And it's one thing to say that there is evidence of water plumes, but it's quite another to say that it actually flew through one while it was going off.
Which they didn't say. You said that - it's a strawman.
Sure it's possible, but in the end, they don't actually have any direct evidence to support it beyond that it fits the data that they did happen to measure. If they had been taking environmental measurements at the time that said it was flying through water vapor, sure.... but they don't They start by saying that a water plume would explain the data, and somehow morph that into a conclusion that a water plume is the most likely explanation for the data. That's what I've raised objection to.
But it is the most likely explanation for the data until you or someone else comes up with a more likely explanation for the data. Saying "we don't know what unknown phenomena might have happened" is neither an explanation nor a means to demonstrate that the explanation provided is less likely than some other explanation.
Stop mischaracterizing what was claimed and building strawmen. They reported measurements, built a model of a passage through a water plume, and reported that the measurements were consistent with such a model, suggesting that the measurements were supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the sorts of plumes observed by the HST were water plumes. That is all. Nothing more. Everything else is your own creation.
As a bicyclist, I also hope they don't get into the bike lanes and pose a danger to cyclists. The best place for them is the freeway where traffic is going at the same speed...
With a top speed of 15 mph and being a two-wheeled vehicle, the bike lane is exactly where they belong. Freeways generally require at least a 150 cc engine (~10 hp for a normally aspirated two stoke) and a minimum speed of 45 mph. A Bird scooter isn't going to do that.
they are only inferring that it flew through a plume from the data that they have. Now maybe this inference is right, but absent any actual direct detection of it, it's still just an assumption.
You appear to be awfully invested in putting words and conclusions into the researchers' report that were not written, then criticizing what was not written in order to declare that the researchers have made a critical error.
Now let's look at the words that you have actually used:
Inference: "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning." Assumption: "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
An inference cannot be an assumption. By definition. In case you have any doubts, synonyms of evidence: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation.
Futhermore, they did not even infer that the probe flew through a plume. They inferred, in their own words: "The sudden, short-duration jump in the frequency of intense emissions can be interpreted as consistent with a highly localized source of plasma, thereby supporting the hypothesis that the magnetic perturbations arise from passage through a localized plume."
Can be interpreted as consistent with != did do so. Hypothesis != assumption. Get over yourself.
My objection is to conclude that it is something like a plume of water when they didn't actually, you know, detect any friggen plume of water. It just so happens that a plume of water fits the data they have.
Of course, if you'd actually read the article you'd have noticed that the Hubble Space Telescope has repeatedly detected plumes of what appeared to be water-ice, so it's not as if the hypothesis was pulled out of nowhere.
As it sits, their claim looks no different than if they had just said they didn't know what it was, except that admitting as much would at least be far more honest.
I'm not saying that's not what it is, nor am I contesting that a water plume could plausible explain the data that they had received from their probe, but unless they got an actual picture of what the probe could see around it at the time, I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything conclusive.
They did not assume that it was a water plume -- they hypothesized that it was a water plume and then tested that hypothesis. "We went back and looked at [the anomalous data] more carefully and found that they were just what you'd expect if we'd flown through a plume."
They also did not report that their data was conclusive, rather they literally wrote: "We show that the location, duration and variations of the magnetic field and plasma wave measurements are consistent with the interaction of Jupiter's corotating plasma with Europa if a plume with characteristics inferred from Hubble images were erupting from the region of Europa's thermal anomalies. These results provide strong independent evidence of the presence of plumes at Europa."
It may have been caused by some unexpected effect on the jovian planet itself that they weren't prepared to look for.
It may have been caused by a giant space whale farting. Until you either demonstrate that their data is inconsistent with a water-ice plume or provide a testable hypothesis that is consistent with the Galileo and/or Hubble, however, your objection is mere hand-waving against claims that were not made.
"Intended" is not "current" or "actual". Nonattainment is determined by what the EPA actually determines, under the procedures it has defined under the CAA. It's not determined by what the EPA says it might do in the future.
But actual is actual (page 30), not based on what the Pruitt EPA announces in a final rule, and WDNR's own data shows that Racine exceeded the 2015 NAAQS by more days above critical values than all but two other monitoring stations.
So show me the "actual" data that demonstrates attainment.
"Intended" is not "current" or "actual". Nonattainment is determined by what the EPA actually determines, under the procedures it has defined under the CAA. It's not determined by what the EPA says it might do in the future.
And the reason for the change between December (draft rule) and May (publication of final rule) was, especially given the lack of changes in other regions of the intended nonattainment areas? Guess what - that's what will be litigated. And it had better be based upon data rather than Walker/Pruitt political pressure.
Maybe you should read the letter from the EPA to Wisconsin, which makes it clear that they never declared Racine County to be in nonattainment.
Maybe you should link to it, rather than flatly contradicting published reports of the EPA's determination in December that Racine county was in nonattainment.
. The bit to the south of Racine is part of Milwaukee, which can obviously produce quite a bit of its own smog.
Milwaukee is north of Racine county, yet supposedly sufficiently smog-free to be in attainment while non-urbanized areas north and south of it are not.
t would only be so I could laugh at Madigan when the judge throws the case out
For what? I mean, you've gotten so much else wrong you may as well add another basis upon which we can judge your failures...
Says who? The EPA didn't list Racine County under the 2008 standards, didn't list it under the initial list of nonattainment areas for the 2015 standards, and didn't list it under the additional areas list that was just published. Well after the Foxconn plant was announced, the EPA told Wisconsin they expected to list Racine County as a nonattainment area, but later changed their mind.
"Tuesday's announcement was a shift from the EPA's stance in December when it determined a much broader area of southeastern Wisconsin failed to meet ozone standards.
At that time, the EPA declared Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington and Racine counties in violation. The same was true for northern Door County and Kenosha County east of I-94. The EPA also found that areas near the shoreline of Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties in violation."
6 million gallons/day? Chicago diverts 2 billion gallons/day from the Great Lakes watershed, much of it to move their crap elsewhere, just like they do with air pollution.
But by all means, let's keep adding Great Lakes water diversions on top of the ones Chicago started in 1848 and added to up to 1922. Just one more, ad infinitum, cannot hurt, and we've learned nothing since the 1920s anyways.
So still curious, I took a look at the WI site for air quality and Racine, as well as the County between it an Illinois, looks fine. Even if you go to the highest ozone level report, it's still maxing out at 47ppb. So it may have hit 70 at some point (Summer is usually worse), but it's probably not a frequent occurrence that it's up there. Certainly nothing to shut down a plant hiring 3k -13k workers over. I notice none of the articles attempt to quantify what, if any, difference the plant will make to ozone levels.
Not a shutdown. From TFA: "Pollution monitoring data show the county's ozone levels exceed the 70 parts per billion (ppb) limit. If Racine County had been designated a 'non-attainment' area, it would have required Foxconn to install stringent pollution control equipment."
Also, not particularly invested in your personal conclusion of attainment after having glanced at a one day, Spring season ozone report. Also from TFA: "The EPA, under Administrator Scott Pruitt, left Racine County off its non-attainment list despite an agency staff analysis of ozone levels in Wisconsin published in December, which found that the county's air exceeded federal ozone limits." We call that "arbitrary and capricious agency action" in my neck of the woods, and it's a good basis for a court suit.
Install the pollution controls required in a non-attainment area, and magically the suit goes away and the plant can run. Don't, and get sued.
Notice that the one thing not happening here is Wisconsin suing Illinois for failing to install ozone precursor emission controls in Illinois' developments.
Also, it's beyond stupid to say that every other county in the nation follows those regulations. Chicago doesn't. NYC doesn't. Itty bitty Indian tribes and bands don't. The list of nonattainment areas is as long as your arm.
No it's beyond stupid that, once again, I must point out that Chicago is a listed non-attainment area (and does follow non-attainment regulations, thank you), that Racine is in non-attainment yet was delisted as non-attainment area this year (and so will not be following those regulations, again thank you), and that you are confusing whether or not a county is in attainment with whether or not new development must employ ozone precursor emission controls.
From TFA: "Pollution monitoring data show the county's ozone levels exceed the 70 parts per billion (ppb) limit. If Racine County had been designated a âoenon-attainmentâ area, it would have required Foxconn to install stringent pollution control equipment."
You've admitted yourself that Chicago is listed as a non-attainment area. Please, provide any evidence that Chicago does not follow non-attainment area regulations. I'll wait.
In fact, Chicago is also an ozone nonattainment area; she could challenge that in court. She isn't doing that.
Because the point is to reduce ozone non-attainment and prevent a race to the bottom where (oddly enough, Republican) states and counties disregard non-attainment so as to minimize environmental compliance costs while inflicting externalities such as respiratory disease deaths on their own citizens and those of surrounding states/counties. Non-attainment areas must work to reduce ozone precursor emissions themselves and minimize new sources of ozone precursor emissions with enhanced controls -- not merely blame their non-attainment on neighboring areas and go on their merry way.
If you don't like the way that the CAA operates, then build the political coalition necessary to change it. Until then, comply with the requirements of the CAA or face suit in court.
Whoosh. Is your problem with reading comprehension or retention? The greater Chicago area is the cause of much of the pollution in surrounding areas, including coastal Wisconsin and Michigan. Lacking the windborne pollution originating in Illinois and Indiana, there's no reason to believe Racine county would have any sort of issue. No reason to force Racine to mitigate Chicago's pollution. And it's disingenuous and hypocritical for Illinois to sue claiming Wisconsin might cause more pollution.
You mean, no reason beyond the fact that high levels of ozone are a health threat, so that adding to already high levels of ozone increases the health threat, and local sources of ozone generating emissions will have an even greater impact upon ozone levels that remote sources of such emissions.
You mean, it's hypocritical to expect Wisconsin to follow the Clean Air Act, which requires controls whether or not those emissions are local or imported, merely because every other county in the U.S. has to follow that law.
You mean that a plant located within 5 miles of the shore (something about a need to divert 6 millions gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan for industrial use, in violation of the Great Lakes Compact) is not within "an extremely narrow band that follows Wisconsin's shoreline."
Fuck Chicago. They're just getting a taste of their own medicine.
"Chicago and most of the nation's other big urban areas have been on the list for years."
They already have, for years. No reason to leave Racine county off the list when it's already in non-attainment before the first shovel hits Foxconn's new grounds.
The original said Ivan or Vlad, looks like the wrong one got cut in editing, so you're not really helping in admitting the substance of the accusation.
The best part of all of this is that you haven't even considered that "Hi Vlad!" is a sarcastic greeting to the ultimate employer of all those Internet Research Agency hacks, Vladimir Putin.
But perhaps President Putin is a race to himself, which would again be racist. I'm so confused.
Hard to admit to a comment history "completely full of racist remarks" when you can only identify two uses of "Vlad" in connection with one poster on one day, and "Vlad" is not a racist remark.
But take it as you like it... I tremble in anticipation of your complaint to the bar.
That said, it could be amusing to let you explain your bigotry to the bar association:) You could have fun listing them every time you appear pro hac vice...
but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan"...
BTW, links please... having searched my comment history I cannot find any references to "Ivan," much less remarks beyond the two made today concerning the quite trollish DejaBu account.
Most people lurk as ACs for quite a while before joining, I know I was here for a good 3-4 years before making this account.
Well, it's not as if one could ever lie about that. You've persuaded me!
I don't know who decided that racism was a great rebuttal, but your comment history is completely full of racist remarks, like calling people "Ivan", the racist implication being that even if you somehow got that sloppy accusation right after making it so many times, everything they said would be unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being Russian.
Russian is a race? Why have I never seen that in a census form? I am shocked to learn that I am a racial self-hater, considering all the Eastern European ancestry. Must be the Western European ancestry rearing its ugly head. And they call it all "Caucasian." Such irony.
Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.
Wait, I thought Russia wanted to "destabilize" us? Isn't that what you're contributing to? So tell me, why are you trying to divide us again? Would you like to tell us why, even knowing the Russian plans, you decided to go and help them?
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If he is a Russian troll, why not make the charge? If he is not a Russian troll, why should I refrain from suggesting that he is behaving like one? I mean, you've persuaded me, so it's obviously the latter. But for the good of the country, or just to not be "racist," I should simply ignore anyone with a contrary opinion is a "DNC shill" or a member of an "advocacy group" posting anti-Trump propaganda rather than repeating the Truth (as declared by Fox & Friends).
Since you don't appear to have a problem with the political implication that everything someone says is unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being alleged "DNC shills" or members of "advocacy groups," and thus merely spouting anti-Trump propaganda, you'll excuse me for engaging in any sort of political commentary that I wish. Or not. It's not as if I'll stop because one person has an almost unique conception of race, or my posts don't rise to his personal standards.
If the white helmets are like the Red Cross, then why do they operate only in regions under jihadist control? Why don't they help the people who are the victims of those jihadists?
Something about Assad and ISIS shooting everyone who isn't absolutely on their side.
Yeah, yeah, I know, you will now say I'm a Russian bot.
You keep trotting this out like some kind of talisman. You're not Vlad, or a Russian bot. You're an idiot.
Yes, it seems the advocacy groups have turned on slashdot now. Get used to the most mundane of things turned into an 'anti-trump' sh*tpost in a wall of propaganda. Sigh.
Yes, it's no longer the Slashdot it once was when you first joined... today.
Slashdot Mirror
"In all seriousness..."
Which they didn't say. You said that - it's a strawman.
But it is the most likely explanation for the data until you or someone else comes up with a more likely explanation for the data. Saying "we don't know what unknown phenomena might have happened" is neither an explanation nor a means to demonstrate that the explanation provided is less likely than some other explanation.
Stop mischaracterizing what was claimed and building strawmen. They reported measurements, built a model of a passage through a water plume, and reported that the measurements were consistent with such a model, suggesting that the measurements were supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the sorts of plumes observed by the HST were water plumes. That is all. Nothing more. Everything else is your own creation.
With a top speed of 15 mph and being a two-wheeled vehicle, the bike lane is exactly where they belong. Freeways generally require at least a 150 cc engine (~10 hp for a normally aspirated two stoke) and a minimum speed of 45 mph. A Bird scooter isn't going to do that.
You appear to be awfully invested in putting words and conclusions into the researchers' report that were not written, then criticizing what was not written in order to declare that the researchers have made a critical error.
Now let's look at the words that you have actually used:
Inference: "a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning."
Assumption: "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
An inference cannot be an assumption. By definition. In case you have any doubts, synonyms of evidence: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation.
Futhermore, they did not even infer that the probe flew through a plume. They inferred, in their own words:
"The sudden, short-duration jump in the frequency of intense emissions can be interpreted as consistent with a highly localized source of plasma, thereby supporting the hypothesis that the magnetic perturbations arise from passage through a localized plume."
Can be interpreted as consistent with != did do so. Hypothesis != assumption. Get over yourself.
Of course, if you'd actually read the article you'd have noticed that the Hubble Space Telescope has repeatedly detected plumes of what appeared to be water-ice, so it's not as if the hypothesis was pulled out of nowhere.
That's now how science works. That's not how any of this works. Try actually reading the paper - I'll even hand it to you on a silver platter.
They did not assume that it was a water plume -- they hypothesized that it was a water plume and then tested that hypothesis. "We went back and looked at [the anomalous data] more carefully and found that they were just what you'd expect if we'd flown through a plume."
They also did not report that their data was conclusive, rather they literally wrote:
"We show that the location, duration and variations of the magnetic field and plasma wave measurements are consistent with the interaction of Jupiter's corotating plasma with Europa if a plume with characteristics inferred from Hubble images were erupting from the region of Europa's thermal anomalies. These results provide strong independent evidence of the presence of plumes at Europa."
It may have been caused by a giant space whale farting. Until you either demonstrate that their data is inconsistent with a water-ice plume or provide a testable hypothesis that is consistent with the Galileo and/or Hubble, however, your objection is mere hand-waving against claims that were not made.
But actual is actual (page 30), not based on what the Pruitt EPA announces in a final rule, and WDNR's own data shows that Racine exceeded the 2015 NAAQS by more days above critical values than all but two other monitoring stations.
So show me the "actual" data that demonstrates attainment.
And the reason for the change between December (draft rule) and May (publication of final rule) was, especially given the lack of changes in other regions of the intended nonattainment areas? Guess what - that's what will be litigated. And it had better be based upon data rather than Walker/Pruitt political pressure.
Odd, because the final page, enclosure 1, lists "Racine" under "EPA's Intended Nonattainment Counties."
What was incorrect about that description, again?
Maybe you should link to it, rather than flatly contradicting published reports of the EPA's determination in December that Racine county was in nonattainment.
Milwaukee is north of Racine county, yet supposedly sufficiently smog-free to be in attainment while non-urbanized areas north and south of it are not.
For what? I mean, you've gotten so much else wrong you may as well add another basis upon which we can judge your failures...
Um, as you yourself wrote, the EPA?
"Tuesday's announcement was a shift from the EPA's stance in December when it determined a much broader area of southeastern Wisconsin failed to meet ozone standards.
At that time, the EPA declared Milwaukee, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington and Racine counties in violation. The same was true for northern Door County and Kenosha County east of I-94. The EPA also found that areas near the shoreline of Sheboygan and Manitowoc counties in violation."
And in case you missed it in the final rule:
Oddly an almost contigious non-attainment area simply skips Racine county, because air pollution totally does that.
But I'm sure that the chage versus the recommendation was totally data-driven. Have fun in court.
Odd that you chose to respond only to that item. Odder still that you would assume that I wasn't in favor of stopping diversions through the Chicago canals, which will likely be responsible for introducing asian carp to the Great Lakes, further destroying the fishery, unless shut down.
But by all means, let's keep adding Great Lakes water diversions on top of the ones Chicago started in 1848 and added to up to 1922. Just one more, ad infinitum, cannot hurt, and we've learned nothing since the 1920s anyways.
Not a shutdown. From TFA: "Pollution monitoring data show the county's ozone levels exceed the 70 parts per billion (ppb) limit. If Racine County had been designated a 'non-attainment' area, it would have required Foxconn to install stringent pollution control equipment."
Also, not particularly invested in your personal conclusion of attainment after having glanced at a one day, Spring season ozone report. Also from TFA: "The EPA, under Administrator Scott Pruitt, left Racine County off its non-attainment list despite an agency staff analysis of ozone levels in Wisconsin published in December, which found that the county's air exceeded federal ozone limits." We call that "arbitrary and capricious agency action" in my neck of the woods, and it's a good basis for a court suit.
Install the pollution controls required in a non-attainment area, and magically the suit goes away and the plant can run. Don't, and get sued.
Notice that the one thing not happening here is Wisconsin suing Illinois for failing to install ozone precursor emission controls in Illinois' developments.
No it's beyond stupid that, once again, I must point out that Chicago is a listed non-attainment area (and does follow non-attainment regulations, thank you), that Racine is in non-attainment yet was delisted as non-attainment area this year (and so will not be following those regulations, again thank you), and that you are confusing whether or not a county is in attainment with whether or not new development must employ ozone precursor emission controls.
From TFA: "Pollution monitoring data show the county's ozone levels exceed the 70 parts per billion (ppb) limit. If Racine County had been designated a âoenon-attainmentâ area, it would have required Foxconn to install stringent pollution control equipment."
You've admitted yourself that Chicago is listed as a non-attainment area. Please, provide any evidence that Chicago does not follow non-attainment area regulations. I'll wait.
Because the point is to reduce ozone non-attainment and prevent a race to the bottom where (oddly enough, Republican) states and counties disregard non-attainment so as to minimize environmental compliance costs while inflicting externalities such as respiratory disease deaths on their own citizens and those of surrounding states/counties. Non-attainment areas must work to reduce ozone precursor emissions themselves and minimize new sources of ozone precursor emissions with enhanced controls -- not merely blame their non-attainment on neighboring areas and go on their merry way.
If you don't like the way that the CAA operates, then build the political coalition necessary to change it. Until then, comply with the requirements of the CAA or face suit in court.
You mean, no reason beyond the fact that high levels of ozone are a health threat, so that adding to already high levels of ozone increases the health threat, and local sources of ozone generating emissions will have an even greater impact upon ozone levels that remote sources of such emissions.
You mean, it's hypocritical to expect Wisconsin to follow the Clean Air Act, which requires controls whether or not those emissions are local or imported, merely because every other county in the U.S. has to follow that law.
You mean that a plant located within 5 miles of the shore (something about a need to divert 6 millions gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan for industrial use, in violation of the Great Lakes Compact) is not within "an extremely narrow band that follows Wisconsin's shoreline."
Fine. You can argue all of that. In court.
"Chicago and most of the nation's other big urban areas have been on the list for years."
They already have, for years. No reason to leave Racine county off the list when it's already in non-attainment before the first shovel hits Foxconn's new grounds.
The best part of all of this is that you haven't even considered that "Hi Vlad!" is a sarcastic greeting to the ultimate employer of all those Internet Research Agency hacks, Vladimir Putin.
But perhaps President Putin is a race to himself, which would again be racist. I'm so confused.
So using someone's alleged ancestry to mock someone isn't racist to you?
nationality != ancestry; nationality != race.
See above. Pretty easy task, actually.
Hard to admit to a comment history "completely full of racist remarks" when you can only identify two uses of "Vlad" in connection with one poster on one day, and "Vlad" is not a racist remark.
But take it as you like it... I tremble in anticipation of your complaint to the bar.
An empty threat. Sod off.
So "completely full of racist remarks, like calling people 'Ivan'" is simply a lie.
Gotcha.
BTW, links please... having searched my comment history I cannot find any references to "Ivan," much less remarks beyond the two made today concerning the quite trollish DejaBu account.
Well, it's not as if one could ever lie about that. You've persuaded me!
Russian is a race? Why have I never seen that in a census form? I am shocked to learn that I am a racial self-hater, considering all the Eastern European ancestry. Must be the Western European ancestry rearing its ugly head. And they call it all "Caucasian." Such irony.
Or maybe, since you can't plausibly that claim comments denigrating a documented practice by a nation that considers the U.S. to be its biggest enemy is more than a "sloppy accusation," you thought that you needed to add a charge of racism to spice things up.
You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. If he is a Russian troll, why not make the charge? If he is not a Russian troll, why should I refrain from suggesting that he is behaving like one? I mean, you've persuaded me, so it's obviously the latter. But for the good of the country, or just to not be "racist," I should simply ignore anyone with a contrary opinion is a "DNC shill" or a member of an "advocacy group" posting anti-Trump propaganda rather than repeating the Truth (as declared by Fox & Friends).
Since you don't appear to have a problem with the political implication that everything someone says is unworthy of being responded to merely because of their being alleged "DNC shills" or members of "advocacy groups," and thus merely spouting anti-Trump propaganda, you'll excuse me for engaging in any sort of political commentary that I wish. Or not. It's not as if I'll stop because one person has an almost unique conception of race, or my posts don't rise to his personal standards.
Something about Assad and ISIS shooting everyone who isn't absolutely on their side.
You keep trotting this out like some kind of talisman. You're not Vlad, or a Russian bot. You're an idiot.
Yes, it's no longer the Slashdot it once was when you first joined... today.
Hi Vlad!