Solar variation between normal sunspot cycle and a "minimum" is only 1 Watt/square meter, on a total of more than 1300 Watts/square meter. It's not significant, and easily overwhelmed by the increase in CO2.
but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too.
If you dig a bit deeper into these reports you'll find that the warming effects around the world around the medieval warm period were not quite aligned, so it was more a case of heat shifting back and forth than extra global heat, like we have now.
After some really cold winters, they stopped calling it 'Global Warming', which sounded stupid in the context, and started calling it 'Climate Change'.
2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons.
But we can actually observe the superposition, so that argument makes no sense.
Until I saw this article, I've never realized there was a close tabs to the right. I knew there was a close other tabs, but I don't think I've ever used it.
All that is needed is to generate the minimal amount of data that's observed, with the minimal level of accuracy needed, for the minimal number of simulated observers
And if someone is about to discover something really tricky, you just restore the backup tapes from 24 hours ago, and let them die in a car crash on their way to the lab.
Unlike simulations of, say, climate, the universe being a simulation requires that every aspect of everything be quantified and that those quantities be stored in some manner.
Not necessarily. We only need to simulate the parts that are being observed. That would also explain why sometimes my car keys disappear, and then show up later in a place where I knew I've looked.
The claim is that if we exist in a reality that can be simulated accurately, it is pure hubris to assume that we are the top tier attempting to perform such a simulation.
Why assume there's a simulation at all ? Even if we knew all the rules of physics, there's no way we could run a meaningful simulation of a universe. We can't even do an accurate simulation of a single glucose molecule.
The difference is that a simulation would have to respect a set number of rules of physics, whereas the commonly held properties of gods allows them to tamper with high level objects as they please.
Slashdot Mirror
The "problem" is that women, on average, aren't as interested in tech as men.
Solar variation between normal sunspot cycle and a "minimum" is only 1 Watt/square meter, on a total of more than 1300 Watts/square meter. It's not significant, and easily overwhelmed by the increase in CO2.
I can understand numb, but plenty of folks seem to have a lot of energy for denial.
The last couple of glaciation cycles ended rather abruptly, yes.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...
https://grist.files.wordpress....
If you have better data to support your view, let's have it.
but we have reports from many places of the world, notable China and Japan that it was warmer than normal there, too.
If you dig a bit deeper into these reports you'll find that the warming effects around the world around the medieval warm period were not quite aligned, so it was more a case of heat shifting back and forth than extra global heat, like we have now.
For the study to be meaningful it needs to be a controlled randomized trial, not an observational study with plenty of confounders.
Not so quick. The body will convert its protein stores (i.e. muscles) to energy before dying.
Calories from alcohol can't even be used for energy, they're just turned straight into bodyfat
No, it can be used for energy after a few conversion steps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you're interested in Arctic sea ice, I can recommend this excellent forum: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.n...
The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant.
Name one other factor in climate change that's even close to CO2.
After some really cold winters, they stopped calling it 'Global Warming', which sounded stupid in the context, and started calling it 'Climate Change'.
Wrong. The term "Climate Change" has been in use for more than 50 years. https://skepticalscience.com/c...
- They agree that it's happening.
- They are denying it's caused by humans.
Followed by:
- Okay, it's caused by humans, but it's not a big deal
- Okay, okay, it is a big deal, but it's too late now.
If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argumen
The last 16 years have all ended up in the top-17 of hottest years. That good enough for you ?
2. To limit computation, reality would be held in a fuzzy probabilistic "superposition" state until it is actually observed, similar to how a GPU running OpenGL will skip the generation of hidden polygons.
But we can actually observe the superposition, so that argument makes no sense.
Until I saw this article, I've never realized there was a close tabs to the right. I knew there was a close other tabs, but I don't think I've ever used it.
All that is needed is to generate the minimal amount of data that's observed, with the minimal level of accuracy needed, for the minimal number of simulated observers
And if someone is about to discover something really tricky, you just restore the backup tapes from 24 hours ago, and let them die in a car crash on their way to the lab.
Many kinds of tampering would be noticeable, and we haven't noticed them.
Unlike simulations of, say, climate, the universe being a simulation requires that every aspect of everything be quantified and that those quantities be stored in some manner.
Not necessarily. We only need to simulate the parts that are being observed. That would also explain why sometimes my car keys disappear, and then show up later in a place where I knew I've looked.
The claim is that if we exist in a reality that can be simulated accurately, it is pure hubris to assume that we are the top tier attempting to perform such a simulation.
Why assume there's a simulation at all ? Even if we knew all the rules of physics, there's no way we could run a meaningful simulation of a universe. We can't even do an accurate simulation of a single glucose molecule.
Perhaps the real universe is a quadrillion times larger.
The "real universe" is also a simulation.
It's simulations all the way down.
Well, LISP, of course. And they would use emacs to edit the source.
The difference is that a simulation would have to respect a set number of rules of physics, whereas the commonly held properties of gods allows them to tamper with high level objects as they please.
Unified theory would also provide STRONG evidence for our living in a simulation.
Why, exactly ?
It's an unpleasant place if your tweets gets censored.
What if someone gets control over your computer, and sends out spam using your credentials ?