...So, the real question is: why do these articles want you to think making $15.5 billion on $258 billion is making lots of money?
I did not at any time use the word "lots."
The post I was responding to stated that they were losing money. They are not. I stated that they are not, and gave citations.
If you want to know, are they making "lots" of money-- that's a different question. If you want to know, are they gaining or losing value, that's also a different question. Ask a different question, get a different answer.
Would it be unreasonable to assume that they have been placing sensors on these spacecraft to register the various radiation levels experienced during the trip to Mars. This seems like it would be invaluable empirical data of what those anxious to get there in person will face on the trip.
This probe didn't have sensors, but that data is pretty well known. The radiation environment in deep space was measured throughout the Apollo years through Pioneers 6/7/8 were placed into Solar orbit to measure the radiation environment. Additionally, most of the deep space probes (Voyager 1/2, Pioneer 10/11, all had particle/plasma detectors on them to detect the radiation environment. So yes, there's pretty darned good data on the radiation environment of deep space.
And, more specifically, the Curiosity rover had a radiation detector specifically designed to characterize the surface radiation levels: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/miss... which is complementary to the Mars Odyssey orbiter, which characterized the radiation above the atmosphere: https://mars.nasa.gov/odyssey/...
Tesla deserves a lot of credit, but they were not the only ones driving this revolution. Nissan produced an affordable, practical EV that figured out a lot of the basic issues with an electric drivetrain, from the instrumentation to the integration with existing car tech to how to sell it to the public.
The Nissan Leaf is a great car for what it does, and what it does is what most people actually need. In its way it was, and is, quite as groundbreaking as the Tesla.
What Tesla did, however, was different: what they did was to change the entire mindset about electric cars. Before Tesla, what people thought about with electric cars was "ok, maybe they work, but they're basically glorified golf carts, ok I guess if you are ok with being poky and not driving very far." What Tesla did was make the public think OMG, electric cars are awesome!
Not just "they are almost as good as gas cars", but "they blow away ordinary gas cars; this is a premium vehicle, you want one of these."
Wow, didn't we already landed there like 20 years ago first time?
Viking, 1976: 42 years ago.
Should be easy with current tech?
Easier, perhaps. But not easy.
NASA's been successful with Mars landings since the loss of Polar lander, and that was 20 years ago. But Mars landings are not easy. For the entire planet Earth, the success rate for missions to orbit or land on Mars is 50% successful, 50% not; with the most recent failure the ESA Schiaparelli EDM lander. So, don't take Mars landings for granted.
Or it was all massive BS and a lot of Photoshop?
You know, that isn't really funny, because millions of people actually believe that shit. There really doesn't seem to be any possible satire conspiracy theory so extreme that people don't believe it.
it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.So far, the models are holding up rather well.
Nonsense. They have had to throw away all the most alarmist models/datasets. Some of the early ones were so bad the first gnat exhale of CO2 would have led to inevitable venus like conditions. They just like to pretend they never published those now.
The earliest of the convective-radiative models using accurate measurements of infrared absorption-- that is to say, the ancestor of today's GCMs-- was Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Over the fifty years of data since the model was published, guess what? the theory is pretty well matching measurements.
I skipped the third sentence because it is opinion unsupported by facts.
In fact, all the data adjustments are exhaustively documented, the reason for all the data analysis is discussed and justified, and the raw data and each step in analysis is available to the public.
Basically, you don't know anything about the subject, and can't be bothered to actually look up the data sources. But that's about par for the usual anonymous coward.
the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies... The authors have already admitted that [their uncertainty analysis was inaccurate, enough that] the uncertainty does not support their conclusion."
Logic fail.
No. Here it is detailed out
1. Earlier studies concluded the oceans were warming faster than expected.
2. This study attempted to evaluate that using a different technique that relied on different measurements.
3 The study concluded that the oceans were warming than expected.
4. But the reanalysis said that the uncertainty was too high to be able to assert statement (3) with confidence.
No logic fail. The two statement are both correct. The conclusion of this study was indeed in line with previous studies; and the uncertainty in this result does not support this study's conclusions (but has no bearing on the previous studies, which were done by different methods.)
We'll be hearing about the oceans heating faster then expected for decades.
Unfortunately, we will hearing about it for decades, because it's true.
Based on... what?
If you looked at the link given in the summary, you would have seen the statement "The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions."
So, yes: the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies. The main difference is that they were using a different technique based on different measurements to do their analysis.
The authors have already admitted that their paper and math lack credibility.
Close. The authors have already admitted that their uncertainty analysis was inaccurate, enough that the uncertainty does not support their conclusion.
Good for them. Acknowledging flaws is key to science.
Maybe somebody else will come along and support their conclusions. If that were to happen, we'd call it "science".
Exactly. That is how science is done; different groups analyzing and replicating earlier work.
Climate Change, "theory" purports to predict all things.
Climate change "theory" is very straightforward. It "purports" that carbon dioxide has infrared absorption bands that are well known, well measured, and well understood, and we can use this absorption to model radiative transport of heat in the infrared.
Climate change models make predictions. They do not, however, "purport to predict all things". In fact, they predict a relatively small number of things. One thing they do predict global average temperature... but even here, this is with a quoted uncertainty of about ±50%.
They don't predict weather.
As a result, its proponents have set up a situation where their, "theory" cannot be falsified.
to the contrary, it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.
Given the political and public spotlight on climate science, researchers need to be extra careful and make sure their work is rigorous.
Yes, it would be nice if all scientists were perfect and nobody made mistakes ever. In the real world, however, the way science works is that scientists are supposed to acknowledge it when they find errors, and correct the error. Which is what they did.
Why was this mistake made? Was there a rush to publish and people worked quickly?
The error was apparently in the uncertainty analysis. Uncertainty analyses turn out to be hard to do.
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
(A) You can only do that if you have the data to question, which climate "scientists" are not always forthcoming with
To the contrary. All of the data is made publicaly available, as well as all of the computer codes.
or have run through magical adjustment algorithms you cannot have or question.
And all of the data adjustments are explained in detail, the reasons for data analysis explained, the codes made available, and the raw data available so you can do your own data analysis if you want. And at least five different groups on three continents do exactly that.
Nature is a peer reviewed publication. So, there were multiple, independent levels of error. That's not how it's supposed to work.
No, this is how science works-- this is the perfect exemplar of science working correctly. The researchers published their results, they found errors, they acknowledged the errors and published the correction.
Kudos to them. Yes, it would be wonderful if scientists never made errors in the first place, but it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors. The way science works is to acknowledge the errors: that is what makes it science.
Except that there is no monopoly here. These refurbishers are still free to market their product on any other platform up to and including eBay.
Except Amazon is now 49% of all online sales. That means, it's as big as all of the other retailers-- combined.
At 49% they have considerable monopoly power. Not as much as 100%, a complete monopoly, but not negligible.
Are you really saying that eBay is about to go under because Amazon?
Unless somebody stops Amazon: yes.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon gets to choose what products are listed in their store, just the same as any brick and mortar gets to choose what goes on their shelves.
You may be "pretty sure," but if they have monopoly power, then no, they don't. Or, they shouldn't: that is what antitrust laws are about, and a monopoly making a deal to only sell one vendor's (more expensive) product is exactly why we have antitrust laws. Read some history.
What are you advocating for here, compulsory product listings from randoms who switch out fans and disks?
I am pointing out that monopolies are bad and destroy the free market.
You people expected bundle/meal deal/combo pricing per item on a la carte product.
Except you have it backwards. People are expecting a la carte products on a system that only allows bundle/meal-deal pricing.
It's like if you wanted a steak with a coke and a slice of apple pie, and the only way to get it was to first buy the steak meal, which has soup, a roll, steak with a baked potato and peas, and a blueberry muffin; and then you have to buy the coca-cola bundle, which consists of a 24-can case of coke, and then you have to buy the Early dinner special, which is salad, chicken-pot pie, a glass of milk, cole slaw, and an apple pie. To get what you actually want, you need to buy three different bundles, and throw out most of it.
Most of what you get with the bundle is stuff you don't want.
Climate Change is affecting all of us, right now. The increased intensity of the fires in the west in the last 10 years or so is just an example.
No one event, even a wildfire, is really attributable to climate change. Climate change is a long term thing.
In the long term, climate change is exacerbating drought in central California. But it is an effect that manifests over decades, and it is only one of many, many effects that are exacerbating wildfires in CA. (To be fair, many of these other effects are also human related.)
In this particular case, a wildfire in the area isn't even all that particularly notable; it's just the fact that it hit a city that gets it in the news. Otherwise, it's just one more wildfire in an area with wildfires.
Slashdot Mirror
...So, the real question is: why do these articles want you to think making $15.5 billion on $258 billion is making lots of money?
I did not at any time use the word "lots."
The post I was responding to stated that they were losing money. They are not. I stated that they are not, and gave citations.
If you want to know, are they making "lots" of money-- that's a different question. If you want to know, are they gaining or losing value, that's also a different question. Ask a different question, get a different answer.
Would it be unreasonable to assume that they have been placing sensors on these spacecraft to register the various radiation levels experienced during the trip to Mars. This seems like it would be invaluable empirical data of what those anxious to get there in person will face on the trip.
This probe didn't have sensors, but that data is pretty well known. The radiation environment in deep space was measured throughout the Apollo years through Pioneers 6/7/8 were placed into Solar orbit to measure the radiation environment. Additionally, most of the deep space probes (Voyager 1/2, Pioneer 10/11, all had particle/plasma detectors on them to detect the radiation environment. So yes, there's pretty darned good data on the radiation environment of deep space.
And, more specifically, the Curiosity rover had a radiation detector specifically designed to characterize the surface radiation levels: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/miss...
which is complementary to the Mars Odyssey orbiter, which characterized the radiation above the atmosphere: https://mars.nasa.gov/odyssey/...
Tesla deserves a lot of credit, but they were not the only ones driving this revolution. Nissan produced an affordable, practical EV that figured out a lot of the basic issues with an electric drivetrain, from the instrumentation to the integration with existing car tech to how to sell it to the public.
The Nissan Leaf is a great car for what it does, and what it does is what most people actually need. In its way it was, and is, quite as groundbreaking as the Tesla.
What Tesla did, however, was different: what they did was to change the entire mindset about electric cars. Before Tesla, what people thought about with electric cars was "ok, maybe they work, but they're basically glorified golf carts, ok I guess if you are ok with being poky and not driving very far." What Tesla did was make the public think OMG, electric cars are awesome!
Not just "they are almost as good as gas cars", but "they blow away ordinary gas cars; this is a premium vehicle, you want one of these."
So what you are saying is that the airlines arent losing enough money? There will be plenty of posts ignoring the fact that airlines lose money.
Except airlines aren't losing money. See: Airlines had second-most profitable year ever in 2017
2017 Net Profit: 15.5 billion
IATA - Another Strong Year for Airline Profits in 2017
I assume that the AC here thinks that he is being witty.
tens of millions of people believe this, though.
A little bit of exaggeration there Geoffrey?
Nope. Tens of millions, and probably more.
Yeah, I hate "black Friday" (who ever gave it that name, anyway? What, gonna wear no socks and shoes?).
I've joined the alternate "Buy Nothing Friday".
I assume that the AC here thinks that he is being witty.
tens of millions of people believe this, though.
Wow, didn't we already landed there like 20 years ago first time?
Viking, 1976: 42 years ago.
Should be easy with current tech?
Easier, perhaps. But not easy.
NASA's been successful with Mars landings since the loss of Polar lander, and that was 20 years ago. But Mars landings are not easy. For the entire planet Earth, the success rate for missions to orbit or land on Mars is 50% successful, 50% not; with the most recent failure the ESA Schiaparelli EDM lander. So, don't take Mars landings for granted.
Or it was all massive BS and a lot of Photoshop?
You know, that isn't really funny, because millions of people actually believe that shit. There really doesn't seem to be any possible satire conspiracy theory so extreme that people don't believe it.
Well, the Northrup YB-49 was a flying wing-- not at all a disk craft.
There have been some flying-saucer-looking disk aircraft, though. Check out the Avrocar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
or the V-173 "flying flapjack": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As I said: The data adjustment is discussed in great detail by the Berkeley project: http://berkeleyearth.org/understanding-adjustments-temperature-data/
and if that's too much detail, try the Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/feb/08/no-climate-conspiracy-noaa-temperature-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine
Or you can to to the GISS site: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/
The data adjustment is discussed in a lot of detail by the Berkeley project: http://berkeleyearth.org/under...
If you want less detail and more of an overview, try the Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/en...
it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.So far, the models are holding up rather well.
Nonsense. They have had to throw away all the most alarmist models/datasets.
Some of the early ones were so bad the first gnat exhale of CO2 would have led to inevitable venus like conditions. They just like to pretend they never published those now.
The earliest of the convective-radiative models using accurate measurements of infrared absorption-- that is to say, the ancestor of today's GCMs-- was Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Over the fifty years of data since the model was published, guess what? the theory is pretty well matching measurements.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/
https://climategraphs.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/evaluating-the-prediction-of-manabe-and-wetherald-1967/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/19/global-warming-accurate-prediction-1972/
I skipped the third sentence because it is opinion unsupported by facts.
In fact, all the data adjustments are exhaustively documented, the reason for all the data analysis is discussed and justified, and the raw data and each step in analysis is available to the public.
Basically, you don't know anything about the subject, and can't be bothered to actually look up the data sources. But that's about par for the usual anonymous coward.
the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies...
The authors have already admitted that [their uncertainty analysis was inaccurate, enough that] the uncertainty does not support their conclusion."
Logic fail.
No. Here it is detailed out
1. Earlier studies concluded the oceans were warming faster than expected.
2. This study attempted to evaluate that using a different technique that relied on different measurements.
3 The study concluded that the oceans were warming than expected.
4. But the reanalysis said that the uncertainty was too high to be able to assert statement (3) with confidence.
No logic fail.
The two statement are both correct. The conclusion of this study was indeed in line with previous studies; and the uncertainty in this result does not support this study's conclusions (but has no bearing on the previous studies, which were done by different methods.)
We'll be hearing about the oceans heating faster then expected for decades.
Unfortunately, we will hearing about it for decades, because it's true.
Based on... what?
If you looked at the link given in the summary, you would have seen the statement "The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions."
So, yes: the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies. The main difference is that they were using a different technique based on different measurements to do their analysis.
The authors have already admitted that their paper and math lack credibility.
Close. The authors have already admitted that their uncertainty analysis was inaccurate, enough that the uncertainty does not support their conclusion.
Good for them. Acknowledging flaws is key to science.
Maybe somebody else will come along and support their conclusions. If that were to happen, we'd call it "science".
Exactly. That is how science is done; different groups analyzing and replicating earlier work.
Climate Change, "theory" purports to predict all things.
Climate change "theory" is very straightforward. It "purports" that carbon dioxide has infrared absorption bands that are well known, well measured, and well understood, and we can use this absorption to model radiative transport of heat in the infrared.
Climate change models make predictions. They do not, however, "purport to predict all things". In fact, they predict a relatively small number of things. One thing they do predict global average temperature... but even here, this is with a quoted uncertainty of about ±50%.
They don't predict weather.
As a result, its proponents have set up a situation where their, "theory" cannot be falsified.
to the contrary, it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.
So far, the models are holding up rather well.
Given the political and public spotlight on climate science, researchers need to be extra careful and make sure their work is rigorous.
Yes, it would be nice if all scientists were perfect and nobody made mistakes ever. In the real world, however, the way science works is that scientists are supposed to acknowledge it when they find errors, and correct the error. Which is what they did.
Why was this mistake made? Was there a rush to publish and people worked quickly?
The error was apparently in the uncertainty analysis. Uncertainty analyses turn out to be hard to do.
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
(A) You can only do that if you have the data to question, which climate "scientists" are not always forthcoming with
To the contrary. All of the data is made publicaly available, as well as all of the computer codes.
or have run through magical adjustment algorithms you cannot have or question.
And all of the data adjustments are explained in detail, the reasons for data analysis explained, the codes made available, and the raw data available so you can do your own data analysis if you want. And at least five different groups on three continents do exactly that.
Nature is a peer reviewed publication. So, there were multiple, independent levels of error. That's not how it's supposed to work.
No, this is how science works-- this is the perfect exemplar of science working correctly. The researchers published their results, they found errors, they acknowledged the errors and published the correction.
Kudos to them. Yes, it would be wonderful if scientists never made errors in the first place, but it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors. The way science works is to acknowledge the errors: that is what makes it science.
Except that there is no monopoly here. These refurbishers are still free to market their product on any other platform up to and including eBay.
Except Amazon is now 49% of all online sales. That means, it's as big as all of the other retailers-- combined.
At 49% they have considerable monopoly power. Not as much as 100%, a complete monopoly, but not negligible.
Are you really saying that eBay is about to go under because Amazon?
Unless somebody stops Amazon: yes.
I'm pretty sure that Amazon gets to choose what products are listed in their store, just the same as any brick and mortar gets to choose what goes on their shelves.
You may be "pretty sure," but if they have monopoly power, then no, they don't. Or, they shouldn't: that is what antitrust laws are about, and a monopoly making a deal to only sell one vendor's (more expensive) product is exactly why we have antitrust laws. Read some history.
What are you advocating for here, compulsory product listings from randoms who switch out fans and disks?
I am pointing out that monopolies are bad and destroy the free market.
This is why we hate monopolies.
In the internet sales business, Amazon has effectively become a monopoly.
You people expected bundle/meal deal/combo pricing per item on a la carte product.
Except you have it backwards. People are expecting a la carte products on a system that only allows bundle/meal-deal pricing.
It's like if you wanted a steak with a coke and a slice of apple pie, and the only way to get it was to first buy the steak meal, which has soup, a roll, steak with a baked potato and peas, and a blueberry muffin; and then you have to buy the coca-cola bundle, which consists of a 24-can case of coke, and then you have to buy the Early dinner special, which is salad, chicken-pot pie, a glass of milk, cole slaw, and an apple pie. To get what you actually want, you need to buy three different bundles, and throw out most of it.
Most of what you get with the bundle is stuff you don't want.
Which is, uh, great to know, But is there any information about whether and where we can see the collection?
The article didn't say anything at all about making the collection available to the public.
It only said that they were digitizing it. They may be doing this for their own use.
Climate Change is affecting all of us, right now.
The increased intensity of the fires in the west in the last 10 years or so is just an example.
No one event, even a wildfire, is really attributable to climate change. Climate change is a long term thing.
In the long term, climate change is exacerbating drought in central California. But it is an effect that manifests over decades, and it is only one of many, many effects that are exacerbating wildfires in CA. (To be fair, many of these other effects are also human related.)
In this particular case, a wildfire in the area isn't even all that particularly notable; it's just the fact that it hit a city that gets it in the news. Otherwise, it's just one more wildfire in an area with wildfires.
The original people of California didnt live there because they learned the cycle of wildfires made the area UNSAFE FOR HABITATION.
Pre-Europeans, that part of CA was part of the Maidu territory, I believe-- the Konkow people, I would guess.
Why do you think they didn't live in that particular part of the mountainside?