I think the summary author gives the game away in the last sentence on this one. It's not a bug, which implies unintended behavior that can accidentally happen. It's intended behavior that can be deliberately exploited to bad effect.
So the evidence which conveniently doesn't exist proves your case? And you're going to ignore all the evidence for the other, concensus hypothesis? Fantastic.
If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?
Three groups of people who dismiss the overwhelming concensus of evidence amoungst experts on the subject and attribute the existence of that evidence to a sophisticated cabal out to further its own interests? Yeah, I can see why people who dismiss global warming don't belong with those.
Of those variables, four are quantifiable and subject to ongoing research and the last two are the ones we can actually control if we want to change whether the outcome actually happens. So I'm not sure what's wrong with the model.
Ohio's temperature doesn't vary nearly that much from north to south; the mean temperature in Cleveland is only about one degree lower than that in Cincinnati.
You'll get the same technical progress either way, it's just that in one scenario you multiply that output by 0.8 to account for the effect of increased temperatures.
Why would you hope that, out of curiosity? Are you really the kind of person who would rather people made ill-informed conclusions because it offered you the opportunity to look like you're cleverer than them?
Actually their report says (to paraphrase) that labour output is 90% of what it would have been, had mean temperatures remained at their previous levels.
Apparently the US Army disagrees, because it's their research (amoungst others') on people's ability to work under heat stress that forms the basis for the model.
Apparently Watts is an authoritarian if he's willing to ignore what the scientists actually say in favour of a poorly-worded comment by the head of their organisation.
This isn't about pointing to a change and saying "this was caused by that". This is about taking what we now know about the effect of heat stress on labour output (as determined by the US military, for example), looking at the change in climate in the tropical regions, and looking at how that change in heat stress should have affected labour output, and how it should affect labour output in the future.
They've created a model based on empirical data, tested it against historical results, and projected it into the future with a testable prediction. The "climate science isn't science because it's not experimental" crowd should be here imminently.
That's not necessarily possible. In that case I imagine that what happens is that you're told to get off the boat and come back when someone has the right paperwork.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the summary author gives the game away in the last sentence on this one. It's not a bug, which implies unintended behavior that can accidentally happen. It's intended behavior that can be deliberately exploited to bad effect.
Given that it's NASA saying that it's being done at NASA I'm pretty confident about this one.
So you universally reject long-term forecasting? How do you feel about the odds of Comet Halley coming back?
Right, that's why it doesn't draw local conclusions. It determines a global average effect.
Yes, it's "one factor", that's all the paper ever claims it to be. You're raging against a villain of your own invention.
You don't believe in human self-determination?
There is no direct or indirect correlation that ties temperature increase or decrease to increase or decrease in labor
Actually, there is. There's a very large body of evidence which the paper itself is based upon.
So the evidence which conveniently doesn't exist proves your case? And you're going to ignore all the evidence for the other, concensus hypothesis? Fantastic.
You'd rather that they spent $70 Bn on research and then didn't publish it?
That's one hell of a set of heat pipes.
If people take more breaks in the shade won't that reduce the amount of work they do? Isn't that exactly what the model is supposing when it uses those same guidelines on safe working conditions to predict how temperatures will impact labour output?
Three groups of people who dismiss the overwhelming concensus of evidence amoungst experts on the subject and attribute the existence of that evidence to a sophisticated cabal out to further its own interests? Yeah, I can see why people who dismiss global warming don't belong with those.
Of those variables, four are quantifiable and subject to ongoing research and the last two are the ones we can actually control if we want to change whether the outcome actually happens. So I'm not sure what's wrong with the model.
Ohio's temperature doesn't vary nearly that much from north to south; the mean temperature in Cleveland is only about one degree lower than that in Cincinnati.
I derped.
You'll get the same technical progress either way, it's just that in one scenario you multiply that output by 0.8 to account for the effect of increased temperatures.
Why would you hope that, out of curiosity? Are you really the kind of person who would rather people made ill-informed conclusions because it offered you the opportunity to look like you're cleverer than them?
Actually their report says (to paraphrase) that labour output is 90% of what it would have been, had mean temperatures remained at their previous levels.
If you've never encountered a person who believes the climate simply isn't warming, then you should probably read some of the comments here.
Apparently the US Army disagrees, because it's their research (amoungst others') on people's ability to work under heat stress that forms the basis for the model.
Apparently Watts is an authoritarian if he's willing to ignore what the scientists actually say in favour of a poorly-worded comment by the head of their organisation.
If the paper tried to correlate temperature data to labour output data you'd have a point, but that's not what they did.
Not in the tropics, which is the region that their model addresses.
This isn't about pointing to a change and saying "this was caused by that". This is about taking what we now know about the effect of heat stress on labour output (as determined by the US military, for example), looking at the change in climate in the tropical regions, and looking at how that change in heat stress should have affected labour output, and how it should affect labour output in the future.
They've created a model based on empirical data, tested it against historical results, and projected it into the future with a testable prediction. The "climate science isn't science because it's not experimental" crowd should be here imminently.
That's not necessarily possible. In that case I imagine that what happens is that you're told to get off the boat and come back when someone has the right paperwork.