They actually considered a similar project in the Apollo era that would've used the upper stages of the Saturn V rocket as the basis for a space laboratory. It never quite became practical.
It is entirely relevant. The topics I raise are nonexperimental sciences, which by his definition are not science. He seems to have not followed his definition through to its logical conclusions and realised that it's hilariously contrived.
"You can applaud other nation's refusal to participate in the process." Yes, and I don't have a problem with people doing that so long as it's consistent.
While I agree with you, a system of law where "no physical damage to anyone" has the smallest punishment would be remarkably kind to my plan to steal the world's money with my ingenious Hollywood computer virus.
Whether they belonged in jail or not, twisting the law into a pretzel to ensure that they could potentially have been jailed if those laws had been in effect at the time they commited the offense, with no regards for the future consequences of those new laws, is completely insane.
Europe is warmer than it should be given its latitude. It is warmed by ocean and air currents crossing from the tropical Americas to the south west of Europe. As the description says, those currents are changed by warming.
Your experience sounds a lot like our current understanding of how memory works: small pieces of inter-related information are stored by their connections to pre-existing ideas, and recovered in a synthetic process of re-assembly.
I think the point isn't "we should aim for 9 Bn" but "if current trends in birth rate and efforts in birth control continue, we will peak at 9 Bn, so get ready for that".
And while I agree with you that a smaller population number is better:
"account for all the other goods the urbanite consumes, the emissions for their transportation, etc. "
For the same number of people it is more efficient to make, transport, store and sell their goods to a single location, and urbanites use no more goods for a given lifestyle than country-dwellers; less if you count vehicles and other items that urban dwellers can do without or borrow. It may be that many country-dwellers have a less intensive lifestyle, but I'm not sure that holds, or that we can't just get urban dwellers to shift to that lifestyle and have the best of both worlds.
I have not heard of a single case where someone started evolution in a bacterium, let it run for fifty years, and arrived at the known biosphere of Earth.
Devil's advocate: if you ran your fridge to make the ice overnight when it's cold and used it in swamp coolers to chill the house in the day that might work. No doubt that's not what he actually had though.
Everything is veiled and nonspecific if you refuse to read it. Experimental science is not all science. What is your stance on evolution? History? Epidemiology?
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness? No actual substance? Nonspecific accusations that could be leveled at any piece of research? Let's look at the issues you raise.
"The question is always, how do they know? What did they do to arrive at that result?"
It's in the papers. And countless popular accounts.
"...does not sound like a high standard."
That's why your rhetorical scenario is not the standard to which climate science is held. If you're interested it's... in the papers, and in the countless popular accounts.
"Where's your rigorous testing for that assertion?"
It's in the papers, and countless popular accounts. Assuming, of couse, you do not set an arbitrarily strict limit for "rigorous" that excludes them.
Climate is by definition the average large-scale atmospheric conditions over the long term! You can't complain about that, any more than you can complain that temperature is a measure of the distribution of kinetic energies of an ensemble of particles.
Your unstated premise that the models are over-fitted and poorly checked against data is simply not true.
Yes, and eating a car is easier than eating the moon, but it's still quite daunting even assuming currently energy consumption remains constant.
It's not an issue of waste heat, by the way: thermodynamics demands that every joule of energy we generate and subsequently use winds up as heat eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
They actually considered a similar project in the Apollo era that would've used the upper stages of the Saturn V rocket as the basis for a space laboratory. It never quite became practical.
It is entirely relevant. The topics I raise are nonexperimental sciences, which by his definition are not science. He seems to have not followed his definition through to its logical conclusions and realised that it's hilariously contrived.
And if the answer to that question is "the science is sound"?
"You can applaud other nation's refusal to participate in the process." Yes, and I don't have a problem with people doing that so long as it's consistent.
While I agree with you, a system of law where "no physical damage to anyone" has the smallest punishment would be remarkably kind to my plan to steal the world's money with my ingenious Hollywood computer virus.
Whether they belonged in jail or not, twisting the law into a pretzel to ensure that they could potentially have been jailed if those laws had been in effect at the time they commited the offense, with no regards for the future consequences of those new laws, is completely insane.
Europe is warmer than it should be given its latitude. It is warmed by ocean and air currents crossing from the tropical Americas to the south west of Europe. As the description says, those currents are changed by warming.
Your experience sounds a lot like our current understanding of how memory works: small pieces of inter-related information are stored by their connections to pre-existing ideas, and recovered in a synthetic process of re-assembly.
"the planet can sustain as much life as we find energy for"
Not if dissipating that energy is catastrophic for the planet's ability to sustain life, which is the issue with energy growth.
I think the point isn't "we should aim for 9 Bn" but "if current trends in birth rate and efforts in birth control continue, we will peak at 9 Bn, so get ready for that".
And while I agree with you that a smaller population number is better:
"account for all the other goods the urbanite consumes, the emissions for their transportation, etc. "
For the same number of people it is more efficient to make, transport, store and sell their goods to a single location, and urbanites use no more goods for a given lifestyle than country-dwellers; less if you count vehicles and other items that urban dwellers can do without or borrow. It may be that many country-dwellers have a less intensive lifestyle, but I'm not sure that holds, or that we can't just get urban dwellers to shift to that lifestyle and have the best of both worlds.
This is why I hate round numbers. :(
I have not heard of a single case where someone started evolution in a bacterium, let it run for fifty years, and arrived at the known biosphere of Earth.
You mean this, wherein independent confirmation (from a third source this time) found the same conclusions from trustworthy data?
It was covered extensively in the BEST study and the correction was found to be negligible. (They applied the correction anyway.)
I was referring to last year's study. I recall the accusations against Wang but as far as I can tell they were never actually substantiated.
Imagine that! Independent confirmation of results on one hand, and unsubstantiated innuendo on the other.
Devil's advocate: if you ran your fridge to make the ice overnight when it's cold and used it in swamp coolers to chill the house in the day that might work. No doubt that's not what he actually had though.
Anthony Watts, the guy who rejects Berkeley's consensus-setting study of the urban heat island effect?
What do you think climate scientists do if not "gather data, crunch it down, and see if the results compare with their hypotheses"?
Everything is veiled and nonspecific if you refuse to read it. Experimental science is not all science. What is your stance on evolution? History? Epidemiology?
Assuming we can create a Dyson sphere, which would require us to consume most of the solar system for building materials.
Isn't this comment more or less an archetypal example? Veiled and nonspecific allusions to error, uncertainty, and weakness? No actual substance? Nonspecific accusations that could be leveled at any piece of research? Let's look at the issues you raise.
"The question is always, how do they know? What did they do to arrive at that result?"
It's in the papers. And countless popular accounts.
"...does not sound like a high standard."
That's why your rhetorical scenario is not the standard to which climate science is held. If you're interested it's... in the papers, and in the countless popular accounts.
"Where's your rigorous testing for that assertion?"
It's in the papers, and countless popular accounts. Assuming, of couse, you do not set an arbitrarily strict limit for "rigorous" that excludes them.
Climate is by definition the average large-scale atmospheric conditions over the long term! You can't complain about that, any more than you can complain that temperature is a measure of the distribution of kinetic energies of an ensemble of particles.
Your unstated premise that the models are over-fitted and poorly checked against data is simply not true.
Yes, and eating a car is easier than eating the moon, but it's still quite daunting even assuming currently energy consumption remains constant.
It's not an issue of waste heat, by the way: thermodynamics demands that every joule of energy we generate and subsequently use winds up as heat eventually.
...where it would be dissipated into heat again when used. You can't consume energy without (ultimately) releasing that much energy as heat.
No, I'm saying that:
You can't decry other nations for failing to participate in the process, yet justify your own absence by saying the process is pointless.