And in any case, why do you think the governments need to tell you not to crap up your own living spaces? Could you not figure it out yourself and adapt without compelling everyone else do to do the same by force of arms?
The point is that diesel cars crap up other people's living spaces.
Most of the time you're not operating your car on your own property. But, collectively, all of the diesel cars crap up all of the peoples' living spaces.
Yes, you're right: if your crappy car only crapped up the place you lived yourself, there would be no problem with people rushing to get less-polluting cars without urging.
So far, we've discovered 15,000 rocks in orbits crossing close to Earth ("Near Earth Objects"), and the best estimate is that we've found about one quarter of the ones larger than 140 meters in diameter.
Wheelbase of a Tesla roadster is about four meters.
For every Tesla roadster in Earth-crossing orbit-- one--there are a million rocks that are at least that big.
There are a lot of asteroids. But, fortunately (quoting Douglas Adams), space is big. Really big.
Let me rephrase that, since I seem to have been misinterpreted. At the position of the actual tidal gauge the possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Yes, you do always want to ground-truth space measurements. Even when the space measurement is more accurate, you still want to ground-truth it. So, basically, you're saying that in your opinion ground measurements are more accurate... at individual geographic points. Nevertheless, for global sea-level measurements-- which is what we're looking for-- the satellite altimeter is vastly accurate.
OK, close enough that we can claim to agree. Good enough for me.
The possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Not even close. The satellite measurements are vastly more accurate than single-position tidal gauges. Among other reasons, this is because they look at the whole globe, which allows you to distinguish local effects from global sea level rise.
OH, and satellites are "GPS corrected" too, you know.
Where satellite data is referenced to tidal gauges I trust it most,
You have that backwards. When tidal gauges are referenced to satellite data, you can start trusting it. But the tidal gauges will still be single location measurements.
where it isn't I trust it less. Where I trust it most there is no appreciable acceleration.
I will say that acceleration is the hardest thing to measure, since it's a derivative of a noisy measurement, and a 25 year baseline is a little short for a good acceleration measurement. The data so far looks good, but I'd like to see another 25 years of satellite data before agreeing to a firm number.
The opposite. If you get an immunization for something you've already had (or you've already been immunized for), the immune system removes it pretty much instantly, and there's no effect at all.
It'll remove the virus fast, yes. But the virus contained in the vaccine is by definition basically harmless. I'm no expert, but I know that a lot of the symptoms from being sick (e.g. fever) aren't from the virus so much as side effects of your body attempting to fight the virus (e.g. white blood cells are significantly more efficient a few degrees past standard body temperature). With this logic, it would make sense that an immune system over-responding to an inert virus could make you feel "sick" for a few days.
It might "make sense," but turns out that when the immune system is already sensitized to the virus, it just takes it out with no real fuss. When you get the immune response to the virus, that means the immune system hasn't seen the virus before.
If you fancy yourself to be a member of civilized society, then you should delight in both asking that question and trying to find an answer, not scoff at it.
He did ask the question and did not scoff at it.
You avoided answering, and seem to be the one scoffing at it. So apparently "trying to find an answer" is not high on your list. By your criteria, apparently you are not a member of civilized society
Fission could do that, easily. We've shown them how to do fission adequately. Maybe they could teach the rest of us how to do it well.
Actually, no. If we just use fission, we run out of uranium in a hundred years or so-- it's not a long-term solution. We need fission plus breeder reactors, or else a switch to a thorium-based fuel cycle.
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall. If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I.
Just for reference, the 25 years of data was not cherry picked. The article being discussed analyzed satellite altimetry data, and the first of the satellite altimetry missions being discussed was TOPEX/Poseidon, which started giving data 25 years ago. 25 years is all the data that exists.
When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking.
The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple. Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
That's why satellite altimetry measurements-- what the article being discussed here is about-- are important. You can measure the entire globe, not just the places that have tide gauges, and you can separate out the local effects from the sea level rise.
Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.
It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.
Good article, though.
Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.
Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.
Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
Why not? It helps prevent future infections better than a vaccine does.
It's one of those "meaning of words" thing. Getting influenza means you didn't prevent it. Preventing influenza means you didn't get it.
A downside is that if you have had a particular influenza strain and then get a vaccine for the same one, you likely will be sick for a couple of days, as the immune system response is triggered full on.
The opposite. If you get an immunization for something you've already had (or you've already been immunized for), the immune system removes it pretty much instantly, and there's no effect at all.
That said, a flu shot is not the most effective prevention for a single individual. Where isolation is not possible, getting and surviving various strains of influenza is far more effective at boosting the immune system, for a longer period of time.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
... an incredibly inconvenient orbit for North American visitors
Why are you saying it is inconvenient for North American visitors? The 51.6 degree inclination flies over all of the United States except Alaska, and most of the populate parts of Canada. If it were much lower inclination, it wouldn't fly over Canada at all.
I think you mean "a slightly higher inclination than the minimum energy launch from Kennedy Space Center", but even there, you only get a little over 100 meters per second by picking a lower inclination, and you give up your view of most of the United States (in fact, most of the land area of the world). -also, you wouldn't be able to get there from other launch sites such as Wallops.
Good behind the scenes analysis of why Waymo's case was flimsy here from Sarah Jeong, a lawyer and journalist who has been live tweeting the trial: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-tria...
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
Well good for you. Atta boy. But most people look at that meter as the final word. They use it in their arguments and to form their opinion.
I'd be interested in your data supporting your statement as to how "most people" read fact check sites.
But, if you modified your statement to say "the information and citations in the body of the article are useful fact-checking, but the final judgement of their meter is subjective," I wouldn't disagree.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.) So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
...
Originally yes, I did read what they had to say.
The important part is not that you read what they had to say, but that you then quoted the information you got from them. You are saying they are not a reliable source... but turns out you in fact do use them as a reliable source.
Right, and pretty much any truly-interesting political statement is going to be about what strategy is best. And what strategy is best, depends on what your goals and values are. They're totally subjective. Imagine a political statement like "the federal reserve should raise [or lower, take your pick] the interest rate by 0.25%." You can't tell someone else whether or not that's true or false for them. At best you can tell them whether or not it's a good idea for achieving what you want.
To be fair: neither snopes nor politifact fact checks opinions. None of the examples you made up are the kinds of things either one runs an article factchecking. They fact check only the things expressed as facts.
There is a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I agree with that.
Slashdot Mirror
So do petrol cars and often even more so.
Yes, and in case you didn't notice: gasoline cars have pollution control regulations.
What makes diesel cars evil but petrol cars acceptable?
In cities? Particulate emissions.
You ever stood behind the tailpipe of a diesel? Yeech.
EVs are better in the cold weather than fossil cars.
Huh???
Diesels are lousy when they're cold. Most of the pollution from a diesel engine comes from the few minutes when it's warming up.
In fact, one of the factors of the diesel scandal was that the manufacturers shut down the pollution controls when it got cold. https://www.envirotech-online....
http://www.bbc.com/news/busine...
Gasoline cars aren't great when they're cold, either.
And in any case, why do you think the governments need to tell you not to crap up your own living spaces? Could you not figure it out yourself and adapt without compelling everyone else do to do the same by force of arms?
The point is that diesel cars crap up other people's living spaces.
Most of the time you're not operating your car on your own property. But, collectively, all of the diesel cars crap up all of the peoples' living spaces.
Yes, you're right: if your crappy car only crapped up the place you lived yourself, there would be no problem with people rushing to get less-polluting cars without urging.
Yeah! We'll mine for Starbucks. Surely that name isn't taken :)
You need to drink a cup of coffee to clear your mind. Starbucks is a name already taken. It was a major character in Battlestar Galactica.
You spelled "Moby Dick" wrong.
So far, we've discovered 15,000 rocks in orbits crossing close to Earth ("Near Earth Objects"), and the best estimate is that we've found about one quarter of the ones larger than 140 meters in diameter.
Wheelbase of a Tesla roadster is about four meters.
For every Tesla roadster in Earth-crossing orbit-- one--there are a million rocks that are at least that big.
There are a lot of asteroids. But, fortunately (quoting Douglas Adams), space is big. Really big.
Yes, as fake reviews schemes go, this is an unusually honest one. They actually got real humans to write the glowing reviews, not a bot army.
Let me rephrase that, since I seem to have been misinterpreted. At the position of the actual tidal gauge the possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Yes, you do always want to ground-truth space measurements. Even when the space measurement is more accurate, you still want to ground-truth it. So, basically, you're saying that in your opinion ground measurements are more accurate... at individual geographic points. Nevertheless, for global sea-level measurements-- which is what we're looking for-- the satellite altimeter is vastly accurate.
OK, close enough that we can claim to agree. Good enough for me.
Why would a class action lawsuit be preferable to reporting the crime to the police?
Why would the two be mutually exclusive?
The possible errors in satellite data are far larger than in a differential GPS corrected tidal gauge.
Not even close. The satellite measurements are vastly more accurate than single-position tidal gauges. Among other reasons, this is because they look at the whole globe, which allows you to distinguish local effects from global sea level rise.
OH, and satellites are "GPS corrected" too, you know.
Where satellite data is referenced to tidal gauges I trust it most,
You have that backwards. When tidal gauges are referenced to satellite data, you can start trusting it. But the tidal gauges will still be single location measurements.
where it isn't I trust it less. Where I trust it most there is no appreciable acceleration.
I will say that acceleration is the hardest thing to measure, since it's a derivative of a noisy measurement, and a 25 year baseline is a little short for a good acceleration measurement. The data so far looks good, but I'd like to see another 25 years of satellite data before agreeing to a firm number.
The opposite. If you get an immunization for something you've already had (or you've already been immunized for), the immune system removes it pretty much instantly, and there's no effect at all.
It'll remove the virus fast, yes. But the virus contained in the vaccine is by definition basically harmless. I'm no expert, but I know that a lot of the symptoms from being sick (e.g. fever) aren't from the virus so much as side effects of your body attempting to fight the virus (e.g. white blood cells are significantly more efficient a few degrees past standard body temperature). With this logic, it would make sense that an immune system over-responding to an inert virus could make you feel "sick" for a few days.
It might "make sense," but turns out that when the immune system is already sensitized to the virus, it just takes it out with no real fuss. When you get the immune response to the virus, that means the immune system hasn't seen the virus before.
If you fancy yourself to be a member of civilized society, then you should delight in both asking that question and trying to find an answer, not scoff at it.
He did ask the question and did not scoff at it.
You avoided answering, and seem to be the one scoffing at it. So apparently "trying to find an answer" is not high on your list. By your criteria, apparently you are not a member of civilized society
Fission could do that, easily. We've shown them how to do fission adequately. Maybe they could teach the rest of us how to do it well.
Actually, no. If we just use fission, we run out of uranium in a hundred years or so-- it's not a long-term solution. We need fission plus breeder reactors, or else a switch to a thorium-based fuel cycle.
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall. If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I.
Just for reference, the 25 years of data was not cherry picked. The article being discussed analyzed satellite altimetry data, and the first of the satellite altimetry missions being discussed was TOPEX/Poseidon, which started giving data 25 years ago. 25 years is all the data that exists.
When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking.
The Raft is coming, are you going to be prepared, or shocked?! Sea levels rise, poor people have to learn to float. Simple. Read your Neal Stephenson! The Raft is coming!
No worries. I'm sure they will listen to Reason.
And there's no way those same currents could have affected the previous measurements we used to declare sea level was rising. I mean, there's no way they could have been eroding for some period and we thought it was the sea level rising. Climate only works one way!
That's why satellite altimetry measurements-- what the article being discussed here is about-- are important. You can measure the entire globe, not just the places that have tide gauges, and you can separate out the local effects from the sea level rise.
Citation. This isn't a new finding, it confirms previous work.
It is new in that this article shows the satellite altimetry, while the article you cite, showing similar trends, combines tide-gauge and satellite data to get a much longer data set. Basically, that article is using satellite data to calibrate tide-gauges, and then using that calibration to measure historical sea level rise.
Good article, though.
Let me know when other "religions" start basing their ideology (or their critiques) on multiple peer-reviewed studies instead of faith.
Yes, exactly: it is useful when different work by different groups shows the same result. This is reproducability, which is important in science.
25 years of data? Why not 26 years of data?
Because the earliest data set came from the TOPEX/Poseidon satellite altimetry mission, which launched in 1992, and the paper was received for review in 2017. 2017-1996 = 25 years.
Paper under discussion: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...
The scientists were unable to use satellite data taken before the satellite launched because that data does not exist.
It's not "unknown" either. Unknown to the researchers, yes. Unknown to the world, no.
Unknown to the world, yes. Unknown to the 280 villagers who speak it, no.
They are, technically, part of the world, so I suppose you could more accurately say unknown to 99.999995% of the world.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
Why not? It helps prevent future infections better than a vaccine does.
It's one of those "meaning of words" thing. Getting influenza means you didn't prevent it. Preventing influenza means you didn't get it.
A downside is that if you have had a particular influenza strain and then get a vaccine for the same one, you likely will be sick for a couple of days, as the immune system response is triggered full on.
The opposite. If you get an immunization for something you've already had (or you've already been immunized for), the immune system removes it pretty much instantly, and there's no effect at all.
That said, a flu shot is not the most effective prevention for a single individual. Where isolation is not possible, getting and surviving various strains of influenza is far more effective at boosting the immune system, for a longer period of time.
Technically, "getting influenza" should not count as a form of "preventing influenza".
... an incredibly inconvenient orbit for North American visitors
Why are you saying it is inconvenient for North American visitors? The 51.6 degree inclination flies over all of the United States except Alaska, and most of the populate parts of Canada. If it were much lower inclination, it wouldn't fly over Canada at all.
I think you mean "a slightly higher inclination than the minimum energy launch from Kennedy Space Center", but even there, you only get a little over 100 meters per second by picking a lower inclination, and you give up your view of most of the United States (in fact, most of the land area of the world). -also, you wouldn't be able to get there from other launch sites such as Wallops.
Good behind the scenes analysis of why Waymo's case was flimsy here from Sarah Jeong, a lawyer and journalist who has been live tweeting the trial:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-tria...
That link wasn't clickable for me. Here it is as a clickable link: https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16993208/waymo-v-uber-trial-trade-secrets-lidar
This /. post seems to mostly be an advertisement.
Is it really true that this is "the best" and "about to get even better" and has no downside whatsoever?
I don't care about the "final judgement of their meter". I care about the fact that they cite sources that I can check myself.
Well good for you. Atta boy. But most people look at that meter as the final word. They use it in their arguments and to form their opinion.
I'd be interested in your data supporting your statement as to how "most people" read fact check sites.
But, if you modified your statement to say "the information and citations in the body of the article are useful fact-checking, but the final judgement of their meter is subjective," I wouldn't disagree.
OK. And, how do you happen to know that? Oh: you know it because you read the article! (which says exactly what you just said-- you are quoting them.) So, you're really telling me you yourself personally use politifact as an unbiased source of facts. That's ironic. You don't want other people to use it, but you use it yourself.
...
Originally yes, I did read what they had to say.
The important part is not that you read what they had to say, but that you then quoted the information you got from them. You are saying they are not a reliable source... but turns out you in fact do use them as a reliable source.
...
Right, and pretty much any truly-interesting political statement is going to be about what strategy is best. And what strategy is best, depends on what your goals and values are. They're totally subjective.
Imagine a political statement like "the federal reserve should raise [or lower, take your pick] the interest rate by 0.25%." You can't tell someone else whether or not that's true or false for them. At best you can tell them whether or not it's a good idea for achieving what you want.
To be fair: neither snopes nor politifact fact checks opinions. None of the examples you made up are the kinds of things either one runs an article factchecking. They fact check only the things expressed as facts.
There is a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." I agree with that.