Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history,
No, but they should know how to reproduce every significant experiment in their field.
then they have little choice but to trust the results of others.
There's a difference between trusting that someone performed an experiment correctly, and trusting their interpretation. Come on man, you know that.
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.
He better be able to explain himself, and lead you to the start of a chain you can follow to verify what he is saying, otherwise he's not doing science, he's bloviating.
Yeah, I used to be really down on Jackson, until I investigated his biography more deeply and gained an understanding of why he made the decisions he did. Basically, if he hadn't relocated the Cherokee, they would have been exterminated like other tribes along the east coast. It wasn't a great decision but it's hard to think of a better one.
But still Tubman is pretty great too, so she's fine on the $20.
lol the ice ages seem somewhat cyclical, so I don't know about that. But let's say, the "little ice age" in Europe could have been influenced by a squirrel?
Seems about as reasonable as a butterfly in Tokyo causing a storm in San Francisco.
Well, that was the question when we first started modeling climate back in the 1950s (and really several decades before that)......von Neumann et al realized that weather was chaotic, and there was no way to simulate it accurately more than a week or so into the future.
The question then came is whether climate is also chaotic as well, or whether it can be modeled and predicted (or even controlled). So far, the answer is that no, it can't be modeled (see for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... ). Whether it is truly chaotic (that is, very small differences in the initial state cause dramatic differences in later state), is still undecided. Maybe improvements in modeling in the future will show that it's manageable.
In the end, global warming is a fairly simple story of energy out vs energy in.
If that were all, then we would see a warming of between.7-1.5 degrees C every time CO2 doubles. (See here for the equation) No one worries about a temperature change of that magnitude.
The problem is all the postulated feedbacks in the system, which in theory dramatically magnify the warming, to the point that it causes problems.
The way I look at it, at a company with $41billion in operating expenses (like Intel), imagine hiring a top CEO who is good at managing, and just manages to reduce costs by 2%. Is that CEO worth paying several million a year? Yes, absolutely.
Or imagine one who is a good negotiator, and he uses his skills to negotiate deals with suppliers that cuts costs by $20million a year. Is it worth paying that CEO $5million a year? Yes, it is.
they've had an enormous impact on Intel's inability to leverage their manufacturing and design prowess for the desktop->mobile inflection point that's been occurring for the past 7 years.
To be fair, the reputation of Intel's "design prowess" has never been that great.....they've won based on their manufacturing. So it's not particularly surprising that as manufacturing hits limits, other companies start to surpass Intel with better designs.
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch.
100 meters might not be enough, you might need to model butterflies
If you're a scientist, you need to understand the reasoning and experiments behind your field, going back to the beginning.
For example, every physicist knows about Galileo's experiments on the tower of Pisa, and could reproduce them if they had the desire (or funding). And actually, they probably have reproduced them in some form or another.
Every neuroscientist knows about Ramachandran's experiments on phantom limbs, and can reproduce them if they can find an amputee and a Q-tip.
If you are one of the unfortunate people who can't understand science, then you have no choice but to trust other people. That is unfortunate, but it's not science.
lol your comment is the only result for those quoted search terms for Iceland and Germany. For France and Spain, the results all come back in the context of negative statements about those countries. So I guess you're right.
Slashdot Mirror
Are bus drivers so expensive that they are the thing preventing us from having more buses on the road?
Sherman and Grant both won battles, but Grant had much more difficult fights to win. Vicksburg was tough.
Unless you're suggesting that each scientist should personally reproduce every significant experiment in their field's history,
No, but they should know how to reproduce every significant experiment in their field.
then they have little choice but to trust the results of others.
There's a difference between trusting that someone performed an experiment correctly, and trusting their interpretation. Come on man, you know that.
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.
He better be able to explain himself, and lead you to the start of a chain you can follow to verify what he is saying, otherwise he's not doing science, he's bloviating.
lol if you did that, the south would secede again.
What paradox do you run into if space and time are discrete?
Yeah, I used to be really down on Jackson, until I investigated his biography more deeply and gained an understanding of why he made the decisions he did. Basically, if he hadn't relocated the Cherokee, they would have been exterminated like other tribes along the east coast. It wasn't a great decision but it's hard to think of a better one.
But still Tubman is pretty great too, so she's fine on the $20.
No matter who you choose, it's going to piss off at least a third of the population immediately,
Whose pissed off about this? I haven't seen any polls, but I'll bet it's less than a third of the population.
Thanks for the link.
That's one hypothesis
Especially this one. It sounds like basically everything about the story was true: they are indeed recycling electronics, and the numbers are correct.
The 'errors' were errors of omission: the earlier story didn't mention that Apple is forced to do that by law. But that's not the same as being false.
Maybe we should.
lol the ice ages seem somewhat cyclical, so I don't know about that. But let's say, the "little ice age" in Europe could have been influenced by a squirrel?
Seems about as reasonable as a butterfly in Tokyo causing a storm in San Francisco.
Well, that was the question when we first started modeling climate back in the 1950s (and really several decades before that)......von Neumann et al realized that weather was chaotic, and there was no way to simulate it accurately more than a week or so into the future.
The question then came is whether climate is also chaotic as well, or whether it can be modeled and predicted (or even controlled). So far, the answer is that no, it can't be modeled (see for example: http://www.nature.com/nature/j... ). Whether it is truly chaotic (that is, very small differences in the initial state cause dramatic differences in later state), is still undecided. Maybe improvements in modeling in the future will show that it's manageable.
In the end, global warming is a fairly simple story of energy out vs energy in.
If that were all, then we would see a warming of between .7-1.5 degrees C every time CO2 doubles. (See here for the equation) No one worries about a temperature change of that magnitude.
The problem is all the postulated feedbacks in the system, which in theory dramatically magnify the warming, to the point that it causes problems.
Well quite. It was a rhetorical question.
Yeap. I wrote that post to support your point.
The way I look at it, at a company with $41billion in operating expenses (like Intel), imagine hiring a top CEO who is good at managing, and just manages to reduce costs by 2%. Is that CEO worth paying several million a year? Yes, absolutely.
Or imagine one who is a good negotiator, and he uses his skills to negotiate deals with suppliers that cuts costs by $20million a year. Is it worth paying that CEO $5million a year? Yes, it is.
they've had an enormous impact on Intel's inability to leverage their manufacturing and design prowess for the desktop->mobile inflection point that's been occurring for the past 7 years.
To be fair, the reputation of Intel's "design prowess" has never been that great.....they've won based on their manufacturing. So it's not particularly surprising that as manufacturing hits limits, other companies start to surpass Intel with better designs.
The current models are often insanely complex and even then simplify the reality down considerably to enable computation to occur in a reasonable timeframe; e.g. data points for a given model might now be collected and calculated on a 1km grid instead of a 10km grid a few years ago - an order of magnitude more accurate, but still with enough margin of error to miss something important, or have nature throw a curve ball through that would have needed 100m resolution for the model to catch.
100 meters might not be enough, you might need to model butterflies
If you're a scientist, you need to understand the reasoning and experiments behind your field, going back to the beginning.
For example, every physicist knows about Galileo's experiments on the tower of Pisa, and could reproduce them if they had the desire (or funding). And actually, they probably have reproduced them in some form or another.
Every neuroscientist knows about Ramachandran's experiments on phantom limbs, and can reproduce them if they can find an amputee and a Q-tip.
If you are one of the unfortunate people who can't understand science, then you have no choice but to trust other people. That is unfortunate, but it's not science.
Domestic supply exceeds demand, so no.
Not really, if that becomes a problem, we'll just re-institute the ban on exporting oil from the US. We've done it before.
Does Russia really care about Saudi Arabia now? They already have a year-round port on their southern border.
That's Europe's problem, not the US.
It happens a lot. I don't know why you think that. There's been a lawsuit on a similar topic for a while.
lol your comment is the only result for those quoted search terms for Iceland and Germany. For France and Spain, the results all come back in the context of negative statements about those countries. So I guess you're right.