because reality is "murky" to you doesn't mean anything.
Further, unless some crime or transgression is incredibly heinous, any blame finding or judicial proceeding is going to be partisan in today's heavily partisan world. For example, if Trump gets elected, you won't see a lot of Republicans moving against him overtly. Backstab him behind closed doors, sure. Leak embarrassing info anonymously to the press, sure. Passive aggressively obstruct his political efforts, sure. But they'll defend him in public. That's just the way it is.
Individuals and partnerships may make or finance electioneering communications [such as expensive TV ads], provided that certain conditions are met. Those that accept funds provided by corporations or labor organizations may neither use those funds to pay for electioneering communications, nor give them to another to defray the costs of making an electioneering communication.
They must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting procedure that no prohibited funds were used to pay for the electioneering communication.
The incorrect assumption that human want is infinite is one of the mistakes that will cause the next economic collapse - right now we're assuming that the 1% can create enough demand to make work for the 99%, but they can't.
There are several things about this statement that I think illustrate its glaring ignorance. First, even though human want may not be "practically infinite", it is certainly much larger than what is actually consumed. People definitely want more living space, longer and better life, more stuff, children, etc. Second, we actually do have enough work for the so-called "99%". It's worth noting that the developing world is growing rapidly economically and employing billions of people.
Third, so what of economic collapses? We've had dozens of them in the last couple of centuries. It's just not a big deal if we have dozens more in the two.
So now your objection is no longer "temperature/precipitation/etc events are not increasing" [since as shown earlier, they are], but "they aren't increasing as fast as CO2 and/or temperatures"?
Of course not. My objection has always been that the harm from global warming has been exaggerated intentionally and not. Extreme weather is merely an extreme example of this bias. Humanity has bigger problems than global warming (such as poverty, desertification, and habitat destruction) and it's time we set our priorities to that reality.
Excellent. Now, read your links. The two papers on temperature show relatively strong correlations between CO2 concentration and nightly lows. For example, from the second temperature paper:
Averaged over the APN region, annual frequency of cool nights (days) has decreased by 6.4 days/decade (3.3 days/decade), whereas the frequency of warm nights (days) has increased by 5.4 days/decade (3.9 days/decade). The change rates in the annual frequency of warm nights (days) over the last 20 years (1988â"2007) have exceeded those over the full 1955â"2007 period by a factor of 1.8 (3.4).
But not a similar thing for daily high temperatures.
However, normalization of the extreme and mean series shows that the rate of changes in extreme temperature events are generally less than that of mean temperatures, except for winter cold nights which are changing as rapidly as the winter mean minimum temperature. These results indicate that there have been seasonally and diurnally asymmetric changes in extreme temperature events relative to recent increases in temperature means in the APN region.
The two precipitation papers you quote just show that there is a vague correlation between temperature and rain. For example, the second paper states:
Century-long precipitation records from stations in the contiguous USA indicate an increased frequency of rainy days over the past century and some evolution in the probability distributions of precipitation amount.
Moving on, you wrote:
There are many more, on many areas. E.g. intense tropical storm frequency? Try Kossin et al 2007. All the pretty graphs, tables, and citations to peer-reviewed studies you could ever want - if you can be bothered to take a look.
This paper shows no significant trends in tropical storm intensity one way or another over a recent 25 year period.
In conclusion, this is typical of extreme weather research and a lot of other climate research. There are a few things which have a strong correlation with global warming, but most of it does not.
The people at the bottom should probably be paid the most, because they're the ones that are actually essential to the whole operation.
And they are. But they aren't paid more individually (except perhaps in rare circumstances) because individually they are not more essential to the whole operation than a college president.
Yeah, I've been doing that. But you've dismissed all the studies' conclusions and refused to even look at the data backing those conclusions.
You mentioned only one such study and it was a bunch of extrapolations off of computer models whose accuracy is unknown, but probably exaggerated. The study doesn't claim what you think it claims.
And let us remember just because there is a bunch of scholarly writing, peer review, or citations doesn't mean that there is a solid scientific argument backed by evidence.
For me, there has been a universal problem with the IPCC reports that everyone including you demonstrate. Namely, no one who uses the IPCC reports as primary support can find anything in there. My view is that these assessment reports are merely the embodiment of argument from authority, monoliths of obfuscation to intimidate the ignorant.
Both the tragedy in Flint and the horrors that took place in New Orleans could have been stopped or moderated if really sudden responses had taken place.
And they were. What is ignored here is that the key actions that mattered happened before these incidents or disasters. In Flint, the managers in question ignored the problems that came from changing water sources.
In the Katrina disaster, the local government dallied for a full day before ordering an evacuation and even then, failed to use hundreds of ready buses to evacuate people who didn't have means of transportation.
At the federal level, they attempted to do a significant shuffle of the responsibilities for disaster preparedness (I gather to the state level for ideological and fiscal reasons). The Katrina disaster caught that cluster at a point where no one was in charge and the response to disaster was muddled as a result.
And of course, there's the corruption surrounding the levee construction in New Orleans that undermined the integrity of those systems.
The point here is that the key actions which led to these problems happened before, not after.
A nuclear power plant under suspicion of defect should be instantly shut down. If tat means evacuating New York City then so be it.
What suspicion of defect? Evacuate New York City for what reason? A slightly elevated amount of tritium doesn't cut it. Instead, we're seeing the sort of proactive response that you should want here. The monitoring wells are there precisely to find tritium leaks before they become a problem. Let's let the system do its job.
However, groundwater is mobile. It flows through different layers of the, well, ground and eventually ends up downhill somewhere (i.e. NYC metropolitan area).
(Interesting fact is that surface water flows such as rivers are only about 10% of fresh water flows. The rest are underground.) It's pretty obvious that the water will move to a place where someone has drilled a drinking water well... it's only a matter of time.
First, it's going to be heavily diluted before it ends up anywhere that someone can drink it. Second, that matter of time is important. If it takes a few centuries to get anywhere, then in addition to the dilution, you have several halvings from radioactive decay.
Best to take care of this at the source.
I think this is the point of testing. Shutting down the plant doesn't serve that purpose.
There are two obvious questions to ask here. First, does anyone drink directly out of that well? Second, does shutting down the plant stop the leak? The answer to both is NO. The point of these wells is to find problems before they hurt other people. Let's give them a chance to fix this.
You're also assuming that she did anything really wrong with her email server. That's being investigated currently, and I'm withholding judgment until I know some of the facts. Obviously some of that information should not have been on that server, but beyond that things get murky.
Here' the thing. I already know some of the facts.
1) The server created a large security breach even if it never held classified information. While probably not a criminal act, it does right there show poor judgment.
2) Using her own private server instead of a government one has already allowed her to evade FOIA requests. It also hid her emails from the rest of the Obama administration. And if it can be shown that she constructed this email server in part to evade FOIA requests, then that is a felony.
3) There was plenty of classified information being passed on her server including stuff that was originally marked as classified (BTW, it doesn't have to be marked as classified to be classified). It's a felony to knowingly move classified information onto systems which are not approved for storage or distribution of such information.
4) We have an email where Clinton instructs an aide to strip classified headers off of a document before emailing it. That is a felony as well.
This stuff is "murky" only because you aren't paying attention. As a final observation, the FBI conducts the investigation, but it is Obama's decision whether to prosecute or not.
You seem to be not only buying in to right-wing mudslinging, but demanding unreasonable standards for candidates.
When the right-wing mudslinging is based on fact, I buy into it. You should too.
As to standards, since when has it been unreasonable to a candidate who doesn't casually commit felonies and ignore law when it suits them? Who lies not only frequently, but poorly?
We know that she's been unfairly maligned by the Republican establishment, if only from the incessant Benghazi hearings that have failed to find significant problems in how she handled things.
Aside from ignoring security concerns, then letting people die, and then being part of a bizarre fairy tale about how some dude's YouTube video spurred a spontaneous protest.
Are you saying that a feminist must ignore other women who are interfering in her marriage?
That's an odd way to put Bill Clinton's philandering.
Why don't you try looking in the IPCC report itself? Not like it isn't full of citations to peer-reviewed studies to back up every single one of the statements in the executive summary. Go to the source, like I keep saying.
No, this is an argument from obfuscation. Provide an argument with evidence or you're wasting my time. I also note you can look in this IPCC report yourself. Why don't you do that and then get back to me? That research isn't going to vanish just because you're the one doing the work instead of me.
But I'll actually read that research and evaluate it. There are plenty of unscientific or even dishonest ways that research can invalidate itself. The IPCC doesn't care too much about that, but I do.
Then they had a "one-in-100-year event", which though unlikely was of course possible. But to then have an even stronger event just two years later?
It's still 1 in 100 or perhaps more often. Just because someone says something is a 1 in 100 event doesn't mean it actually is. Further, we need to recall that there are a lot of places in Australia. Some place is going to have a genuine 1 in 100 event or two, given a few years and enough such places.
That would be a reasonable assessment of the chance if extreme weather events were increasing.
There are multiple scenarios including some running counter to your hypothesis where that is a reasonable assessment. That's why it's not evidence. Evidence distinguishes between hypotheses.
Unless it's not a normal distribution any more. If climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events, as all the literature is confirming, then the peak of the probability distribution is being steadily skewed towards the extreme end - and new events stronger than anything we've seen before are becoming more likely each year.
It should be a warning sign to you that even these relatively simple hypotheses haven't been demonstrated. My view is that there's probably a slight increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather, but that extreme weather has become a grievously abused and exaggerated subject for propaganda purposes.
Sure, you could say that it was 5% likely that you'd see a storm of that strength in that year. But the next year a storm that strong would no longer be record-breaking, would it? You'd need an even stronger storm to break the new record - which would be more unlikely, exponentially so, as you moved further and further away from the centre of a normal distribution. Each year, the chance of a record-breaking storm should decrease.
No, it's not exponential. For example, if we're measuring a sequence of independent events, then for N such events, the probability of the last one being record breaking in a single way is 1 in N, even if the previous year was also a record breaking year. Now, if you have more information, like say the previous record was huge and far less probable than 1 in (N-1), then you would have a lower probability.
Thus, more extreme heat waves and floods, at least in some areas. But who wants their information filtered through a biased agenda (apart from denialists)? If you read the source itself, you can see they state very plainly that we're seeing "a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions" (emphasis theirs), and that, globally, heatwaves, extreme precipitation, and extreme sea level events are all increasing.
What are the numbers to back those opinions? And the link I provided lists a considerable amount of waffling on this matter.
but the link I provided was not a description of a computer model, it was a "meta-analysis of the literature on projected future extreme weather events"
Ok, how does that differ from what I said? The projected future extreme weather events are determined via computer program.
Re: Suncorp, rate hikes are a reasonable and rational response to insuring areas with increased and increasing risk.
What makes you think the risk increased? Insurance exists in the first place because such risks exist.
prompting experts to decry how the Emerald locals had continued building more houses in what was all-too-clearly now a flood-prone area
This is the issue that gets ignored in the discussion of insurance companies and their alleged exposure to climate change. More people are building in flood-prone areas. That doesn't require anyone to provide them with cheap flood insurance, but Suncorp did.
And the storm I linked to? Sure, a single datapoint of weather. But ask yourself - in a stable system, what would be the likelihood of a record-breaking, strongest-ever cyclone being recorded just as you were claiming that extreme weather increases were all "hysteria"?
About 5% each year. There's a century of records and three regions with which to generate record breaking storms with crudely 1% chance per year per region. Then there are at least three different ways to generate a "strongest-ever" number (size, wind speed, and pressure).
But this still has nothing to do with the assertion of yours that I was challenging, where you claimed they were "angling for government swag", and "sucking on the public teat".
Sorry, I wasn't able to determine Suncorp's investment choices or what support they're getting from the Australian government (or for that matter, any other government).
There are two other obvious rebuttals. First, carpet. Millimeter precision with a centimeter of variable obstruction/friction material?
And second, people don't walk with millimeter precision. If we were walking with clearances of two millimeters, we would be flat on our faces all the time.
(1) the point is people expect stairs to be consistent to some tolerance. We can argue about what that tolerance is, but the precise figure is irrelevant.
I disagree. That argument was about that alleged precision. I think there's a very simple explanation. There's probably an interest at stake. Maybe the video maker owned a millwork and was pushing this myth to sell product.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform disallowed individual citizens from putting on a TV commercial within 90 days of an election explaining why you should vote for their favorite candidate.
No, it was exactly the opposite. Corporations were explicitly prohibited from doing so, not individuals. That's why Citizens United happened.
but I think Clinton has the skills, brains and experience to actually get some shit done
But why would we want that shit done? You can't just look at capabilities, you also have to look at what the candidate has done. Here, committing multiple felonies just so you can evade FOIA requests is not the sort of person that I'd want for president.
The Bernie Bros are all over twitter calling her a lying cunt, etc.. The media decided long ago that she had trust issues with the american people, they kept saying it and now people have... surprise surprise, trust issues with Hillary.
It would help here, if she didn't actually lie all the time. For example, coming up with evolving excuses about her private email server and why she couldn't be bothered to comply with US law on classified information and the handling of email for public business.
I suspect however the nastiest trust issues comes from her willingness to sacrifice principle for the need of the moment. For example, she was an instrumental part of the propaganda machine that tore up women who had extra-marital affairs with her husband. I bet that rubs feminists the wrong way right there, having a candidate who supposedly cared about feminist issues, but readily threw that principle away the moment her meal ticket was threatened.
There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary
You' assume Clinton will still be running by November despite having pulled several felonies with her private email server and failure to handle classified information. Not everyone will ignore that.
the projection though no doubt well-sourced is no more accurate than the models that it is based off
Naturally, though those same sources have been through rigorous peer review, and have been widely accepted by most fellow experts in the field. Again I'm not seeing you cite any evidence like peer-reviewed studies finding those models to be "deeply broken" - only the usual unsourced claims cribbed from the standard rabble of denialist blogs. Plenty of studies supporting them, though. And of course real life.
A key bit of evidence is that the IPCC backpedaled significantly from the Third Assessment Report to the Fifth Assessment Report. For example, here's a collection of weak remarks from the IPCC's latest report on the connection to extreme weather.
Now, let's look at your links. The first link is to a computer model description with no actual data to support the model aside from what they used in the first place. Second, you link to a single bit of extreme weather. One point is not evidence. These two examples show common fallacies associated with extreme weather claims. First, conflating a model with reality. Second, confirmation bias. Even in the complete absence of global warming, we would expect to continue to see "strongest ever" storms.
you don't understand my position
Unsurprisingly, since it's a position you've adopted with no actual evidence. Despite your use of the present tense, you've not shown any examples of said industry "milking the public teat" over climate change (though I can provide many examples of e.g. fossil fuel industries milking away).
Assertions aren't automatically true. Let's look at recent actions that SunCorp Group, the sponsor of the original research claiming elevated claims payouts from certain unproven models of extreme weather, is seeking a huge rate hikes in flood insurance for certain locations that had payouts in recent years:
Suncorp has confirmed that new policies will not be offered in Emerald and Roma - two of the towns worst affected by recent years of flooding.
Existing policyholders face hikes of up to 10-fold.
Suncorp has a reputation for being the only insurer left in some towns abandoned by southern-based companies who are wary of massive payouts.
But Suncorp chief executive Mark Milliner said Queensland's biggest insurer had taken $4 million in premiums in Emerald and Roma in the past two years and paid out $150 million in claims.
Notice the bolded paragraph? Right there we have my original assertion, an insurance company rationalizing after-the-fact rate hikes for making bad risk decisions.
They also got burned by recent drought in Australia.
While the outlook is challenging for life insurance, Suncorp says relatively benign weather has so far kept general insurance claims around $25 million below expectations.
However, drought conditions, particularly in north-west Queensland, have resulted in an increase in loan loss provisions, and the bank's holdings of impaired assets rose to $485 million.
I haven't yet figured out what Suncorp's investments are in. But right here we have a reason for the research article - to CYA in a couple of significant losses which otherwise would reflect poorly on management.
And your post is typical of the poor reasoning skills often found on Slashdot. Notice what you wrote:
Care to debunk the insurance companies numbers?
and
A wise man once told me, any idea that can be dealt with in a nutshell, belongs in one.
There's nothing to discuss here. I'm not going to scour the web looking for the alleged insurance company numbers. Provide them and then we can discuss them. I'm not going to care about some "wise man" saying that means nothing.
Him: I don't have to tell you because it's so stupid!
Straw man argument, That never happened. It's been a long series of fallacies and zero-content posts from you. In this entire thread tree, there has only been one attempt at a serious counterargument by Namarrgon.
What am I supposed to do, Ol Olsoc? You and several others have posted page after page of bullshit, innuendo, and fallacy. There is nothing to debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Think throwing a rock on a target, shooting a target with an arrow. Only with more complex gadgets.
I think you missed the part where the missile's on board guidance tracks the missile onto whatever it happens to find.
That's why it's really risky to leave an AI (That could be hacked or spoofed) to make the decisions.
Seems to me that you're just as dead, if the missile hits you because you're there and radar reflective, rather than hits you because you're there and it thought you needed killing.
It isn't clear to me that it was a large security breach, compared to other possibilities.
Ok, so what? Just because something is not clear to you doesn't mean much to anyone else.
2) Using her own private server instead of a government one has already allowed her to evade [newsweek.com] FOIA requests. It also hid her emails from the rest of the Obama administration. And if it can be shown that she constructed this email server in part to evade FOIA requests, then that is a felony.
Mishandling of FOIA requests is unfortunately common. Your last sentence is speculation.
The "if" turns it from speculation to fact. Deliberately evading or refusing FOIA requests on unlawful grounds is a felony. But conviction is entirely dependent on evidence of the crime.
I think that she did indeed set up that server to unlawfully evade FOIA requests and illegally hide her communications from the public and the law. That is real speculation, but reasonable given what's going on.
How culpable is Clinton for stuff emailed to her? The article you cite mentioned cases in which classified material was sent to her, and says that there are investigations against staffers who mailed her such.
Very culpable. When someone emails you spy satellite photos (broadly known classified information that was emailed around on her server) inappropriately, you are committing a crime, if you don't report the breach.
Both Powell and Rice used private email services, and I don't know how much investigation went into theirs.
Did they have classified information on those private email services?
Apparently, Clinton found herself unable to do something important because of that. I don't know how this sort of thing has been handled in the past, and would like to know how often major department heads have violated classification laws to get something done, and how they have been handled.
It's a felony no matter how convenient it would be to Clinton. Your money in your wallet may be really important to me, but for some bizarre reason the law doesn't consider that factor when it sentences me for mugging you.
The stuff is murky because I don't know everything, and because I'm not willing to accept the New York Post and hotair.com as definitive sources of truth. Until the FBI investigation is finished, I won't know exactly what she did or did not do. Until I know more about how other Secretaries of State acted and were treated in similar situations, I won't know the exact context.
As I noted, we have glaring evidence of two felonies in my previous post, perhaps three. Your ignorance is irrelevant to whether these are crimes or not.
And, having watched a major partisan effort to blame Clinton for Benghazi, among other things, I'm really dubious about attacks on her or her husband. (Remember the big sexual harassment case? Eventually, it was found that what the plaintiffs claimed didn't amount to anything illegal, bearing in mind that being an asshole is not itself illegal. Attacking the Clintons without good basis has been going on for nearly twenty years.)
Was there something inappropriate about the blame in any of those cases? All I see here is a pathological degree of apologia. Just because reality is "murky" to you doesn't mean anything.
Further, unless some crime or transgression is incredibly heinous, any blame finding or judicial proceeding is going to be partisan in today's heavily partisan world. For example, if Trump gets elected, you won't see a lot of Republicans moving against him overtly. Backstab him behind closed doors, sure. Leak embarrassing info anonymously to the press, sure. Passive aggressively obstruct his political efforts, sure. But they'll defend him in public. That's just the way it is.
So should I complai
McCain-Feingold does stop individual citizens from buying expensive TV ads
No, it doesn't.
Individuals and partnerships may make or finance electioneering communications [such as expensive TV ads], provided that certain conditions are met. Those that accept funds provided by corporations or labor organizations may neither use those funds to pay for electioneering communications, nor give them to another to defray the costs of making an electioneering communication.
They must be able to demonstrate through a reasonable accounting procedure that no prohibited funds were used to pay for the electioneering communication.
The incorrect assumption that human want is infinite is one of the mistakes that will cause the next economic collapse - right now we're assuming that the 1% can create enough demand to make work for the 99%, but they can't.
There are several things about this statement that I think illustrate its glaring ignorance. First, even though human want may not be "practically infinite", it is certainly much larger than what is actually consumed. People definitely want more living space, longer and better life, more stuff, children, etc. Second, we actually do have enough work for the so-called "99%". It's worth noting that the developing world is growing rapidly economically and employing billions of people.
Third, so what of economic collapses? We've had dozens of them in the last couple of centuries. It's just not a big deal if we have dozens more in the two.
So now your objection is no longer "temperature/precipitation/etc events are not increasing" [since as shown earlier, they are], but "they aren't increasing as fast as CO2 and/or temperatures"?
Of course not. My objection has always been that the harm from global warming has been exaggerated intentionally and not. Extreme weather is merely an extreme example of this bias. Humanity has bigger problems than global warming (such as poverty, desertification, and habitat destruction) and it's time we set our priorities to that reality.
Averaged over the APN region, annual frequency of cool nights (days) has decreased by 6.4 days/decade (3.3 days/decade), whereas the frequency of warm nights (days) has increased by 5.4 days/decade (3.9 days/decade). The change rates in the annual frequency of warm nights (days) over the last 20 years (1988â"2007) have exceeded those over the full 1955â"2007 period by a factor of 1.8 (3.4).
But not a similar thing for daily high temperatures.
However, normalization of the extreme and mean series shows that the rate of changes in extreme temperature events are generally less than that of mean temperatures, except for winter cold nights which are changing as rapidly as the winter mean minimum temperature. These results indicate that there have been seasonally and diurnally asymmetric changes in extreme temperature events relative to recent increases in temperature means in the APN region.
The two precipitation papers you quote just show that there is a vague correlation between temperature and rain. For example, the second paper states:
Century-long precipitation records from stations in the contiguous USA indicate an increased frequency of rainy days over the past century and some evolution in the probability distributions of precipitation amount.
Moving on, you wrote:
There are many more, on many areas. E.g. intense tropical storm frequency? Try Kossin et al 2007. All the pretty graphs, tables, and citations to peer-reviewed studies you could ever want - if you can be bothered to take a look.
This paper shows no significant trends in tropical storm intensity one way or another over a recent 25 year period.
In conclusion, this is typical of extreme weather research and a lot of other climate research. There are a few things which have a strong correlation with global warming, but most of it does not.
The people at the bottom should probably be paid the most, because they're the ones that are actually essential to the whole operation.
And they are. But they aren't paid more individually (except perhaps in rare circumstances) because individually they are not more essential to the whole operation than a college president.
Yeah, I've been doing that. But you've dismissed all the studies' conclusions and refused to even look at the data backing those conclusions.
You mentioned only one such study and it was a bunch of extrapolations off of computer models whose accuracy is unknown, but probably exaggerated. The study doesn't claim what you think it claims.
And let us remember just because there is a bunch of scholarly writing, peer review, or citations doesn't mean that there is a solid scientific argument backed by evidence.
For me, there has been a universal problem with the IPCC reports that everyone including you demonstrate. Namely, no one who uses the IPCC reports as primary support can find anything in there. My view is that these assessment reports are merely the embodiment of argument from authority, monoliths of obfuscation to intimidate the ignorant.
Both the tragedy in Flint and the horrors that took place in New Orleans could have been stopped or moderated if really sudden responses had taken place.
And they were. What is ignored here is that the key actions that mattered happened before these incidents or disasters. In Flint, the managers in question ignored the problems that came from changing water sources.
In the Katrina disaster, the local government dallied for a full day before ordering an evacuation and even then, failed to use hundreds of ready buses to evacuate people who didn't have means of transportation.
At the federal level, they attempted to do a significant shuffle of the responsibilities for disaster preparedness (I gather to the state level for ideological and fiscal reasons). The Katrina disaster caught that cluster at a point where no one was in charge and the response to disaster was muddled as a result.
And of course, there's the corruption surrounding the levee construction in New Orleans that undermined the integrity of those systems.
The point here is that the key actions which led to these problems happened before, not after.
A nuclear power plant under suspicion of defect should be instantly shut down. If tat means evacuating New York City then so be it.
What suspicion of defect? Evacuate New York City for what reason? A slightly elevated amount of tritium doesn't cut it. Instead, we're seeing the sort of proactive response that you should want here. The monitoring wells are there precisely to find tritium leaks before they become a problem. Let's let the system do its job.
However, groundwater is mobile. It flows through different layers of the, well, ground and eventually ends up downhill somewhere (i.e. NYC metropolitan area). (Interesting fact is that surface water flows such as rivers are only about 10% of fresh water flows. The rest are underground.) It's pretty obvious that the water will move to a place where someone has drilled a drinking water well... it's only a matter of time.
First, it's going to be heavily diluted before it ends up anywhere that someone can drink it. Second, that matter of time is important. If it takes a few centuries to get anywhere, then in addition to the dilution, you have several halvings from radioactive decay.
Best to take care of this at the source.
I think this is the point of testing. Shutting down the plant doesn't serve that purpose.
There are two obvious questions to ask here. First, does anyone drink directly out of that well? Second, does shutting down the plant stop the leak? The answer to both is NO. The point of these wells is to find problems before they hurt other people. Let's give them a chance to fix this.
You're also assuming that she did anything really wrong with her email server. That's being investigated currently, and I'm withholding judgment until I know some of the facts. Obviously some of that information should not have been on that server, but beyond that things get murky.
Here' the thing. I already know some of the facts.
1) The server created a large security breach even if it never held classified information. While probably not a criminal act, it does right there show poor judgment.
2) Using her own private server instead of a government one has already allowed her to evade FOIA requests. It also hid her emails from the rest of the Obama administration. And if it can be shown that she constructed this email server in part to evade FOIA requests, then that is a felony.
3) There was plenty of classified information being passed on her server including stuff that was originally marked as classified (BTW, it doesn't have to be marked as classified to be classified). It's a felony to knowingly move classified information onto systems which are not approved for storage or distribution of such information.
4) We have an email where Clinton instructs an aide to strip classified headers off of a document before emailing it. That is a felony as well.
This stuff is "murky" only because you aren't paying attention. As a final observation, the FBI conducts the investigation, but it is Obama's decision whether to prosecute or not.
You seem to be not only buying in to right-wing mudslinging, but demanding unreasonable standards for candidates.
When the right-wing mudslinging is based on fact, I buy into it. You should too.
As to standards, since when has it been unreasonable to a candidate who doesn't casually commit felonies and ignore law when it suits them? Who lies not only frequently, but poorly?
We know that she's been unfairly maligned by the Republican establishment, if only from the incessant Benghazi hearings that have failed to find significant problems in how she handled things.
Aside from ignoring security concerns, then letting people die, and then being part of a bizarre fairy tale about how some dude's YouTube video spurred a spontaneous protest.
Are you saying that a feminist must ignore other women who are interfering in her marriage?
That's an odd way to put Bill Clinton's philandering.
Do you know any real feminists?
Are they as rare as real Scotsmen?
Why don't you try looking in the IPCC report itself? Not like it isn't full of citations to peer-reviewed studies to back up every single one of the statements in the executive summary. Go to the source, like I keep saying.
No, this is an argument from obfuscation. Provide an argument with evidence or you're wasting my time. I also note you can look in this IPCC report yourself. Why don't you do that and then get back to me? That research isn't going to vanish just because you're the one doing the work instead of me.
But I'll actually read that research and evaluate it. There are plenty of unscientific or even dishonest ways that research can invalidate itself. The IPCC doesn't care too much about that, but I do.
Then they had a "one-in-100-year event", which though unlikely was of course possible. But to then have an even stronger event just two years later?
It's still 1 in 100 or perhaps more often. Just because someone says something is a 1 in 100 event doesn't mean it actually is. Further, we need to recall that there are a lot of places in Australia. Some place is going to have a genuine 1 in 100 event or two, given a few years and enough such places.
That would be a reasonable assessment of the chance if extreme weather events were increasing.
There are multiple scenarios including some running counter to your hypothesis where that is a reasonable assessment. That's why it's not evidence. Evidence distinguishes between hypotheses.
Unless it's not a normal distribution any more. If climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme weather events, as all the literature is confirming, then the peak of the probability distribution is being steadily skewed towards the extreme end - and new events stronger than anything we've seen before are becoming more likely each year.
It should be a warning sign to you that even these relatively simple hypotheses haven't been demonstrated. My view is that there's probably a slight increase in frequency and severity of extreme weather, but that extreme weather has become a grievously abused and exaggerated subject for propaganda purposes.
Sure, you could say that it was 5% likely that you'd see a storm of that strength in that year. But the next year a storm that strong would no longer be record-breaking, would it? You'd need an even stronger storm to break the new record - which would be more unlikely, exponentially so, as you moved further and further away from the centre of a normal distribution. Each year, the chance of a record-breaking storm should decrease.
No, it's not exponential. For example, if we're measuring a sequence of independent events, then for N such events, the probability of the last one being record breaking in a single way is 1 in N, even if the previous year was also a record breaking year. Now, if you have more information, like say the previous record was huge and far less probable than 1 in (N-1), then you would have a lower probability.
Thus, more extreme heat waves and floods, at least in some areas. But who wants their information filtered through a biased agenda (apart from denialists)? If you read the source itself, you can see they state very plainly that we're seeing "a decrease in cold temperature extremes, an increase in warm temperature extremes, an increase in extreme high sea levels and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions" (emphasis theirs), and that, globally, heatwaves, extreme precipitation, and extreme sea level events are all increasing.
What are the numbers to back those opinions? And the link I provided lists a considerable amount of waffling on this matter.
but the link I provided was not a description of a computer model, it was a "meta-analysis of the literature on projected future extreme weather events"
Ok, how does that differ from what I said? The projected future extreme weather events are determined via computer program.
Re: Suncorp, rate hikes are a reasonable and rational response to insuring areas with increased and increasing risk.
What makes you think the risk increased? Insurance exists in the first place because such risks exist.
prompting experts to decry how the Emerald locals had continued building more houses in what was all-too-clearly now a flood-prone area
This is the issue that gets ignored in the discussion of insurance companies and their alleged exposure to climate change. More people are building in flood-prone areas. That doesn't require anyone to provide them with cheap flood insurance, but Suncorp did.
And the storm I linked to? Sure, a single datapoint of weather. But ask yourself - in a stable system, what would be the likelihood of a record-breaking, strongest-ever cyclone being recorded just as you were claiming that extreme weather increases were all "hysteria"?
About 5% each year. There's a century of records and three regions with which to generate record breaking storms with crudely 1% chance per year per region. Then there are at least three different ways to generate a "strongest-ever" number (size, wind speed, and pressure).
But this still has nothing to do with the assertion of yours that I was challenging, where you claimed they were "angling for government swag", and "sucking on the public teat".
Sorry, I wasn't able to determine Suncorp's investment choices or what support they're getting from the Australian government (or for that matter, any other government).
She's been accused of multiple felonies by the right wing noise machine. I'll wait to see if anything comes of it.
Here, she's actually done multiple felonies. For example, she instructed an aide to strip classified headers off of documents before emailing them.
If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying header and send nonsecure.
There are two other obvious rebuttals. First, carpet. Millimeter precision with a centimeter of variable obstruction/friction material?
And second, people don't walk with millimeter precision. If we were walking with clearances of two millimeters, we would be flat on our faces all the time.
(1) the point is people expect stairs to be consistent to some tolerance. We can argue about what that tolerance is, but the precise figure is irrelevant.
I disagree. That argument was about that alleged precision. I think there's a very simple explanation. There's probably an interest at stake. Maybe the video maker owned a millwork and was pushing this myth to sell product.
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform disallowed individual citizens from putting on a TV commercial within 90 days of an election explaining why you should vote for their favorite candidate.
No, it was exactly the opposite. Corporations were explicitly prohibited from doing so, not individuals. That's why Citizens United happened.
but I think Clinton has the skills, brains and experience to actually get some shit done
But why would we want that shit done? You can't just look at capabilities, you also have to look at what the candidate has done. Here, committing multiple felonies just so you can evade FOIA requests is not the sort of person that I'd want for president.
The Bernie Bros are all over twitter calling her a lying cunt, etc.. The media decided long ago that she had trust issues with the american people, they kept saying it and now people have ... surprise surprise, trust issues with Hillary.
It would help here, if she didn't actually lie all the time. For example, coming up with evolving excuses about her private email server and why she couldn't be bothered to comply with US law on classified information and the handling of email for public business.
I suspect however the nastiest trust issues comes from her willingness to sacrifice principle for the need of the moment. For example, she was an instrumental part of the propaganda machine that tore up women who had extra-marital affairs with her husband. I bet that rubs feminists the wrong way right there, having a candidate who supposedly cared about feminist issues, but readily threw that principle away the moment her meal ticket was threatened.
Why I should believe this when I can visually inspect buildings and see that they aren't being built to millimeter precision?
There has only been one national poll so far that has shown a GOP candidate beating Hillary
You' assume Clinton will still be running by November despite having pulled several felonies with her private email server and failure to handle classified information. Not everyone will ignore that.
the projection though no doubt well-sourced is no more accurate than the models that it is based off
Naturally, though those same sources have been through rigorous peer review, and have been widely accepted by most fellow experts in the field. Again I'm not seeing you cite any evidence like peer-reviewed studies finding those models to be "deeply broken" - only the usual unsourced claims cribbed from the standard rabble of denialist blogs. Plenty of studies supporting them, though. And of course real life.
A key bit of evidence is that the IPCC backpedaled significantly from the Third Assessment Report to the Fifth Assessment Report. For example, here's a collection of weak remarks from the IPCC's latest report on the connection to extreme weather.
Now, let's look at your links. The first link is to a computer model description with no actual data to support the model aside from what they used in the first place. Second, you link to a single bit of extreme weather. One point is not evidence. These two examples show common fallacies associated with extreme weather claims. First, conflating a model with reality. Second, confirmation bias. Even in the complete absence of global warming, we would expect to continue to see "strongest ever" storms.
you don't understand my position
Unsurprisingly, since it's a position you've adopted with no actual evidence. Despite your use of the present tense, you've not shown any examples of said industry "milking the public teat" over climate change (though I can provide many examples of e.g. fossil fuel industries milking away).
Assertions aren't automatically true. Let's look at recent actions that SunCorp Group, the sponsor of the original research claiming elevated claims payouts from certain unproven models of extreme weather, is seeking a huge rate hikes in flood insurance for certain locations that had payouts in recent years:
Suncorp has confirmed that new policies will not be offered in Emerald and Roma - two of the towns worst affected by recent years of flooding.
Existing policyholders face hikes of up to 10-fold.
Suncorp has a reputation for being the only insurer left in some towns abandoned by southern-based companies who are wary of massive payouts.
But Suncorp chief executive Mark Milliner said Queensland's biggest insurer had taken $4 million in premiums in Emerald and Roma in the past two years and paid out $150 million in claims.
Notice the bolded paragraph? Right there we have my original assertion, an insurance company rationalizing after-the-fact rate hikes for making bad risk decisions. They also got burned by recent drought in Australia.
While the outlook is challenging for life insurance, Suncorp says relatively benign weather has so far kept general insurance claims around $25 million below expectations.
However, drought conditions, particularly in north-west Queensland, have resulted in an increase in loan loss provisions, and the bank's holdings of impaired assets rose to $485 million.
I haven't yet figured out what Suncorp's investments are in. But right here we have a reason for the research article - to CYA in a couple of significant losses which otherwise would reflect poorly on management.
Care to debunk the insurance companies numbers?
and
A wise man once told me, any idea that can be dealt with in a nutshell, belongs in one.
There's nothing to discuss here. I'm not going to scour the web looking for the alleged insurance company numbers. Provide them and then we can discuss them. I'm not going to care about some "wise man" saying that means nothing.
Him: I don't have to tell you because it's so stupid!
Straw man argument, That never happened. It's been a long series of fallacies and zero-content posts from you. In this entire thread tree, there has only been one attempt at a serious counterargument by Namarrgon.
What am I supposed to do, Ol Olsoc? You and several others have posted page after page of bullshit, innuendo, and fallacy. There is nothing to debate.