Average high temp for a Tucson summer is 99 degrees, so no, 114 is not a cold day. In fact, there's only 7 days on record where it's ever reached that high.
Oculus decided that they already had their money and would sell their devices
Except of course, Oculus hasn't charged them anything yet, and the devices are not "theirs" in any sense.
All these preorders are is a place in a queue. You don't know which place, and it isn't even the only queue. If you want to try your luck with a different queue, then go right ahead, but feeling anger that "your" device isn't in your hands yet just sounds whiney to me. (Disclosure: am also somewhere in an Oculus queue)
You know what we're all paying for, and have been since the industrial revolution started? Health costs. $180B every year in the US, just from coal power alone. The externalised costs of fossil fuels get paid by the weak and infirm, not just the poor.
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
I wouldn't normally have bothered with a bullshit rant like that, but this bit of misinformation needs to die:
If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate
That's not even remotely true. Plant growth is limited by any number of factors including water, sunshine, a whole range of soil nutrients, pests, symbiotes, genetic factors etc. You can double the CO2 all you like, but if irrigation is an issue like a lot of the US and desert belt counties, you won't increase yield. Much of Europe is limited by sunshine, not CO2.
What you will get is more CO2. Even if vegetation did double its growth rate then CO2 levels would still net increase, and so would the greenhouse effect. So would ocean acidity, and so would all the other consequences we're trying so hard to avoid.
It's a lightfield display. It's not so much that they project onto your retina (like single-lens optics do), but that they use a microlens array to project light from multiple angles & focal lengths, allowing your eyes to refocus naturally and eliminating the accommodation-vergence conflict issue. It also helps the virtual image to blend much more naturally into the real world.
Downsides are decreased resolution (though they seem to have that under control), and greatly increased computation requirements. I don't expect their consumer offering to be untethered any time soon, but it's quite possible they've been spending all that seed capital on dedicated ASICs to help with that.
I'd be taking the Chinese results with a grain of salt too, at least until they produce a more definite paper on their results.
The NASA results were pretty careful though. I don't know what eddy-currents modeling they've done, but they did of course test with a control device that had a similar RF load but no shaped cavity, and that experienced zero thrust.
I agree it's still hard to accept until it's on firmer theoretical footing, so further testing is most definitely required. But neither should it be dismissed out of hand.
The amount of thrust they're seeing, even at microNewtons, is far higher than could be produced by the radiation pressure of simply emitting photons at those energy levels. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be all this fuss.
NASA measured an average of 91 microN with 17 W, or 5.3 microN/W. The Chinese measured 720 milliN at 2500 W - about 300 microN/W. By contrast, expected radiation pressure would be closer to 0.003 microN/W.
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history, then they have little choice but to trust the results of others. And unless they also have a detailed understanding of every contributing field, and are willing to take the time to read, grasp, and critique every significant paper in every field that's relevant to their own work, then they generally accept and trust the findings of the experts in that field as well. And since even the less squishy fields rarely achieve 100% total agreement in every detail, those findings are usually the product of the majority conclusion.
I understand many scientific principles, and I've read numerous climate papers, but I don't pretend to have a detailed knowledge of a complex field like climatology, so I'm aware that my opinion doesn't count for much in that field. If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
Unless an equally expert climatologist disagreed with him. Presumably they also know things I don't. Possibly something Tol doesn't - or vice versa. I could try to judge for myself, but it's still an uninformed opinion, and it doesn't really answer the question - what is the source of their disagreement? Discounting conspiracies or kickbacks or whatever, I have to assume that the point in question is open to some interpretation. So I would reserve judgement until they can reach agreement.
And if 1000 equally expert climatologists all disagreed with Tol? Clearly his interpretation is not shared by many. Unless vital information is being hidden, perhaps Tol is a true genius among his peers, yet is unable to clearly communicate his insights - or perhaps he's just wrong. Occam's Razor suggests the latter.
For the layman observer who needs to make decisions, such a consensus provides a way to pick the more likely correct interpretation - and if further evidence comes to light that vindicates Tol, then the consensus will change, policies may also need to change, and Tol will be famous. But historically, this happens rarely. The minority is more often wrong, so the consensus interpretation is usually safest.
Most of these grants are for showing that "C causes D"
Citation needed. Also, all experiments start with a hypothesis; that does not imply that experimental results that falsify the hypothesis are considered a "waste". If your methodology and evidence is strong, you will get published, particularly if you can successfully falsify "dogma". However, few papers manage to do that, mostly because it's pretty rare that countervailing evidence can be found.
they would have a hard time getting new funding
Except for the other sources of funding I mentioned. The government is not the only entity with money. There's no shortage of researchers on corporate payrolls, too.
Exxon's original work didn't prove that AGW "was happening"
Agreed, I wasn't trying to imply that. Exxon was just spending millions on misinformation that contradicted their own findings (and that of other scientists).
many objections to climate change policies are unrelated to whether AGW is happening or not
Also agreed. But that's a separate issue. The science informs the policies but does not dictate them.
the US government has a long history of propaganda and misrepresentation of facts
No argument there either. But to date the prime examples of such in this issue have been to suppress the science, when scientists found evidence of AGW. The current administration appears to agree with the science, and I am unaware of any government attempts to gag dissent in this case.
Maybe you could show me where these respected climatologists defend breaking anonymity and blindness etc?
Oh, I dunno - starting with the paper passing peer review, perhaps? If these alleged crimes against science were so heinous, how did they get past review in the first place? Either there's a big conspiracy among the authors, the reviewers, the publishers, and more - or there was no crime in the first place. Once again, Tol's particular interpretation is not widely shared. Again, why is that?
If you can explain why only the usual suspects seem have a problem with the paper while the peer reviewers, the authors of similar surveys who endorsed it in TFA, and most other climatologists are apparently fine with it, then I'll listen. Try to do it without using the words "conspiracy" or "groupthink".
As for the relevancy of the AMS, the claimed 97% consensus figure is among climatologists. The AMS are not climatologists. Neither are most scientists. And as the paper notes, consensus is proportional to expertise in the field, so it's no surprise that consensus is not as high among those who know less about the field.
You think that's a more practical solution than emissions control?
Phase out the coal & oil, transition to carbon-neutral energy, and now we can support high populations, economic growth, and lavish lifestyles with no fear of climate change.
Because existing models don't even attempt to predict short-term cycles like ENSO. These are considered "noise" that has no effect on the underlying trend, despite temporarily slowing or boosting it. That's what they're "missing", and this is not news.
Use the models for predicting long-term trends, not what the temperature will be like next year, and they work as designed.
scientists who get funding must reach a pre-determined conclusion. QED
That doesn't follow at all. Different conclusions would be unexpected given the existing evidence, but are hardly "forbidden". They merely have to be based on sound methodology - a barrier which most dissenting opinions seem to fail at.
Funding yet more research into the fundamental question of whether warming is happening may be considered a waste at this late stage, but if you could demonstrate a strong enough case then you could convince someone. And as I pointed out there's plenty of alternatives for funding than government.
You implied that there was a financial and power imbalance. I point out correctly that it goes the other way
I didn't claim that governments have less power than the fossil fuel industries, but I did point out (with citations) that the only evidence of abuses of this power, by either side, have been to restrict genuine scientific research when it found AGW was happening, and to spread misinformation about those conclusions.
The rest of your comment is just fact-free opinions. You're welcome to those, but they're unconvincing to others.
you argue that since the paper produces "correct" results then the paper must be correct
My words:
Producing the "correct" results [...] should be a clue that Tol may not be entirely correct in his assessment
See the difference? I never claimed that the paper "must" be anything, only that producing results that have been widely corroborated weakens the case against it. This merely adds to the expert conclusions of the reviewers that have endorsed it.
science is about the ability to reproduce results.
And when those results have been reproduced, and confirmed and corrorborated by hundreds of papers over decades of research, yet a few die-hards still insist that the evidence is invalid and the conclusions are all wrong? This happens regularly in science.
Consensus doesn't provide 100% definitive answers or "settle" the question once and for all (arguably an impossible task); new evidence can and has changed mainstream views (though even evidence is rarely definitive either). But given that there will always be some inevitable disagreement in any complex field, how else would you suggest choosing the current best scientific opinion to be given for laymen and policymakers? If you wait until agreement is 100% total, nothing will happen - science results will get "stalled in committee". Consensus isn't picking votes out of a hat, it's the considered expert opinions of the large majority of practicing scientists, and as the saying goes it may not always be perfect but it's useful.
I'm not really sure how the opinion of AMS members is relevant to climatology. What is probably more relevant is the endorsement of every major scientific organisation around the globe - that's more indicative of a strong case, don't you think?
Anyway, you're still convinced that the methods used were misleading because Tol said so, and the equally valid opinion of other respected climatologists that the methods are fine, does not hold any weight with you. Why is that? Clearly there are differences in interpretation. I choose to go with what the majority of experts say is correct, since I don't have in-depth experience in that field and they do, whereas you apparently choose to go with the minority opinion, because...
My point stands. There are disagreements on both sides, yet the journal has not withdrawn the paper, and it is still being cited and endorsed today. If Tol has been unable to convince his peers despite the alleged "mountain of blatant evidence", then maybe that evidence just isn't as strong as you think it is.
I know it's more comfortable to think that there must be a huge cover-up, or all those other climatologists that disagree with the views you hold so close must be incompetent or are all stuck in group-think or whatever, but you have to concede the possibility that if many other respected researchers disagree with your preferred researcher, then perhaps it's not your researcher that's automatically in the right...
There is a considerable history of ineffective and costly policies here.
In who's opinion; yours? You're still not citing any actual studies. I ask again; where is your evidence? In contrast, it appears those policies are already starting to work, despite intransigent resistence from vested interests and people such as yourself.
According to Tol. Not according the authors, or the peer reviewers, or the other researchers who have been backing it. So why do you assume Tol is the only one who could possibly be correct?
From the reply to Tol's T14 paper:
* T14’s consensus value is based on a math error that manufactures ~300 nonexistent rejection papers. * T14 infers data drift using an inappropriate statistic that poorly correlates with consensus. * Analysis of appropriate consensus statistics reveals no significant data drift. * T14 wrongly conflates abstract ratings and author self-ratings; differences are detailed in C13. * Reanalysis without T14’s errors confirms 97 ± 1% consensus on AGW.
Producing the "correct" results - i.e. matching five other studies that all found similar levels of consensus - should be a clue that Tol may not be entirely correct in his assessment. The fact that the journal did not deem it necessary to retract the original article, should be another.
They're only worth trillions if the demand says so. And demand will not continue for ever - coal is already almostflat. Peak Oil will take longer, but the writing on the wall is already visible, with EVs predicted to make up one quarter of the global market in just 10 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Average high temp for a Tucson summer is 99 degrees, so no, 114 is not a cold day. In fact, there's only 7 days on record where it's ever reached that high.
This story wasn't cheap, but it can be used as many times as needed without further payments.
Yeah, such greed.
Oculus decided that they already had their money and would sell their devices
Except of course, Oculus hasn't charged them anything yet, and the devices are not "theirs" in any sense.
All these preorders are is a place in a queue. You don't know which place, and it isn't even the only queue. If you want to try your luck with a different queue, then go right ahead, but feeling anger that "your" device isn't in your hands yet just sounds whiney to me. (Disclosure: am also somewhere in an Oculus queue)
This. Dollars matter to the tax collector, but remaining available income is what matters to the tax payer.
Paying 20% tax of $40k has much more impact when you only had $10k left after basic costs of living, than paying 50% of $40M.
If only global warming would make this endless procession of straw men dry up and blow away..
And you base all this on science, or what some guy with unclear motives has told you, or just your gut feeling?
Because the science is pretty clear on all this. The "hockey stick" paper is just one of thousands that are pointing to the same future.
You know what we're all paying for, and have been since the industrial revolution started? Health costs. $180B every year in the US, just from coal power alone. The externalised costs of fossil fuels get paid by the weak and infirm, not just the poor.
Don't you think it's past time to finish the job, get off the 300 year dino juice addiction, and invest in cleaner power - solar, wind, wave, nuclear, whatever - so we can have our cake and eat it too, without getting poisoned in the process?
I wouldn't normally have bothered with a bullshit rant like that, but this bit of misinformation needs to die:
If you increase the co2 levels to 1000ppm, vegitation will double its growth rate
That's not even remotely true. Plant growth is limited by any number of factors including water, sunshine, a whole range of soil nutrients, pests, symbiotes, genetic factors etc. You can double the CO2 all you like, but if irrigation is an issue like a lot of the US and desert belt counties, you won't increase yield. Much of Europe is limited by sunshine, not CO2.
What you will get is more CO2. Even if vegetation did double its growth rate then CO2 levels would still net increase, and so would the greenhouse effect. So would ocean acidity, and so would all the other consequences we're trying so hard to avoid.
It's a lightfield display. It's not so much that they project onto your retina (like single-lens optics do), but that they use a microlens array to project light from multiple angles & focal lengths, allowing your eyes to refocus naturally and eliminating the accommodation-vergence conflict issue. It also helps the virtual image to blend much more naturally into the real world.
Downsides are decreased resolution (though they seem to have that under control), and greatly increased computation requirements. I don't expect their consumer offering to be untethered any time soon, but it's quite possible they've been spending all that seed capital on dedicated ASICs to help with that.
I'd be taking the Chinese results with a grain of salt too, at least until they produce a more definite paper on their results.
The NASA results were pretty careful though. I don't know what eddy-currents modeling they've done, but they did of course test with a control device that had a similar RF load but no shaped cavity, and that experienced zero thrust.
I agree it's still hard to accept until it's on firmer theoretical footing, so further testing is most definitely required. But neither should it be dismissed out of hand.
The amount of thrust they're seeing, even at microNewtons, is far higher than could be produced by the radiation pressure of simply emitting photons at those energy levels. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be all this fuss.
NASA measured an average of 91 microN with 17 W, or 5.3 microN/W. The Chinese measured 720 milliN at 2500 W - about 300 microN/W. By contrast, expected radiation pressure would be closer to 0.003 microN/W.
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history, then they have little choice but to trust the results of others. And unless they also have a detailed understanding of every contributing field, and are willing to take the time to read, grasp, and critique every significant paper in every field that's relevant to their own work, then they generally accept and trust the findings of the experts in that field as well. And since even the less squishy fields rarely achieve 100% total agreement in every detail, those findings are usually the product of the majority conclusion.
I understand many scientific principles, and I've read numerous climate papers, but I don't pretend to have a detailed knowledge of a complex field like climatology, so I'm aware that my opinion doesn't count for much in that field. If an expert like Tol says something is not the case, to contradict him would be irrational - even if what he said didn't agree with my own beliefs, I have to assume he knows something I don't.
Unless an equally expert climatologist disagreed with him. Presumably they also know things I don't. Possibly something Tol doesn't - or vice versa. I could try to judge for myself, but it's still an uninformed opinion, and it doesn't really answer the question - what is the source of their disagreement? Discounting conspiracies or kickbacks or whatever, I have to assume that the point in question is open to some interpretation. So I would reserve judgement until they can reach agreement.
And if 1000 equally expert climatologists all disagreed with Tol? Clearly his interpretation is not shared by many. Unless vital information is being hidden, perhaps Tol is a true genius among his peers, yet is unable to clearly communicate his insights - or perhaps he's just wrong. Occam's Razor suggests the latter.
For the layman observer who needs to make decisions, such a consensus provides a way to pick the more likely correct interpretation - and if further evidence comes to light that vindicates Tol, then the consensus will change, policies may also need to change, and Tol will be famous. But historically, this happens rarely. The minority is more often wrong, so the consensus interpretation is usually safest.
Most of these grants are for showing that "C causes D"
Citation needed. Also, all experiments start with a hypothesis; that does not imply that experimental results that falsify the hypothesis are considered a "waste". If your methodology and evidence is strong, you will get published, particularly if you can successfully falsify "dogma". However, few papers manage to do that, mostly because it's pretty rare that countervailing evidence can be found.
they would have a hard time getting new funding
Except for the other sources of funding I mentioned. The government is not the only entity with money. There's no shortage of researchers on corporate payrolls, too.
Exxon's original work didn't prove that AGW "was happening"
Agreed, I wasn't trying to imply that. Exxon was just spending millions on misinformation that contradicted their own findings (and that of other scientists).
many objections to climate change policies are unrelated to whether AGW is happening or not
Also agreed. But that's a separate issue. The science informs the policies but does not dictate them.
the US government has a long history of propaganda and misrepresentation of facts
No argument there either. But to date the prime examples of such in this issue have been to suppress the science, when scientists found evidence of AGW. The current administration appears to agree with the science, and I am unaware of any government attempts to gag dissent in this case.
Maybe you could show me where these respected climatologists defend breaking anonymity and blindness etc?
Oh, I dunno - starting with the paper passing peer review, perhaps? If these alleged crimes against science were so heinous, how did they get past review in the first place? Either there's a big conspiracy among the authors, the reviewers, the publishers, and more - or there was no crime in the first place. Once again, Tol's particular interpretation is not widely shared. Again, why is that?
If you can explain why only the usual suspects seem have a problem with the paper while the peer reviewers, the authors of similar surveys who endorsed it in TFA, and most other climatologists are apparently fine with it, then I'll listen. Try to do it without using the words "conspiracy" or "groupthink".
As for the relevancy of the AMS, the claimed 97% consensus figure is among climatologists. The AMS are not climatologists. Neither are most scientists. And as the paper notes, consensus is proportional to expertise in the field, so it's no surprise that consensus is not as high among those who know less about the field.
You think that's a more practical solution than emissions control?
Phase out the coal & oil, transition to carbon-neutral energy, and now we can support high populations, economic growth, and lavish lifestyles with no fear of climate change.
Because existing models don't even attempt to predict short-term cycles like ENSO. These are considered "noise" that has no effect on the underlying trend, despite temporarily slowing or boosting it. That's what they're "missing", and this is not news.
Use the models for predicting long-term trends, not what the temperature will be like next year, and they work as designed.
scientists who get funding must reach a pre-determined conclusion. QED
That doesn't follow at all. Different conclusions would be unexpected given the existing evidence, but are hardly "forbidden". They merely have to be based on sound methodology - a barrier which most dissenting opinions seem to fail at.
Funding yet more research into the fundamental question of whether warming is happening may be considered a waste at this late stage, but if you could demonstrate a strong enough case then you could convince someone. And as I pointed out there's plenty of alternatives for funding than government.
You implied that there was a financial and power imbalance. I point out correctly that it goes the other way
I didn't claim that governments have less power than the fossil fuel industries, but I did point out (with citations) that the only evidence of abuses of this power, by either side, have been to restrict genuine scientific research when it found AGW was happening, and to spread misinformation about those conclusions.
The rest of your comment is just fact-free opinions. You're welcome to those, but they're unconvincing to others.
Your claim:
you argue that since the paper produces "correct" results then the paper must be correct
My words:
Producing the "correct" results [...] should be a clue that Tol may not be entirely correct in his assessment
See the difference? I never claimed that the paper "must" be anything, only that producing results that have been widely corroborated weakens the case against it. This merely adds to the expert conclusions of the reviewers that have endorsed it.
science is about the ability to reproduce results.
And when those results have been reproduced, and confirmed and corrorborated by hundreds of papers over decades of research, yet a few die-hards still insist that the evidence is invalid and the conclusions are all wrong? This happens regularly in science.
Consensus doesn't provide 100% definitive answers or "settle" the question once and for all (arguably an impossible task); new evidence can and has changed mainstream views (though even evidence is rarely definitive either). But given that there will always be some inevitable disagreement in any complex field, how else would you suggest choosing the current best scientific opinion to be given for laymen and policymakers? If you wait until agreement is 100% total, nothing will happen - science results will get "stalled in committee". Consensus isn't picking votes out of a hat, it's the considered expert opinions of the large majority of practicing scientists, and as the saying goes it may not always be perfect but it's useful.
I'm not really sure how the opinion of AMS members is relevant to climatology. What is probably more relevant is the endorsement of every major scientific organisation around the globe - that's more indicative of a strong case, don't you think?
Anyway, you're still convinced that the methods used were misleading because Tol said so, and the equally valid opinion of other respected climatologists that the methods are fine, does not hold any weight with you. Why is that? Clearly there are differences in interpretation. I choose to go with what the majority of experts say is correct, since I don't have in-depth experience in that field and they do, whereas you apparently choose to go with the minority opinion, because...
My point stands. There are disagreements on both sides, yet the journal has not withdrawn the paper, and it is still being cited and endorsed today. If Tol has been unable to convince his peers despite the alleged "mountain of blatant evidence", then maybe that evidence just isn't as strong as you think it is.
I know it's more comfortable to think that there must be a huge cover-up, or all those other climatologists that disagree with the views you hold so close must be incompetent or are all stuck in group-think or whatever, but you have to concede the possibility that if many other respected researchers disagree with your preferred researcher, then perhaps it's not your researcher that's automatically in the right...
There is a considerable history of ineffective and costly policies here.
In who's opinion; yours? You're still not citing any actual studies. I ask again; where is your evidence?
In contrast, it appears those policies are already starting to work, despite intransigent resistence from vested interests and people such as yourself.
According to Tol. Not according the authors, or the peer reviewers, or the other researchers who have been backing it. So why do you assume Tol is the only one who could possibly be correct?
From the reply to Tol's T14 paper:
* T14’s consensus value is based on a math error that manufactures ~300 nonexistent rejection
papers.
* T14 infers data drift using an inappropriate statistic that poorly correlates with consensus.
* Analysis of appropriate consensus statistics reveals no significant data drift.
* T14 wrongly conflates abstract ratings and author self-ratings; differences are detailed in C13.
* Reanalysis without T14’s errors confirms 97 ± 1% consensus on AGW.
Producing the "correct" results - i.e. matching five other studies that all found similar levels of consensus - should be a clue that Tol may not be entirely correct in his assessment. The fact that the journal did not deem it necessary to retract the original article, should be another.
They're only worth trillions if the demand says so. And demand will not continue for ever - coal is already almost flat. Peak Oil will take longer, but the writing on the wall is already visible, with EVs predicted to make up one quarter of the global market in just 10 years.