LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+24 25 1
Published 3 years ago with 6 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • drunkenninja
    +3

    Importantly, the findings show that the features previously identified as rings are actually part of the galactic disk, extending the known width of the Milky Way from 100,000 light years across to 150,000 light years, said Yan Xu, a scientist at the National Astronomical Observatories of China (which is part of the Chinese Academy of Science in Beijing), former visiting scientist at Rensselaer, and lead author of the paper.

    Makes me wonder what other measurements astronomers got wrong. I mean, a 5%-10% error margin would be acceptable even expected, but 50% is massive.

    • ttubravesrock
      +3

      Along those same lines, what about some of the measurements here on earth that we take as fact?

      We use ice cores to determine what CO2 levels were thousands of years ago. However, evidence exists that ice cores do not 'lock' CO2 in as reliably as we assume. I read a paper by some guy with a polish sounding name recently where he is not disputing global warming but he is disputing the reliability of CO2 measurements (I agree with this part) as well as the fact that high CO2 levels will hinder life on the planet (not so sure about his points on this part).

      His biggest points are that the 'hockey stick' curve that we've all seen is not a true representation of global CO2 levels and that any CO2 levels prior to 1958 are false. It's like finding a fossil and assuming that the animal was only bones... no tissue, skin, organs, etc. (my words not his) That said, CO2 levels since 1958 HAVE been rising.

      Back to the point... I got carried away a bit.

      I'm excited to see where else we may have been incorrect in previous measurements.

      • drunkenninja
        +3

        Agreed, there are surely other measurements with the likelihood of large margins of error, and I'm sure as technology gets more advanced we can correct those measurements. Are you however denying the possibility that our climate is in fact warming due to human activity on earth?

        • ttubravesrock
          +2

          to your question: no, just saying that comparing CO2 levels from present day to CO2 levels from thousands of years ago measured from ice cores is not a valid way to prove it.

          • drunkenninja
            +2

            Ok, was just wondering because there is a heck of a lot more evidence for climate change than CO2 measurements. This is a good place to start for anyone wondering why 97% of the climate research community is in consensus about climate change and that fact that our planet's temperature is being affected by human activity.

            • ttubravesrock
              +2

              Oh, I know. I just brought up this point because this snap was about incorrect measurements.

Here are some other snaps you may like...