Absolutely! And then when consumers drop their carriers overwhelmingly because you can't download the latest apps from the Play Store, you can't use GMail seamlessly, calendaring doesn't work, etc., we can build NEW carriers who will lock everything down to proprietary operating systems, stores, and ecosystems!
Guess what - consumers have always been the product! Ever since Ogg realized Thag wanted his sharp flint. He could get Thag to not only give him stuff (which took Thag's time), but he learned that people like Thag wanted sharp flints. And what kinds of flints different Thags wanted. Marketing was born then, back at the beginning. People are always the product.
I understand that. And this study doesn't help as it doesn't even tell us the concentration of microplastics in any meaningful unit (mass, for example). So we don't know how much is harmful, and we don't know how much we have - but we do have a count of an irrelevant number and that can be scary!
No, it says "n/kg" and talks about the number of particles. Unless they really meant "ng/kg" and "nanograms" rather than particles - it's talking about the number of pieces per kilogram, not the amount of plastic.
No it's not there. There is no talk about tolerance bands, adjustments are not described, it's just "this is the 4th warmest". It's a leap of faith, not a scientific paper.
Sorry, I cannot read the source report since it's paywalled. And I still don't get it - a bead with a length but not diameter or width and depth? And a range of over an order of magnitude, why not just list the mass rather than a single dimension of a 3 dimensional object, that can have a large range of densities?
If that were true how would you explain that they found that sea salt consistently had a higher concentration vs rock salt and lake salt?
We don't know that. We know the number of particles was different, but that is nothing about the concentration. What was the mass of the plastic? Would you rather eat 100 particles each of 100 ug size, or 10 particles each of 1 gram size? The number of particles is irrelevant; the dosage/mass matters - and that is not given.
Yeah, again that's the number of particles, but 1000 particles each 100nm in diameter is a LOT less material than 100 particles each 100um in diameter. If I told you that the lethal dosage of some chemical was 17 grams, and you just drank liquid with 44 in it - wouldn't you want to know if I was talking grams, mg, ug, or some other unit?
It's important because they say significantly different things about the rate of warming. Which is correct, and why do they only diverge after 2000? Was the data correct before, and then corrupted after 2000? I guess they aren't important if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...
Why, is the data presented there bad? It's straight from GISS, RSS, HadCRUT and more. I know with many people the messenger is more important than the message, but if you're open-minded enough to accept data you didn't personally capture, then why not look at the graphs? Data is data - it has no bias, unless it's "adjusted" (faked) to create a bias.
We had the same heating from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000. Supposedly CO2 really didn't start impacting things until post-WWII - so what drove the earlier rise? How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?
GISS data V3.3 to V4.0. A rather significant change starting in 2000, wouldn't you say? Given improvements in measurements and instruments, I'd expect the adjustments to be pre-1980, not post-2000.
A comparison of RSS 3.3 and 4.0, showing a 50% increase starting in 2000. Why the big adjustment? This isn't propaganda - this is a direct plot of the actual RSS data with two different adjustments - and the later adjustment increasing the temperature increase by 50%.
Take a look at the temp records and you'll see it was pretty flat from ~2001 to ~2014 as well. And if you look at the graph at the bottom of the post you'll see GISS data showing the warming from 1970 to 2000 was not unique (same thing happened ~1915 to ~1945). And that GISS' own data shows essentially no trend from ~1990 to the present. And the models show poor correlation with the early rise - and the current pause.
Trump isn't winning because he's some genius. He's winning because he has the balls to say "fuck you" and walk away from a bad deal.
Sometimes, genius is just recognizing the obvious and ignoring the nay-sayers. Like Einstein and his answer to the letter from 100 scientists saying he was wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely! And then when consumers drop their carriers overwhelmingly because you can't download the latest apps from the Play Store, you can't use GMail seamlessly, calendaring doesn't work, etc., we can build NEW carriers who will lock everything down to proprietary operating systems, stores, and ecosystems!
Guess what - consumers have always been the product! Ever since Ogg realized Thag wanted his sharp flint. He could get Thag to not only give him stuff (which took Thag's time), but he learned that people like Thag wanted sharp flints. And what kinds of flints different Thags wanted. Marketing was born then, back at the beginning. People are always the product.
I understand that. And this study doesn't help as it doesn't even tell us the concentration of microplastics in any meaningful unit (mass, for example). So we don't know how much is harmful, and we don't know how much we have - but we do have a count of an irrelevant number and that can be scary!
No, it says "n/kg" and talks about the number of particles. Unless they really meant "ng/kg" and "nanograms" rather than particles - it's talking about the number of pieces per kilogram, not the amount of plastic.
No it's not there. There is no talk about tolerance bands, adjustments are not described, it's just "this is the 4th warmest". It's a leap of faith, not a scientific paper.
Some plastics - ABS, PVDF, CPVC - will dissolve in hydrochloric (stomach) acid. So dosage would matter.
Sorry, I cannot read the source report since it's paywalled. And I still don't get it - a bead with a length but not diameter or width and depth? And a range of over an order of magnitude, why not just list the mass rather than a single dimension of a 3 dimensional object, that can have a large range of densities?
If that were true how would you explain that they found that sea salt consistently had a higher concentration vs rock salt and lake salt?
We don't know that. We know the number of particles was different, but that is nothing about the concentration. What was the mass of the plastic? Would you rather eat 100 particles each of 100 ug size, or 10 particles each of 1 gram size? The number of particles is irrelevant; the dosage/mass matters - and that is not given.
Yeah, again that's the number of particles, but 1000 particles each 100nm in diameter is a LOT less material than 100 particles each 100um in diameter. If I told you that the lethal dosage of some chemical was 17 grams, and you just drank liquid with 44 in it - wouldn't you want to know if I was talking grams, mg, ug, or some other unit?
Nothing about that. Microplastics could be nanograms or milligrams, and that is a massive difference.
It's important because they say significantly different things about the rate of warming. Which is correct, and why do they only diverge after 2000? Was the data correct before, and then corrupted after 2000? I guess they aren't important if you don't want to accept data that may be a bit contrary to your chosen world-view...
Why, is the data presented there bad? It's straight from GISS, RSS, HadCRUT and more. I know with many people the messenger is more important than the message, but if you're open-minded enough to accept data you didn't personally capture, then why not look at the graphs? Data is data - it has no bias, unless it's "adjusted" (faked) to create a bias.
One has us under the new-magical 1.5 deg C over the next century; the other has us well over. And which is correct?
What do you have against Oompa Loompas? You want Willie Wonka to send them back and get eaten by Vermicious Knids?
GISS is accurate to about 0.2 deg C, meaning this claim is within a few dozen previous years, when you include the tolerance bands.
Which dataset is correct? How about in light of the fact that we had similar warming rises pre-WWII with the same slope and magnitude.
We had the same heating from ~1915 to ~1945 as we saw from ~1970 to 2000. Supposedly CO2 really didn't start impacting things until post-WWII - so what drove the earlier rise? How much of the rise we've seen post-WWII was natural, and how much was man-made?
GISS data V3.3 to V4.0. A rather significant change starting in 2000, wouldn't you say? Given improvements in measurements and instruments, I'd expect the adjustments to be pre-1980, not post-2000.
A comparison of RSS 3.3 and 4.0, showing a 50% increase starting in 2000. Why the big adjustment? This isn't propaganda - this is a direct plot of the actual RSS data with two different adjustments - and the later adjustment increasing the temperature increase by 50%.
Take a look at the temp records and you'll see it was pretty flat from ~2001 to ~2014 as well. And if you look at the graph at the bottom of the post you'll see GISS data showing the warming from 1970 to 2000 was not unique (same thing happened ~1915 to ~1945). And that GISS' own data shows essentially no trend from ~1990 to the present. And the models show poor correlation with the early rise - and the current pause.
Here you go: the heart of the great garbage patch on Google Maps. Here's a bunch of photos from Scripps Institute as well. The plastic is about 8 square meters per square kilometer of ocean, being about 0.0008% waste by area, or about 0.0000005% by mass assuming it's all concentrated in the top meter of water.
Trump isn't winning because he's some genius. He's winning because he has the balls to say "fuck you" and walk away from a bad deal.
Sometimes, genius is just recognizing the obvious and ignoring the nay-sayers. Like Einstein and his answer to the letter from 100 scientists saying he was wrong.
You can upgrade to Windows 10 for free, of course,
You can get full Windows 10 FOR FREE. Locked to a stripped down version of the OS? Hardly.
Already happening! Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, and Indonesia are exploding with relocating factories from China, for the low-cost stuff...
The same way that Trump is Russia's pawn even though he's slapping more meaningful sanctions on Russia in 18 months than Obama did in 8 years...