To be perfectly frank, I think a lot of skeptics are too ready to stop there and just infer the rest.
That forgets that childhood poverty and subsequent poor educational environment are highly negatively correlated with IQ, while the distressing situation is highly correlated with forming a religious community and the comfort that can provide.
It's way too complicated at present to ascribe that to genetics. It stinks of the same easy answers religion is blamed for providing.
Whoa, not that AC, but chill. I took him to mean that US customs or border enforcement or some such should have been keeping an eye out, which is something that I would have assumed as well. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.
Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.
Yeah, sure. That's a corporate focus on efficiency, etc. etc. I'm sure people worked in dimly lit basement offices in the 60s. But Asimov was predicting we'd want that in our homes. The fact that a dingy fluorescent lit cubicle is considered depressing is exactly my point. It's not desirable for most people.
Underground? Without natural light? Truly sealed? I see your point, but Asimov's description was of a developing larger distaste of an uncontrolled environment, rather than just not being cold/hot and wet.
We certainly keep ourselves dry and at comfortable temperatures, but otherwise most people still have real windows looking out on whatever area they're in, and don't seem terribly interested in sealing off all natural light or avoiding the outside entirely.
Considering Asimov did not die until the early nineties, did he ever update or evaluate the progress towards his earlier predictions? I feel he would have revised his belief that, for instance, mankind would be increasingly interested in living in hermetically sealed, controlled bubbles.
Bring an asteroid into orbit is very very different from a collision course. As long as it's not experience significant atmospheric drag, the amount of angular momentum with respect to the Earth will make sure that almost any minor deviation from then on will just result in a slingshot or eccentricity because it has to be conserved. It will not suddenly plunge directly down.
Sure, simultaneity is far from the only or strongest reason that's silly. But it is the one written as "Oh, isn't it interesting that..." in the summary. I don't like *wink-nudge* suggestions like that in scientific summaries. Just say it's unrelated.
The sun is vast, and that outward pulse appears to happen almost simultaneous with the impact of the comet.
Which means I very much doubt it's related, as an effect would still have to have traveled at least some major fraction of the Sun's radius and back before the event would have been triggered.
Granted, I suppose the comet could have been traveling away from us, and since the signal of the blast is traveling *toward* us, it basically pulled a Picard Maneuver and partially overtook the comet light.
Real value? Real value is a solid income stream and assets. Market valuation represent not just real value but also expected value, which can be heavily determined by group consensus, such as the assumption that these problems will be worked out.
Google at least has significant profits to back it up, but I see it as an open question as to whether these companies really are this valuable currently, or whether the expectation of improved advertising is in fact already built into their current valuation. Advertising success may simply serve to justify the current valuation; if a strong indication that the ad market yield is dropping comes along, these valuations are going to drop.
Heck, Facebook's valuation isn't even based on the company's potential profitability anyway. Goldman was willing to pay a ridiculous premium because they can make it all up in fee charges to their high level customers that want a piece of Facebook. Either way, Goldman will win with the deal, as their own high valuation of it simply increases demand. The ultimate fate of Facebook stock would just be a potential bonus.
After reading them, I'd have to say that these "rebuttals" miss the point.
First of all, most of the same criticisms could also be leveled against various carbon reduction efforts and carbon sequestration efforts. Yes, a geo-engineering solution may lock us into a decades long commitment to continuing or only slowing the flow of SO2. Climate agreements involving carbon emission reductions will also lock us into decades long commitments whose costs are at least the same order of magnitude and probably greater, if they are possible. Yes, some sort of international accord would encounter a huge amount of opposition, but with a solution that doesn't hit countries in the pocketbook and is also completely controllable, it would be an entirely different beast than emissions.
Second, as noted, the carbon levels remain in the atmosphere for up to centuries. If you pay attention to the chapter, geoengineering is intended simply to buy us time until carbon reduction has become effective. Ultimately, you are correct. In the long term, we have to switch completely to solar or reach some other equilibrium with the total output of the sun. That is not going to be achievable in the near future. The SO2 solution has effects that are relatively immediate and also disperse relatively quickly, at least for the Pinatubo event. True, we don't know how it might work differently if we injected it elsewhere or in larger amounts. Fine, we can set up the delivery site at Mount Pinatubo and limit our initial effort to a similar quantity of SO2 as Mount Pinatubo as a test. Science is about repeatable experiments, after all.
Finally, all this talk of them being "irresponsible" in spreading such stories seems to indicate that detractors feel like the mere proposition of cheaper geo-engineering solutions undermines the fear of the general populace. The implication is that only this fear can whip people up into enough of a frenzy to meet our desired carbon reduction goals. I find most attempts to manipulate people through fear, though often effective, to be rather despicable. It rarely results in efficiency, either.
Ultimately, we have to start geo-engineering somewhere. The idea that we can solve all our problems by emitting nothing is incomplete, and we might as well start practicing. The idea that we must be afraid of ever affecting the planet in any way is shortsighted. There is no Gaia. The Earth is not friendly to us. It underwent massive shifts in climate before we arrived, and it will continue to do so, and ultimately we'll have to stop events that are not of our making in order to maintain our way of life.
Slashdot Mirror
"Correlation does not imply.. etc. etc."
To be perfectly frank, I think a lot of skeptics are too ready to stop there and just infer the rest.
That forgets that childhood poverty and subsequent poor educational environment are highly negatively correlated with IQ, while the distressing situation is highly correlated with forming a religious community and the comfort that can provide.
It's way too complicated at present to ascribe that to genetics. It stinks of the same easy answers religion is blamed for providing.
Whoa, not that AC, but chill. I took him to mean that US customs or border enforcement or some such should have been keeping an eye out, which is something that I would have assumed as well. Granted, there's a lot of reasons he could pass through and it wouldn't be noticed, but I'd think there's some protection.
Apparently measles is not strictly on the list, if I'm reading this right.
http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlawsregulationsquarantineisolation.html
Yeah, sure. That's a corporate focus on efficiency, etc. etc. I'm sure people worked in dimly lit basement offices in the 60s. But Asimov was predicting we'd want that in our homes. The fact that a dingy fluorescent lit cubicle is considered depressing is exactly my point. It's not desirable for most people.
Underground? Without natural light? Truly sealed? I see your point, but Asimov's description was of a developing larger distaste of an uncontrolled environment, rather than just not being cold/hot and wet.
We certainly keep ourselves dry and at comfortable temperatures, but otherwise most people still have real windows looking out on whatever area they're in, and don't seem terribly interested in sealing off all natural light or avoiding the outside entirely.
Considering Asimov did not die until the early nineties, did he ever update or evaluate the progress towards his earlier predictions? I feel he would have revised his belief that, for instance, mankind would be increasingly interested in living in hermetically sealed, controlled bubbles.
Bring an asteroid into orbit is very very different from a collision course. As long as it's not experience significant atmospheric drag, the amount of angular momentum with respect to the Earth will make sure that almost any minor deviation from then on will just result in a slingshot or eccentricity because it has to be conserved. It will not suddenly plunge directly down.
Sure, simultaneity is far from the only or strongest reason that's silly. But it is the one written as "Oh, isn't it interesting that..." in the summary. I don't like *wink-nudge* suggestions like that in scientific summaries. Just say it's unrelated.
The sun is vast, and that outward pulse appears to happen almost simultaneous with the impact of the comet.
Which means I very much doubt it's related, as an effect would still have to have traveled at least some major fraction of the Sun's radius and back before the event would have been triggered.
Granted, I suppose the comet could have been traveling away from us, and since the signal of the blast is traveling *toward* us, it basically pulled a Picard Maneuver and partially overtook the comet light.
Real value? Real value is a solid income stream and assets. Market valuation represent not just real value but also expected value, which can be heavily determined by group consensus, such as the assumption that these problems will be worked out.
Google at least has significant profits to back it up, but I see it as an open question as to whether these companies really are this valuable currently, or whether the expectation of improved advertising is in fact already built into their current valuation. Advertising success may simply serve to justify the current valuation; if a strong indication that the ad market yield is dropping comes along, these valuations are going to drop.
Heck, Facebook's valuation isn't even based on the company's potential profitability anyway. Goldman was willing to pay a ridiculous premium because they can make it all up in fee charges to their high level customers that want a piece of Facebook. Either way, Goldman will win with the deal, as their own high valuation of it simply increases demand. The ultimate fate of Facebook stock would just be a potential bonus.
After reading them, I'd have to say that these "rebuttals" miss the point. First of all, most of the same criticisms could also be leveled against various carbon reduction efforts and carbon sequestration efforts. Yes, a geo-engineering solution may lock us into a decades long commitment to continuing or only slowing the flow of SO2. Climate agreements involving carbon emission reductions will also lock us into decades long commitments whose costs are at least the same order of magnitude and probably greater, if they are possible. Yes, some sort of international accord would encounter a huge amount of opposition, but with a solution that doesn't hit countries in the pocketbook and is also completely controllable, it would be an entirely different beast than emissions. Second, as noted, the carbon levels remain in the atmosphere for up to centuries. If you pay attention to the chapter, geoengineering is intended simply to buy us time until carbon reduction has become effective. Ultimately, you are correct. In the long term, we have to switch completely to solar or reach some other equilibrium with the total output of the sun. That is not going to be achievable in the near future. The SO2 solution has effects that are relatively immediate and also disperse relatively quickly, at least for the Pinatubo event. True, we don't know how it might work differently if we injected it elsewhere or in larger amounts. Fine, we can set up the delivery site at Mount Pinatubo and limit our initial effort to a similar quantity of SO2 as Mount Pinatubo as a test. Science is about repeatable experiments, after all. Finally, all this talk of them being "irresponsible" in spreading such stories seems to indicate that detractors feel like the mere proposition of cheaper geo-engineering solutions undermines the fear of the general populace. The implication is that only this fear can whip people up into enough of a frenzy to meet our desired carbon reduction goals. I find most attempts to manipulate people through fear, though often effective, to be rather despicable. It rarely results in efficiency, either. Ultimately, we have to start geo-engineering somewhere. The idea that we can solve all our problems by emitting nothing is incomplete, and we might as well start practicing. The idea that we must be afraid of ever affecting the planet in any way is shortsighted. There is no Gaia. The Earth is not friendly to us. It underwent massive shifts in climate before we arrived, and it will continue to do so, and ultimately we'll have to stop events that are not of our making in order to maintain our way of life.