Slashdot Mirror

I have to read the headline in a special way that changes its meaning? How do I know to do that?

Where things don't quite seem to add up, and you have reason to suspect the involvement of journalists who are journalists, not scientists. Then you have to read much more carefully. Sad, but true.

Reading press releases or commentary instead of the actual paper is normally a waste of time and electrons if you actually want to understand the science.

The paper in question is here, but you'll need either access to Nature to read it, or access to Sci-hub to read it.

TFS says "390 billion tons". The study says 390 gigaTONNES. A US Imperial ton is not a metric tonne.

First, data useless without comparison data.

Second, even the original study itself is almost ridiculously vague - https://www.nature.com/article... : "...glaciers contributed 27 ± 22 millimetres to global mean sea-level rise from 1961 to 2016..." 27 plus/minus 22? LOL the errorbar is nearly the size of the datum. What does that say about the data?

Third, I'd say it's at least somewhat relevant to check historical data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png ) which shows that we are currently at a sea-level low that is HISTORIC - our sea levels haven't been this low for 200+ MILLION YEARS. The 'average' sea level for earth is easily 100m higher than today. If the curve is at all predictive, it shows that sea levels were low 230ish MYa and again 550ish MYa, both low points were followed by relatively sudden increase in sea level. So what's happening now ... is predictable.

Essentially, humanity evolved at low tide, now we're bitching that the tide's coming in and is giong to knock over our sandcastles.

But then I guess that makes me a 'denier'?

Seriously do you not pay attention to the major complaint that laws being passed to help curb climate cost tax payers lots of money?

Of course, I give it as much attention as it deserves. This is one of the standard claims that deniers trot out, here is a recent paper calculating that cost. It finds that keeping the temperature increase below 1.5 degrees would cost us negative $20 trillion by 2100.

There is, in fact, an entire journal dedicated to analyzing the costs of climate change, if you're interested in something more granular. It's a big topic with a lot to cover. It's called Climate Change Economics.

As someone who owns a managed forest,

Do you really?

I must point out that a) wood is a renewable resource

So what are you doing to maintain the soil?

and b) growing saplings fix a lot more CO2 from the atmosphere than mature trees do.

What? No, it most certainly does not. Old trees store carbon more rapidly than young trees. (And while we're here, they don't absorb more CO2 as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises, either.

I don't think you're managing a goddamned thing. You certainly don't know what you're talking about.

What they're arguing for, in their words:

The editors [of The American Statistician] introduce the collection with the caution “don’t say ‘statistically significant’”. Another article with dozens of signatories also calls on authors and journal editors to disavow those terms.

We agree, and call for the entire concept of statistical significance to be abandoned.

TFA summarizes this as a "ban on p-values".

I'm all in favor of evaluating work on its merits, but the p-value is still a useful tool for measuring one of the most important merits: the chance that the result was completely coincidental.

Yeah, scary shit
https://www.darpa.mil/program/...
https://www.nature.com/article...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.theguardian.com/sc...

Here is a link from Nature: Opponents of GMO know the least, but think they know the most

You needn't wait. Look in the acknowledgments section.

https://www.nature.com/article...

we measured the total mercury concentration in vegetables and grain crops collected from farms located near two coal-fired power plants. We found that 79% of vegetable samples and 67% of grain samples exceeded the PTWI’s food safety standards

https://www.nature.com/article...

Arsenic in rice is also very common.

The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments.

You are talking about two different things here, and I think it's worth clearly disentangling the two.

One is the specific paper being discussed here, which proposes a new feedback mechanism that operates only at high carbon dioxide concentrations, much higher than those in the present era. This one is indeed a simulation, and the authors themselves emphasize that it is speculative and needs to be studied further. In particular, this feedback mechanism may have applicability to understanding paleoclimate events.

but you seem to go on to be to take a pot-shot at climate science, and climate models in general.

What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.

Science doesn't, and can't, "prove things beyond doubt."

What science really does is make models (what the general populace calls "theories"), and then test the models against measurements. The models that explain the measurements better are kept, and the ones that don't are discarded. A scientific theory is never "proven beyond doubt"; in real science, every model is subject to being discarded when a better model comes along, or when new measurements are made that the old model can't explain.

Science is really a process of progressive iteration: the models get better and better as we understand more.

If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change."

Here is where you switch from discussing the paper in question, and go on to take pot shots at climate science.

Unless you mean "all science is at best an educated guessing game", no. The basic points of climate science, and specifically "man made climate change," are well understood, and well supported by evidence. The basic physics has been known for over a century, the basic model is over fifty years old now and well supported by evidence. The detailed models are working at accounting for details at progressively finer scales, but the basics are well understood.

The critics of this science have some valid points.

The main (or at least the loudest) "critics" of the science in the past have consisted almost entirely of people whose "science" is driven by ideology and funded by fossil-fuel companies, and they have proven to be wrong so many times over and over that their main problem is nobody takes them seriously. If they have "some valid points", those points have been so overwhelmed by the tidal wave of ideologically-driven garbage that they are entirely invisible.

Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown,

When you talk about "high profile" predictions, I think you're now moving into yet a different rant, which is a critique of media coverage of the science. Ignoring what the media considers "high profile", the actual predictions done by real science have, so far, mostly been accurate.

there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants,

You are confusing the science with the media attention. The paper in question is a good case in point. Notice how the headline on the article is "Extreme CO2 levels could trigger clouds ‘tipping point’ and 8C of global warming"-- that's "making news". And then read the actual paper, which has a single sentence talking about the possibility of this happeni

The problem here is that studies like this are based on *simulations* not observations of repeatable experiments.

You are talking about two different things here, and I think it's worth clearly disentangling the two.

One is the specific paper being discussed here, which proposes a new feedback mechanism that operates only at high carbon dioxide concentrations, much higher than those in the present era. This one is indeed a simulation, and the authors themselves emphasize that it is speculative and needs to be studied further. In particular, this feedback mechanism may have applicability to understanding paleoclimate events.

but you seem to go on to be to take a pot-shot at climate science, and climate models in general.

What we have here is a set of theories, which really cannot be proven beyond doubt.

Science doesn't, and can't, "prove things beyond doubt."

What science really does is make models (what the general populace calls "theories"), and then test the models against measurements. The models that explain the measurements better are kept, and the ones that don't are discarded. A scientific theory is never "proven beyond doubt"; in real science, every model is subject to being discarded when a better model comes along, or when new measurements are made that the old model can't explain.

Science is really a process of progressive iteration: the models get better and better as we understand more.

If we are being honest here, climate change science is, at best, an educated guessing game, not a proven beyond a doubt set of scientific laws, and specifically I mean "man made climate change."

Here is where you switch from discussing the paper in question, and go on to take pot shots at climate science.

Unless you mean "all science is at best an educated guessing game", no. The basic points of climate science, and specifically "man made climate change," are well understood, and well supported by evidence. The basic physics has been known for over a century, the basic model is over fifty years old now and well supported by evidence. The detailed models are working at accounting for details at progressively finer scales, but the basics are well understood.

The critics of this science have some valid points.

The main (or at least the loudest) "critics" of the science in the past have consisted almost entirely of people whose "science" is driven by ideology and funded by fossil-fuel companies, and they have proven to be wrong so many times over and over that their main problem is nobody takes them seriously. If they have "some valid points", those points have been so overwhelmed by the tidal wave of ideologically-driven garbage that they are entirely invisible.

Past high profile predictions of our demise from climate change have been wildly over blown,

When you talk about "high profile" predictions, I think you're now moving into yet a different rant, which is a critique of media coverage of the science. Ignoring what the media considers "high profile", the actual predictions done by real science have, so far, mostly been accurate.

there seems to be a bias towards "making news" in order to get research grants,

You are confusing the science with the media attention. The paper in question is a good case in point. Notice how the headline on the article is "Extreme CO2 levels could trigger clouds ‘tipping point’ and 8C of global warming"-- that's "making news". And then read the actual paper, which has a single sentence talking about the possibility of this happeni

This is actually several dozens of groups coming up with similar modeling and conclusions over the last few years, though yes they differ a small bit they are all saying the same thing. It's not one single study saying this. False characterization.

Not merely dozens of groups, there are hundreds of groups running climate models (possibly thousands: the main models are open source.).

They are all saying the same thing, if by that you mean "human generated greenhouse gasses, primarily carbon dioxide, are increasing the Earth's greenhouse effect, and having a warming effect on the climate."

Yes, that part is a clear scientific consensus, well understood, and replicated by many groups.

It is this new result (this paper), suggesting a new feedback mechanism only operating at much higher carbon dioxide levels, of which I am saying "a single study".

And not merely one study: it is one study of which the authors of the study themselves emphasize how preliminary the results are.

I think scientists should get credit for their work. Whether it's right or wrong.

They do, however, link to the actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

(Which is actually worth reading, since it is much more restrained than the doomsday headline. It's mostly about modelling past climate, not future climate.)

They name two scientist, both of whose names are immediately followed by the phrase "who was not involved in the study" (Prof Andrew Dessler at Texas A&M University, and Dr Kate Marvel at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science)

The publisher made it freely available -- a pleasant rarity.

Note that the focus of the paper appears to be a possible explanation for extreme temperature changes in the past, not that there's a credible chance of this happening any time in the near future.

I agree that Pollock's work was semi-random, not completely random.

From a 1999 article in Nature, Pollock's work had a fractal dimension that increased steadily during his life.

Even if it appeared to be random to most viewers, to me it suggests that he saw something other people didn't. Which probably makes him a genius (or insane). And since he was able to communicate that people outside his own mind, I would call him an artist of the highest order.

I doubt I could distinguish his works from a computer programmed to do the same thing. I can't tell the difference between a hyperrealist painting and a photograph, either, but I would much rather have a hyperrealist painting on my wall. For me, the method of production is integral to the artwork.

Actually, they do. The electron-electron interaction of a Cooper pair has energies on the order of 10E-3 eV. The "high temperature superconductors" assume that somehow you can compensate the random heat movement (kT) and (also random) electric repulsion (order of eVs) by interactions in the crystal lattice.

This is a bit disingenuous. First of all, the critical temperature of a superconductor is proportional to the pairing energy, so trying to find a high-temperature superconductor is synonymous with increasing this energy scale. Having a pairing energy of ~1meV is typical for a good low-temperature superconductor (like Nb), where the pairing is caused by phonons. Compensating the random heat movement (~kT) would happen precisely by increasing the pairing energy proportionally. Note also that we don't really know how most high-temperature superconductors work (cuprates), but some theories actually invoke the electric repulsion you brought up as a possible mechanism for superconductivity.

Since the main question was whether high-temperature superconductors break any known laws of physics, you might also be interested to know that we already have near-room-temperature superconductors. After the discovery of superconductivity at 203K (-70C) in sulfur hydride (SH3) a couple of years ago, the record was recently pushed to 250K (-23C) in lanthanum hydride (LaH10). The caveat is that these materials require millions of atmospheres of pressure to function at these temperatures, so they're not that useful for practical applications. But they do demonstrate that room-temperature superconductivity is not prohibited by any physical laws; for instance, a high-pressure hydride would still be subject to the same thermal (~kT) and electron repulsion (~eV) conditions you referred to, but they still work. Secondly, if one is able to replicate the conditions inside these crystals chemically instead of via external pressure (e.g. via the "pressure" between atomic layers in a crystal), they could in principle be made more useful.

As for the article itself: I agree that it sounds unlikely. I'll believe it when I see a published paper replicating the effect, and eliminating other possible explanations of the observations. There are bogus papers claiming to discover high-temperature superconductivity all the time, such as this obvious fraud that made some headlines last year.

https://www.nature.com/article...

The major technology currently being tuned at advanced LIGO (aLIGO) is "squeezed light" - manipulation of the quantum state of the light, so as to decrease phase uncertainty. Due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, this comes at the cost of increased amplitude uncertainty. The phase uncertainty is an important source of noise at high frequencies (which are more interesting), but the amplitude uncertainty manifests as low frequency noise (due to pressure on the mirrors), so this is a reasonable tradeoff.

The next step being developed for future upgrades(termed aLIGO+), is frequency dependent squeezing - the quadrature of the squeezing (i.e. it's direction in the amplitude/phase plane) can be made to rotate over time. This has the extraordinary effect of squeezing so as to reduce amplitude uncertainty at low frequencies, while reducing phase uncertainty at high frequencies (i.e. improving noise at all frequencies)

http://www.apc.univ-paris7.fr/...

https://www.nature.com/article...
https://sevenpillarsinstitute....
https://basicincome.org/news/2...

https://www.nature.com/nature/...

I'm not the AC above, but they probably thought about this one.

High temperature singlet-based magnetism from Hund’s rule correlations

Not paywalled. Thank you very much, Nature.

The livescience article is dumb, while the Nature article is serious. The terminology used is cat state, not laser cat.

If the physicists involved in the experiment actually described anything as "flying optical cat states" then they, and their lab, should be burned to the ground, with the 'journalist' inside.

They do in fact use that phase, here in context: "We then employ the entanglement to control the flying optical cat state by means of a coherent rotation and subsequent measurement of the atomic spin direction." But don't get out your torch and pitchfork just yet, it seems that cat state is actually accepted terminology.

Miraculously, the original Nature article isn't paywalled: https://www.nature.com/article...

Try this. This is the actual article (in a reputable journal, no less) that was swallowed to make that pile of shit that is TFA.

Let's see what is in this fact based plea from an anonymous coward: probably produce, Some scientists say, can cause, experts fear, according to one study.
The science is strong with this REEEEEE for help...

Whilst science-bashing is depressingly popular on slashdot (news for nerds who think science is a vast left wing conspiracy). At least go to the effort of engaging with the story? Theres literally a link to the primary study ( https://www.nature.com/article... , plug it into sci-hub if you don't have academic or institutional access ) in the article, which is pretty much on point for the story. The NYTimes story itself actually answers who "Some scientists" and "experts" are.

So heres the thing. Either you didn't actually read the article, or you did and aren't quite bright enough to parse it.

Or your a boring alt-right virtue signaller who wants to be the first to post "REEEEEE" into a comment, because clearly posting the same joke over and over and over again is the height of wit.

Embarassing!

The hypothesis that was being tested was that the more frequent heat waves at this location would result in smaller insect populations. This was based on previous research conducted in a laboratory environment. The data collected confirmed the hypothesis. This was not a random survey looking to explain the results.

The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.

People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.

It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.

Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.

The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.

The "case" against him is out of pure vengeance for exposing fallibility.

No matter how many times you repeat that it doesn't make it true. Everything they supposedly "expose" was already well known. For example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://www.nature.com/article...
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and so on and so forth.

He demonstated crappy journals exist (well known). He demonstrated that peer review is not robust to fraud (well known). He demonstated that journals accept crappy papers (well known).

What they then did was found that with a lot of work targeting known vulnerabilities, he could get 1/3 of his papers accepted. Fom that he concluded not that there was a problem with the jounals but that the whole field was junk.

Notice how they didn't try to do the same thing in a field they think isn't junk, in other words theyy jumped to conclusions with no control.

The "absurdity" of social sciences is not really the issue. Scientific Journals have been caught publishing AI generated nonsense as computer science papers, publishing pharmaceutical company marketing as medical papers, publishing a request to be removed from their mailing list as a paper and accepting a made-up researcher with no credentials as an editor.

The "absurdity" of social sciences is not really the issue. Scientific Journals have been caught publishing AI generated nonsense as computer science papers, publishing pharmaceutical company marketing as medical papers, publishing a request to be removed from their mailing list as a paper and accepting a made-up researcher with no credentials as an editor.

between 2C-4C is fine

Lol, if you say so. Yes we can "deal with it" - at the cost of hundreds of billions annually in adaption costs, not to mention displacing billions from coastal areas, threatened sea ecologies from CO2 acidification, famines from shifting agriculture in undeveloped nations, etc etc. Better to avoid those costs wherever possible, don't you think?

If you want to believe that fine

I believe the research. Linear kinetics models suggest an atmospheric lifetime of 30-95 years. Equilibrium models tell us that even after equilibrium is reached once more, it will be at a higher atmospheric concentration than today, meaning some of that CO2 will be keeping our temperatures high for thousands of years.

We can precisely measure solar irradiance (with the SORCE satellite among many other methods). We know that average solar irradiance has not increased, yet our temperatures have. Your assertions that CO2 is not much of a factor are entirely unconvincing. The planet will of course deal with all that CO2 in the much longer term (past CO2 pulses have taken hundreds of thousands of years to fully stabilise), but the issue is all the costs to us, in dollars and human suffering, that we'll experience along the way.

it's the only thing that can literally destroy our species

Heh, it's not even in the top 12. We've already proved we can keep the planet warm without even trying.

That's just common sense

Your "common sense" is contradicted by reality. The negative effects are already outweighing the positives, and we're now observing significant net decreases in yields for staples like wheat, rice and maize (and corresponding price hikes, reversing the historical trend). Cited there are numerous studies showing "large negative sensitivity of crop yields to extreme daytime temperatures around 30C", for example, and that's not likely to improve anytime soon. And far from being "nonsense", the research is showing substantial aridification for a massive 32% of the planet's land surface, for the mid-range RCP4.5 scenario.

It's past time you re-evaluated those firmly-held beliefs of yours, and took a hard look at the actual science.

The Banerji Protocols, evolved by Dr Prasanta and Pratip Banerji offer a standardised diagnostic system, different from the case history taking process associated with classical homeopathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Documentary Film) http://www.banerjiprotocolsned... Ohsawa, I., et al. Hydrogen acts as a therapeutic antioxidant by selectively reducing cytotoxic oxygen radicals, Nature Medicine, Advance Online Publication, May 7, 2007. Nature Publishing Group, Available online: http://www.nature.com/natureme... Pollack, G. Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh views from the water’s edge, Thirty-second annual faculty lecture, Jan 30, 2008, Univ. of WA. Available online: http://www.uwtv.org/programs/d... Shigenobu, K, et al. Fundamental properties of electrolyzed water, Journal of the Japanese Society for Food Science and Technology, 2000, Vol. 47 No. 5 pp. 390-93. Abstract available online: http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/... Watanabe, T. et al., Histopathological influence of alkaline ionized water on myocardial muscle of mother rats. J. Toxicol. Sci., 1998, Dec. 23:5, pp. 411-7. Dittman, R. Bio-Terrain, Evolutionary Biology and the Practice of Medicine in the Early 1900s: An Intro to René Quinton’s Marine Plasma. Explore! Vol. 15 No. 4 2006. Pischinger, A. The Extracellular Matrix and Ground Regulation: Basis for a Holistic Biological Medicine. North Atlantic Books, 2007, pp. 3-11. Flament, P. et al. The three-dimensional structure of an upper ocean vortex in the tropical Pacific Ocean Nature, 17 October 1996, Vol. 383, pp. 610-613. Available online: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... Pischinger, A. The Extracellular Matrix and Ground Regulation North Atlantic Books, 2007 . Lo, Shui Yin. The Biophysics Basis for Acupuncture and Health. Dragon Eye Press, 2004. Pal, S. et al. Water at DNA surfaces: Ultrafast dynamics in minor groove recognition. PNAS July 2003, Vol. 100, No. 14, pp. 8113-8118. Water–The Great Mystery is a recent documentary produced by Intention Media. The film interviews top scientists and researchers and presents the latest information on the structural and spiritual properties of water. It will leave no doubt in your mind that water is capable of almost anything. http://www.vibrantvitalwater.c... Tiller, W., Dibble, W., and Kohane, M. Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics, Pavior Publishing, 2001, pg. xi. Rein, G. et al. Structural changes in water and DNA associated with new physiologically measurable states. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1994; 8(3) pp. 438-439. McTaggart, L. www.TheIntentionExperiment.com, results of the experiment available online: http://www.theintentionexperim... Smith, C. W. Quanta and coherence effects in water and living systems, J. Alt and Comp Med, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2004, pp. 69-78. Department of Energy Non-chemical technologies for scale and hardness control. DOE-EE-0162 Correa, M., et al. SCD probiotics in the remediation of water contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and copper in Reseda Lake, Los Angeles, U.S. 2009. Emoto, M. The Message from Water, IHM Press, Japan.

The Banerji Protocols, evolved by Dr Prasanta and Pratip Banerji offer a standardised diagnostic system, different from the case history taking process associated with classical homeopathy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Documentary Film) http://www.banerjiprotocolsned... Ohsawa, I., et al. Hydrogen acts as a therapeutic antioxidant by selectively reducing cytotoxic oxygen radicals, Nature Medicine, Advance Online Publication, May 7, 2007. Nature Publishing Group, Available online: http://www.nature.com/natureme... Pollack, G. Water, Energy, and Life: Fresh views from the water’s edge, Thirty-second annual faculty lecture, Jan 30, 2008, Univ. of WA. Available online: http://www.uwtv.org/programs/d... Shigenobu, K, et al. Fundamental properties of electrolyzed water, Journal of the Japanese Society for Food Science and Technology, 2000, Vol. 47 No. 5 pp. 390-93. Abstract available online: http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/... Watanabe, T. et al., Histopathological influence of alkaline ionized water on myocardial muscle of mother rats. J. Toxicol. Sci., 1998, Dec. 23:5, pp. 411-7. Dittman, R. Bio-Terrain, Evolutionary Biology and the Practice of Medicine in the Early 1900s: An Intro to René Quinton’s Marine Plasma. Explore! Vol. 15 No. 4 2006. Pischinger, A. The Extracellular Matrix and Ground Regulation: Basis for a Holistic Biological Medicine. North Atlantic Books, 2007, pp. 3-11. Flament, P. et al. The three-dimensional structure of an upper ocean vortex in the tropical Pacific Ocean Nature, 17 October 1996, Vol. 383, pp. 610-613. Available online: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... Pischinger, A. The Extracellular Matrix and Ground Regulation North Atlantic Books, 2007 . Lo, Shui Yin. The Biophysics Basis for Acupuncture and Health. Dragon Eye Press, 2004. Pal, S. et al. Water at DNA surfaces: Ultrafast dynamics in minor groove recognition. PNAS July 2003, Vol. 100, No. 14, pp. 8113-8118. Water–The Great Mystery is a recent documentary produced by Intention Media. The film interviews top scientists and researchers and presents the latest information on the structural and spiritual properties of water. It will leave no doubt in your mind that water is capable of almost anything. http://www.vibrantvitalwater.c... Tiller, W., Dibble, W., and Kohane, M. Conscious Acts of Creation: The Emergence of a New Physics, Pavior Publishing, 2001, pg. xi. Rein, G. et al. Structural changes in water and DNA associated with new physiologically measurable states. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1994; 8(3) pp. 438-439. McTaggart, L. www.TheIntentionExperiment.com, results of the experiment available online: http://www.theintentionexperim... Smith, C. W. Quanta and coherence effects in water and living systems, J. Alt and Comp Med, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2004, pp. 69-78. Department of Energy Non-chemical technologies for scale and hardness control. DOE-EE-0162 Correa, M., et al. SCD probiotics in the remediation of water contaminated with pathogenic bacteria and copper in Reseda Lake, Los Angeles, U.S. 2009. Emoto, M. The Message from Water, IHM Press, Japan.

The conclusion of the people who did this study is not what you claim is. Instead the strongest statement about renewables is "The noise amplitude tends to increase with the shares of intermittent renewables." But no claim is made that this "compromises grid stability" or even that this is the biggest source of noise in the system. Instead the key finding is that trading has a big impact:

"At first glance, a typical recording of the grid frequency
(Fig. 1) reveals that it coincides extremely well with the
nominal grid reference frequency, highlighting the efficiency
of today’s frequency control. Only rarely do we observe
large deviations from the nominal frequency. These
large disturbances often occur when a new power dispatch
has been settled on by trading (every 15 minutes),
introducing jumps and fluctuations of the frequency"

The study is here:
https://www.nature.com/article...

The strongest statement in the scientific paper is "The noise amplitude tends to increase with the shares of intermittent renewables." One of the key findings is that trading causes relatively huge fluctuations which occur every 15 minutes as trading occurs at this interval. So claiming that "renewables compromise grid stability" is very much exaggerated.

The actual research your linked article refers to is here:
https://www.nature.com/article...

ArXiv link is here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.084...

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-...

1993 https://www.sciencedirect.com/...

1980
https://www.nature.com/article...

Many others. Basically scientists got curious about what possible risks to unknoqn biospheres could exist from burying radioactive waste and started looking, and kept finding bacteria in really absurd places. Plus the petroleum industry always had an interest in the topic because it helps explain certain sources of biomass that may well be producing some sources of carbon fuels that don't quit fit the usual "buried ancient plant matter" theories

The research and medical community now sees sex as more complex than male and female, and gender as a spectrum that includes transgender people and those who identify as neither male nor female

Except the frequency hasn't actually increased, according to the latest analysis and the other analysis (cited by the previous link in the post you responded to). So no one is forgetting about frequency, nor intensity, but according to the science, neither of those have changed, instead they've been consistent since 1900.

Sorry, I actually read the article. You should try it. We aren't experiencing stronger hurricanes on average, so there is no need to account for that in damage levels or in cause. Here's a relevant quote from the article you either didn't actually read or didn't understand:

Fortunately, scientists have invested a lot of effort into looking at data on extreme weather events, and recently summarized their findings in a major United Nations climate report, the fifth in a series dating back to 1990. That report concluded that there’s little evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Let you claim this is an outdated analysis, here's the most recent analysis of that very thing published in Nature just yesterday. From the abstract:

Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.

Besides accumulated cyclone energy worldwide trending down for the last 25 years, there is no discernible climate-change signal in the US economic damage from hurricanes. As far as damage/bigger storms go, it seems what is predicted to happen from climate change isn't happening - the facts don't back it up.

Comes to the opposite conclusion about storm damage, stating that there is no discernible climate-change trend to hurricane damage in the US. Who's right? Perhaps it's too early to make a judgment given the data is so conflicting...

Nature magazine says otherwise for a new peer-reviewed paper.

New paper in Nature that says there is no climate trend to hurricane damage. Which is opposite of what the Obama-started report states.

From the article, for more detail make sure to look at the link to the nature.com article https://www.nature.com/article...

Ahh, yes, a large portion of the Atlantic seaboard is sinking. Around 2.8mm/yr average, and 1.8mm to 4.8mm/yr i n the central Atlantic seaboard.

Yep. From the original paper ( https://www.nature.com/article... ):
"Owing to the limited length of the indoor space (60 m), we used a bungeed launch system to accelerate the aircraft from stationary to a steady flight velocity of 5 m/s within 5 m, and performed free flight in the remaining 55 m of flight space. "

Besides the weight of the batteries, the main issue is this:
"Although we have shown that EAD thrust density is sufficient at the scale of unmanned aerial vehicles, where the available ratio of frontal area to weight is high, it is not currently sufficient for high-speed flight at the scale of commercial aviation: the area thrust density of our aeroplane was 3 N/m^2, that of a typical conventional unmanned aerial vehicle is of the order of 10 N/m^2, and that of a modern civil airliner is of the order of 1000 N/m^2."

Nevertheless it is really cool technology.

Or you could measure current by counting electrons.

https://www.nature.com/article...

"There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected tropical cyclone statistics, and how continued warming may influence many aspects of future tropical cyclone activity."

and

" Investigation of additional tropical cyclones is needed before making a general conclusion."