Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Fortunately, like a good scientist, I gave you my methodology, so you could repeat the experiment.
And, as a good scientist, I did a statistical analysis: of the three links that either weren't dead or could be tracked down with the wayback machine, zero actually showed predictions that were wrong.
Given that zero out of three links you gave showed failures of prediction, I conclude that, mostly, your google search gives you irrelevant garbage.
Yes Anartica is a continent. When the ice melts there people can start moving from new york to Antarctica. it all evens out in the end
I like that as a science fiction story, but in the real world, turns out Antarctica is still pretty much unlivable, even after 2 or even 5 degrees of global warming. Too bad, really.
Parts of Siberia might get nice, though.
Or better yet we will awaken some unfathonable creature from the abyss of lake vostok that will wipe out all human life on the planet. this will end global warmig.
Didn't Lovecraft write that one? Tekeli-li!
thats a good thing right. the real reason liberals want to stop global warming is because it would allow dark skinned people to move up north and corrupt your gated liberal white communities.
Now you're just trolling. That was also a science fiction premise, I think; just in this case a Neo-Nazi story.
I'm not sure what the point is here. The Jurassic was a period lasting over fifty million years. Yes, during much of the Jurassic, carbon dioxide was much higher than it is now, and temperatures were correspondingly much hotter, the Earth had no ice caps and no glaciers, and the sea levels were much higher.
I'd point at this as showing that higher carbon dioxide levels are correlated to higher temperatures and higher sea levels.
Yes, we could adapt. Over a time span short compared to fifty million years, the ecology would just settle in to a new equilibrium. But we're not talking about millions of years, not even hundreds of thousands of years here.
So why not push the so-called "climate experts" to completely opensource their models and explain what they are doing?
The models are open source; they are heavily annotated and explained.
...So wouldn't it be a good idea to have as many eyes overlooking these models?
Yes, that's the way science works. And the models have been downloaded and are being run by hundreds of universities around the world. We do have thousands of eyes looking over the models.
It doesn't take a degree in climatology to find errors in code or mathematics.
And so the fact that people aren't finding those purported errors in code or mathematics, despite thousands of people looking for them, should tell you something
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible.
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Two of your links still worked.
The first was to a NPR story in 2009 quoting a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences saying that if we stop emitting carbon dioxide immediately, the effects due to the carbon dioxide we have emitted will last for "more than a thousand years," basically due to the lag time it takes for carbon dioxide to be desorbed by the ocean. There's no real prediction here- basically, it's an article about the system hysteresis. So, no, this is not a failed prediction.
The second was a link to an article about an editorial by James Lovelock. In a 2006 article in the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor James Lovelock said billions would die by the end of the century, and civilisation as it is known would be unlikely to survive." I have little respect for Lovelock, but nevertheless, the end of the century is still 83 years away, so this is not an example of a prediction that has failed.
Of the links that were 404 not found, I could dig up one on archive.org, an article on "commondreams.org" about a report from "Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI), a leading environmental think-tank," headlined that "Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible'." That's not actually a prediction. All the way at the end of the article are two things that might be predictions:
The first: "Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050."
That's a prediction for over thirty years from now, so, no, that is not a prediction that has failed.
The second: "A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually."
An actual prediction! It's hard to say whether any given damage is "caused by" global warming. However, if you consider hurricanes "caused by" global warming, or droughts, or wildfires, that easily adds up to well over 150 billion. So at best I'd call this a prediction that needs some data analysis to say whether it's accurate or not. For what it's worth, here's Forbes-- not exactly a left-wing cheerleader-- saying the same thing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...
So, final summary: NO, this is not a list of predictions that have been turned out to be false.
The actual predictions-- by which I mean, the ones from actual climate scientists-- have mostly been pretty accurate. If you're looking at the sensationalist predictions-- sea level rises of many meters, cities innudated by floods, etc.-- they are for the most part predictions for after the year 2100, not for now.
But the real science predictions aren't sensational enough for the tabloids, and journalists tend to downplay the "in a hundred years" part of predictions in popular articles.
(responding to: how were all of the last predictions?)
Pretty accurate.
Yep. So far the predictions have been matching the measurements pretty well.
This particular article, however, verges on the sensationalist. Do note it's talking about sea level rise by the end of the century, not the next decade or two, and I also notice that, although what the actual scientists quoted talked about was two meters by the end of the century-- and note that this is on the high edge of what other scientists think, the authors of this article immediately jump to "but maybe it will be worse!" and talk about four meters of sea level rise. So, they took the highest estimate from any scientists, and doubled it.
Instead, pay a little more attention to this quote from the article, buried somewhat far from the sensationalist headline:
"Some scientists aren’t fully convinced the alarm is warranted. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, says the new research by Wise and his colleagues, which identified ice-cliff instabilities in Pine Island Bay 11,000 years ago, is “tantalizing evidence.” But he says that research doesn’t establish how quickly it happened."
The phrase "transforming the genome," although accurate, may be a little misleading to the non-science public. What this means is "selective breeding," not "genetic engineering."
It is interesting to compare farm-bred turkeys to the wild ones. We do get wild turkeys in our backyard-- they are quite impressive birds, not at all similar to the big-but-dumb coop-raised turkeys.
I wonder if the mechanics of landing are just formulas or "science fiction"
TFA says that he plans to open two parachutes, and presumably float to safety.
Yeah. Take a look at the chute on his first launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Definitely needs some rethinking, and, yes, a second chute is a really good idea.
With that said, though: this is really cool!
another yootoob, this one with still pictures from a test a few months later. You definitely did not want to land inside THAT rocket! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For those old enough to remember, this is not very different from what Evil Knievel did when jumping the Snake River canyon.
Actually, we got to where we are by importing the best and brightest worldwide. Einstein ring a bell? How about Fermi? Oppenheimer? Tesla?
Here's the funny part - these gents all came in legally under the immigration laws of their respective times, which is actually perfectly cool.
And that is what the story being commented on is about: international students who are legally in the United States attending college and graduate school.
Not one word was written about aborting babies. What was probably implied was family planning and , yes, that probably means 1 child. Moroon....(spelled on purpose because it fits )
I'm not sure to whom you are addressing your comment. The Anonymous Coward post that my reply was addressing stated:
We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
That explicitly does include a word about "aborting babies". So, I assume your comment was addressed to AC?
I'm a Libertarian, following Ayn Rand's wisdom, which
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian (with or without a capital L)-- she was an "Objectivist," a philosophy which she coined and led.
Rand hated libertarianism, and did not hesitate to say so: "Libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology... So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."
I see, it's always get rid of someone else's children, isn't it ? We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
It's odd that when an article suggests reducing the rate of population growth, a certain subset of radical conservatives immediately starts shouting "We need to abort their babies!"
(h) further reducing fertility rates by ensuring that women and men have access to education and voluntary family-planning services, especially where such resources are still lacking;
So, why is it that you suddenly start shouting about abortion?
Do you want to actually reduce the rate of abortion? That turns out to be really simple: abortion rates decrease when people have access to birth control. Simple.
Boy, it would be really convenient of all these simple cultures would just stop procreating in the first place. Maybe the WHO could just pay some group to just sterilize them, like they did in Kenya? But you know what would really "eliminate" the problem? What if we just eliminated those humans, so they don't burn all those fuels without scrubbers, and pollute those lakes, and cut down the forests for fields to grow food? After all, those leftists are looking out for the "greater good", so it's ok if it's nonconsentual.
What part of "access to education and voluntary family planning" is it that you are referring to here?
Giving people money with no strings attached generally results in that money being wasted (see: the government). I think Bill's more commercial approach to philanthropy has a far better chance of delivering results.
That's a very libertarian sentiment, but it's sometimes true and sometimes not.
I am happy to live in the twenty-first century, and one of the things about our time that I am most proud of is that I live in a world in which smallpox does not exist as a disease. It was wiped out. It was wiped out by a deliberate, concerted campaign by the World Health Organization, by doctors who really had nothing personal to gain by eliminating smallpox from villages in the third world that they would never visit.
(On television, the planet has been saved by the actions of Doctor Who. For much of the planet, however, the real work in saving the planet was actions of the WHO doctors.)
I assume you're being deliberately provocative, which is to say, you seem to be trolling for an intemperate response.
OK. You're wrong.
First: "Young people need a better future." Yes, and here's what's in the future of young people: they're going to become old people. Young people damn well do want an end to Alzheimers, because without one, it's in their future.
Second, caring for elder people who have Alzheimers is a huge drain on the younger people who have to do the caring, and it's a drain emotionally, physically, and financially. You really do not want to put your parents into an Alzheimer-care assisted living facility and watch them slowly deteriorate on the long road to dying. Trust me.
And third, it's not a dichotomy. Working on stopping one disease doesn't mean that you can't also work on making the world better in other ways as well; and understanding of biology learned from working on Alzheimers may very well have benefits to other diseases and brain injuries, some of which may very well also strike young people.
So, summary: no. Learning to stop Alzheimers would be a good thing for all of us, including old and young people.
Not in Finland or any other northern place. Winter charging is no charging.
I would consider Finland a poor latitude for use of electric cars, especially since batteries perform poorly at low temperatures. However, since Finland comprises 0.072% of the population of the world, I think we can survive with the Finns finding a different solution.
Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does?
But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".
You only get better gas mileage because of the weight
So? Does it matter why it gets better gas mileage? What matters is that it does get better gas mileage.
... More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
Indeed, there are other forms of pollution. If you get better miles per gallon but worse particulates and carbon monoxide per mile, it's not a desireable trade-off.
The article listed switching to LED lights as an example of some of the things these cities have done, that they consider “no brainers." Note the word "some".
The article also said '“We’ve proven that cutting emissions is good for the economies of cities.' San Francisco has enjoyed a 78 percent economic gain while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent since 1990, she said. All of the 20 cities in the Alliance have seen similar results."
No, I'm serious. Replace all parking lanes on arterials with barrier-separated bicycle and transit lanes. Destroy all vehicles other than public transit and bicycles using those lanes. Problem solved.
Slashdot Mirror
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Fortunately, like a good scientist, I gave you my methodology, so you could repeat the experiment.
And, as a good scientist, I did a statistical analysis: of the three links that either weren't dead or could be tracked down with the wayback machine, zero actually showed predictions that were wrong.
Given that zero out of three links you gave showed failures of prediction, I conclude that, mostly, your google search gives you irrelevant garbage.
Yes Anartica is a continent. When the ice melts there people can start moving from new york to Antarctica. it all evens out in the end
I like that as a science fiction story, but in the real world, turns out Antarctica is still pretty much unlivable, even after 2 or even 5 degrees of global warming. Too bad, really.
Parts of Siberia might get nice, though.
Or better yet we will awaken some unfathonable creature from the abyss of lake vostok that will wipe out all human life on the planet. this will end global warmig.
Didn't Lovecraft write that one? Tekeli-li!
thats a good thing right. the real reason liberals want to stop global warming is because it would allow dark skinned people to move up north and corrupt your gated liberal white communities.
Now you're just trolling. That was also a science fiction premise, I think; just in this case a Neo-Nazi story.
I'm not sure what the point is here. The Jurassic was a period lasting over fifty million years. Yes, during much of the Jurassic, carbon dioxide was much higher than it is now, and temperatures were correspondingly much hotter, the Earth had no ice caps and no glaciers, and the sea levels were much higher.
I'd point at this as showing that higher carbon dioxide levels are correlated to higher temperatures and higher sea levels.
Yes, we could adapt. Over a time span short compared to fifty million years, the ecology would just settle in to a new equilibrium. But we're not talking about millions of years, not even hundreds of thousands of years here.
So why not push the so-called "climate experts" to completely opensource their models and explain what they are doing?
The models are open source; they are heavily annotated and explained.
...So wouldn't it be a good idea to have as many eyes overlooking these models?
Yes, that's the way science works. And the models have been downloaded and are being run by hundreds of universities around the world. We do have thousands of eyes looking over the models.
It doesn't take a degree in climatology to find errors in code or mathematics.
And so the fact that people aren't finding those purported errors in code or mathematics, despite thousands of people looking for them, should tell you something
A while back, I made a list of various predictions saying that climate change was irreversible, or soon would be irreversible.
Of the seven links you give, five are "404 not found" or "Error 553 Website is offline". That's an amazing record, five of seven links dead. But these were mostly to sites like "examiner.com", which was (it's dead now) a site where people could upload blog posts that, if they got enough readers, would give them pocket change.
Two of your links still worked.
The first was to a NPR story in 2009 quoting a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences saying that if we stop emitting carbon dioxide immediately, the effects due to the carbon dioxide we have emitted will last for "more than a thousand years," basically due to the lag time it takes for carbon dioxide to be desorbed by the ocean. There's no real prediction here- basically, it's an article about the system hysteresis. So, no, this is not a failed prediction.
The second was a link to an article about an editorial by James Lovelock. In a 2006 article in the Sydney Morning Herald: "Professor James Lovelock said billions would die by the end of the century, and civilisation as it is known would be unlikely to survive." I have little respect for Lovelock, but nevertheless, the end of the century is still 83 years away, so this is not an example of a prediction that has failed.
Of the links that were 404 not found, I could dig up one on archive.org, an article on "commondreams.org" about a report from "Washington-based World Resources Institute (WRI), a leading environmental think-tank," headlined that "Damage from Warming Becoming 'Irreversible'." That's not actually a prediction. All the way at the end of the article are two things that might be predictions:
The first: "Even if climate change is more gradual, recent studies have argued that as many as one million plant and animal species could be rendered extinct due to the effects of global warming by 2050."
That's a prediction for over thirty years from now, so, no, that is not a prediction that has failed.
The second: "A recent report by the world's largest reinsurance company, Swiss Re, predicted that in 10 years the economic cost of disasters like floods, frosts, and famines caused by global warming could reach $150 billion annually."
An actual prediction! It's hard to say whether any given damage is "caused by" global warming. However, if you consider hurricanes "caused by" global warming, or droughts, or wildfires, that easily adds up to well over 150 billion. So at best I'd call this a prediction that needs some data analysis to say whether it's accurate or not. For what it's worth, here's Forbes-- not exactly a left-wing cheerleader-- saying the same thing: https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...
So, final summary: NO, this is not a list of predictions that have been turned out to be false.
The actual predictions-- by which I mean, the ones from actual climate scientists-- have mostly been pretty accurate. If you're looking at the sensationalist predictions-- sea level rises of many meters, cities innudated by floods, etc.-- they are for the most part predictions for after the year 2100, not for now.
But the real science predictions aren't sensational enough for the tabloids, and journalists tend to downplay the "in a hundred years" part of predictions in popular articles.
(responding to: how were all of the last predictions?)
Pretty accurate.
Yep. So far the predictions have been matching the measurements pretty well.
This particular article, however, verges on the sensationalist. Do note it's talking about sea level rise by the end of the century, not the next decade or two, and I also notice that, although what the actual scientists quoted talked about was two meters by the end of the century-- and note that this is on the high edge of what other scientists think, the authors of this article immediately jump to "but maybe it will be worse!" and talk about four meters of sea level rise. So, they took the highest estimate from any scientists, and doubled it.
Instead, pay a little more attention to this quote from the article, buried somewhat far from the sensationalist headline:
"Some scientists aren’t fully convinced the alarm is warranted. Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, says the new research by Wise and his colleagues, which identified ice-cliff instabilities in Pine Island Bay 11,000 years ago, is “tantalizing evidence.” But he says that research doesn’t establish how quickly it happened."
The phrase "transforming the genome," although accurate, may be a little misleading to the non-science public. What this means is "selective breeding," not "genetic engineering."
It is interesting to compare farm-bred turkeys to the wild ones. We do get wild turkeys in our backyard-- they are quite impressive birds, not at all similar to the big-but-dumb coop-raised turkeys.
Thanks!
I wonder if the mechanics of landing are just formulas or "science fiction"
TFA says that he plans to open two parachutes, and presumably float to safety.
Yeah. Take a look at the chute on his first launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Definitely needs some rethinking, and, yes, a second chute is a really good idea.
With that said, though: this is really cool!
another yootoob, this one with still pictures from a test a few months later. You definitely did not want to land inside THAT rocket! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For those old enough to remember, this is not very different from what Evil Knievel did when jumping the Snake River canyon.
Strike "what Evil Knievel did". Substitute "what Evil Knievel tried to do.
Bullshit. The newspapers pretty much get their information from the internet, and their stock holders in places like Russia and Mexico.
You are incorrect. Sorry.
News reporter are a beleaguered profession, but they still exist.
Oddly, the summary gives a link to a two-month old critique of the fonts and style, but fails to link to the actual story being summarized.
It's here: https://gizmodo.com/ios-11-is-...
Actually, we got to where we are by importing the best and brightest worldwide. Einstein ring a bell? How about Fermi? Oppenheimer? Tesla?
Here's the funny part - these gents all came in legally under the immigration laws of their respective times, which is actually perfectly cool.
And that is what the story being commented on is about: international students who are legally in the United States attending college and graduate school.
Not one word was written about aborting babies. What was probably implied was family planning and , yes, that probably means 1 child. Moroon....(spelled on purpose because it fits )
I'm not sure to whom you are addressing your comment. The Anonymous Coward post that my reply was addressing stated:
We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
That explicitly does include a word about "aborting babies". So, I assume your comment was addressed to AC?
I'm a Libertarian, following Ayn Rand's wisdom, which
Ayn Rand was not a libertarian (with or without a capital L)-- she was an "Objectivist," a philosophy which she coined and led.
Rand hated libertarianism, and did not hesitate to say so: "Libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology... So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement."
(Ayn Rand, Ford Hall Forum, 1971)
I see, it's always get rid of someone else's children, isn't it ? We can just "empower girls and women" in THOSE cultures to abort their babies.
It's odd that when an article suggests reducing the rate of population growth, a certain subset of radical conservatives immediately starts shouting "We need to abort their babies!"
What the actual article says is taking the step of:
So, why is it that you suddenly start shouting about abortion?
Do you want to actually reduce the rate of abortion? That turns out to be really simple: abortion rates decrease when people have access to birth control. Simple.
Boy, it would be really convenient of all these simple cultures would just stop procreating in the first place. Maybe the WHO could just pay some group to just sterilize them, like they did in Kenya? But you know what would really "eliminate" the problem? What if we just eliminated those humans, so they don't burn all those fuels without scrubbers, and pollute those lakes, and cut down the forests for fields to grow food? After all, those leftists are looking out for the "greater good", so it's ok if it's nonconsentual.
What part of "access to education and voluntary family planning" is it that you are referring to here?
The summary fails to link to the actual article; instead it links to articles talking about the article.
The article in question is here:
http://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/sites/sw/files/Ripple_et_al_warning_2017.pdf
Encourage abortion for those that continue to poduce with no way of paying for them.
Uh, just to point out the obvious, a simpler and cheaper solution would be just to make sure that birth control is available to those who want it.
Giving people money with no strings attached generally results in that money being wasted (see: the government). I think Bill's more commercial approach to philanthropy has a far better chance of delivering results.
That's a very libertarian sentiment, but it's sometimes true and sometimes not.
I am happy to live in the twenty-first century, and one of the things about our time that I am most proud of is that I live in a world in which smallpox does not exist as a disease. It was wiped out. It was wiped out by a deliberate, concerted campaign by the World Health Organization, by doctors who really had nothing personal to gain by eliminating smallpox from villages in the third world that they would never visit.
(On television, the planet has been saved by the actions of Doctor Who. For much of the planet, however, the real work in saving the planet was actions of the WHO doctors.)
I assume you're being deliberately provocative, which is to say, you seem to be trolling for an intemperate response.
OK. You're wrong.
First: "Young people need a better future." Yes, and here's what's in the future of young people: they're going to become old people. Young people damn well do want an end to Alzheimers, because without one, it's in their future.
Second, caring for elder people who have Alzheimers is a huge drain on the younger people who have to do the caring, and it's a drain emotionally, physically, and financially. You really do not want to put your parents into an Alzheimer-care assisted living facility and watch them slowly deteriorate on the long road to dying. Trust me.
And third, it's not a dichotomy. Working on stopping one disease doesn't mean that you can't also work on making the world better in other ways as well; and understanding of biology learned from working on Alzheimers may very well have benefits to other diseases and brain injuries, some of which may very well also strike young people.
So, summary: no. Learning to stop Alzheimers would be a good thing for all of us, including old and young people.
Not in Finland or any other northern place. Winter charging is no charging.
I would consider Finland a poor latitude for use of electric cars, especially since batteries perform poorly at low temperatures. However, since Finland comprises 0.072% of the population of the world, I think we can survive with the Finns finding a different solution.
But are they better than my 500cc Yamaha T-Max?
Yeah there are. Some of them are lots better. Did you know pound per pound your scooter probably pollutes more than my car does?
But "pound per pound" is not the criterion. The appropriate criterion would be "pound of pollution per commuter mile".
You only get better gas mileage because of the weight
So? Does it matter why it gets better gas mileage? What matters is that it does get better gas mileage.
...
More mile per gallon doesn't necessarily mean less pollution.
Indeed, there are other forms of pollution. If you get better miles per gallon but worse particulates and carbon monoxide per mile, it's not a desireable trade-off.
And why are there no local predators?
Homo homini lupus est.
Wait... aren't you critiquing both artists, and the ones who critique them, and the ones who critique the ones that critique them?
The article listed switching to LED lights as an example of some of the things these cities have done, that they consider “no brainers." Note the word "some".
The article also said
'“We’ve proven that cutting emissions is good for the economies of cities.' San Francisco has enjoyed a 78 percent economic gain while reducing greenhouse gas emissions 28 percent since 1990, she said. All of the 20 cities in the Alliance have seen similar results."
No, I'm serious. Replace all parking lanes on arterials with barrier-separated bicycle and transit lanes. Destroy all vehicles other than public transit and bicycles using those lanes. Problem solved.
And that will solve the problem of pollution caused by burning agricultural waste in the fields how, exactly?
see: "Farmers’ Unchecked Crop Burning Fuels India’s Air Pollution"