As another reply above points out, this is about making predictions about specific behaviors and trends in a super-massively-chaotic system.
Despite the chaotic system, the average temperature throughout the history of mankind has been remarkably stable. And we can clearly see the results of us meddling with the controls.
Sorry, but humanity does not yet possess sufficient understanding of global climate nor the computing power necessary to create models with sufficiently-small margins of error to justify many of the extreme actions/measures that are being called for by alarmists.
Increasing the atmospheric CO2 by 35% is not an extreme action in your opinion ?
CO2 is not a problem. How many trillions of taxpayer dollars have to be spent in order to *maybe* reduce so-called global average temperatures by a few fractions of a degree in, say, 30 years?
Same as we need to spend to phase out fossil fuels anyway.
Since climate is always changing, which is more desirable - colder or warmer?
If you have a better way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, please do provide it.
No, but I'm not a chemistry and materials scientists. I do know that trees are very inefficient. Photosynthesis only captures about 2% of the energy from the sun, and trees need good soil, water, and can get killed by pests. There must be a better way using modern technology.
There are plenty of deep pocketed interest groups that would like to be able to deny climate change with a legitimate model. The oil & coal industry, and the new administration, for instance.
First you have to have a robot that can find a suitable object in the system, and move itself into orbit, and then it has to safely land under unknown conditions. Without adding too much mass, of course.
Explain how one small robot can navigate around a star. Imagine for instance that a robot is capture in orbit just outside Jupiter. How does it get to the resources it needs, somewhere in the asteroid belt, using its tiny little fuel tank ? Adding more robots doesn't help, because they all have the same problem.
More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.
There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.
But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.
It's nice that you can shoot an ultra light sail craft through the galaxy but without communication, it will be rather pointless. And it will be tricky to add communication equipment that can send a signal across a few light years without messing up the "ultra light" property.
The method from the article uses interference "Bringing together both paths of the red photons (from the first and the second crystal) creates bright and dark patterns, which form the exact image of the object". That doesn't happen in your setup.
would enable a small probe to locate accessible resources (as in not down a gravity well) to construct a transmitter large enough to return the data in the first place.
I'm not sure how you think a small robot can find suitable resources, fly over there, and convert those resources into a large working transmitter, provide it with energy, and keep it aimed at the Earth. That's not a small robot, but a very large manufacturing base.
I sometimes bike to work. I don't need (3) flexible working hours. On a bike, there's no trouble getting there at exactly the right time, unlike when I take the car and have to deal with unpredictable traffic. Also, (4) I just put my bike on the car parking lot, against a fence, lamp post, wall, or just in a motorcycle spot. And as far as emergencies regarding my children, it doesn't really matter if I'm an hour away on bike, or an hour by car, or an hour by train.
Slashdot Mirror
As well you warmists will be right there with same, spewing hatred of technology and pushing for more and bigger government and socialist programs.
You're welcome to accept AGW, but propose a different policy. Denying basic science just because you don't like the results is dishonest.
As another reply above points out, this is about making predictions about specific behaviors and trends in a super-massively-chaotic system.
Despite the chaotic system, the average temperature throughout the history of mankind has been remarkably stable. And we can clearly see the results of us meddling with the controls.
Sorry, but humanity does not yet possess sufficient understanding of global climate nor the computing power necessary to create models with sufficiently-small margins of error to justify many of the extreme actions/measures that are being called for by alarmists.
Increasing the atmospheric CO2 by 35% is not an extreme action in your opinion ?
CO2 is not a problem. How many trillions of taxpayer dollars have to be spent in order to *maybe* reduce so-called global average temperatures by a few fractions of a degree in, say, 30 years?
Same as we need to spend to phase out fossil fuels anyway.
Since climate is always changing, which is more desirable - colder or warmer?
Somewhere in the middle, please.
Those denying there's a problem have an agenda too.
that human contribution portion is in excess of long-term natural variation
Long term natural variation contributes about -10%, and human contribution is about +110%, with >95% confidence.
justify putting tens of millions of people out of work
Fossil fuels are going to run out anyway, and the earlier we start the transition, the more we profit from it.
Obviously you don't keep burning coal
Yet, we still are.
If you have a better way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, please do provide it.
No, but I'm not a chemistry and materials scientists. I do know that trees are very inefficient. Photosynthesis only captures about 2% of the energy from the sun, and trees need good soil, water, and can get killed by pests. There must be a better way using modern technology.
if the real question is what temperature the sole of my shoe is exactly one second before impact and to a precision of mili-Kelvins,
Well, then I suppose it's a good thing that this is not the real question.
Growing, turning to charcoal and burying is slightly better and the best bet of all is simply not producing so much CO2 in the first place.
Indeed. It's rather wasteful and pointless to grow trees, turn them into charcoal and bury that, while we dig up coal somewhere else.
The problem is all the models have predicted more warming than has happened.
Not true. Here's an up to date overview of a bunch of models, compared to observations.
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
The 3rd world babies aren't producing nearly as much CO2 as the 1st world babies, even though there are more of them.
He'd never get the funding for that...
There are plenty of deep pocketed interest groups that would like to be able to deny climate change with a legitimate model. The oil & coal industry, and the new administration, for instance.
If a light sail is slow, how can you match another body's orbital velocity ?
The "seed" that will grow into what we want could weigh less than a microgram.
I'm skeptical, but I'll be happy to study your design drawings.
It's not just one journal. It's many of them
Seven out of how many journals ?
First you have to have a robot that can find a suitable object in the system, and move itself into orbit, and then it has to safely land under unknown conditions. Without adding too much mass, of course.
Explain how one small robot can navigate around a star. Imagine for instance that a robot is capture in orbit just outside Jupiter. How does it get to the resources it needs, somewhere in the asteroid belt, using its tiny little fuel tank ? Adding more robots doesn't help, because they all have the same problem.
107 incidents in one journal isn't just 'relatively few'.
One journal is not a huge number.
More immediate funding is at stake, more groupthink applies, it will be decades before others can prove you wrong, and unlike falsified cancer research, people won't die because you misdirected searcher.
There's more money in cancer medication than climate science.
But if you don't want to wait decades, you can simply make a competing model that matches past observations, but predicts a different outcome, and publish it.
It's nice that you can shoot an ultra light sail craft through the galaxy but without communication, it will be rather pointless. And it will be tricky to add communication equipment that can send a signal across a few light years without messing up the "ultra light" property.
The method from the article uses interference "Bringing together both paths of the red photons (from the first and the second crystal) creates bright and dark patterns, which form the exact image of the object". That doesn't happen in your setup.
would enable a small probe to locate accessible resources (as in not down a gravity well) to construct a transmitter large enough to return the data in the first place.
I'm not sure how you think a small robot can find suitable resources, fly over there, and convert those resources into a large working transmitter, provide it with energy, and keep it aimed at the Earth. That's not a small robot, but a very large manufacturing base.
Not faster than light, which is what this was about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I sometimes bike to work. I don't need (3) flexible working hours. On a bike, there's no trouble getting there at exactly the right time, unlike when I take the car and have to deal with unpredictable traffic. Also, (4) I just put my bike on the car parking lot, against a fence, lamp post, wall, or just in a motorcycle spot. And as far as emergencies regarding my children, it doesn't really matter if I'm an hour away on bike, or an hour by car, or an hour by train.
The ability of a solar panel to scale downwards to individual use cases is a nice feature of it
That was the whole point. OP argued that solar requires a bigger up-front investment than coal, which is clearly not true.