Re: This whole panspermia idea...
I think life is created inside stars
2203 posts • joined 14 Apr 2011
I think life is created inside stars
how do they know it's not just a load of shit?
Is this the same Matt Ridley who was chairman of Northern Rock when it collapsed?
If so it's kind of strange for him to be the one spearheading criticisms of people who are warning of disasters.
It's relevant because it graphically displays human overpopulation of earth, which isn't just about members of our own species but the even greater numbers of livestock species we artificially breed. All of which have displaced other species in the wild and require great amounts of crop land and water to feed.
Of course we aren't supposed to examine this subject critically and ask whether it is sustainable, because Erlich was wrong in the 70s or something.
"he forgot to apply Moore Law to food production"
I know you are not claiming it literally, but there was no equivalent for Moore's law for food production. As far as I can tell, at the time there was no guarantee that crop yields could be massively increased more than they already had been.
"2) nuclear winter. I appear to have missed the bit where we had a nuclear war "
Exactly. It seems they are arguing Erlich should not have raised warnings about nuclear winter because he should have assumed nuclear war would not occur. As if anyone could have known that at the time.
The warnings themselves are not being judged on the knowledge available when they were made, but in hindsight using the knowledge of today. So for example they argue Erlich should not have made warnings of global starvation because he should have assumed food production would ramp up, as if he should have been psychic. None of them offer reasons for why it was obvious he was wrong at the time.
It's a fine way to dangerously shut down discussion of threats though. I notice that any warning that does not come to pass is now used as an excuse to dismiss further warnings out of hand.
The problem I see is that to explain why Ehrlich's predictions in the 70s of mass starvation were wrong every Captain Hindsight points to the green revolution. Which is to say if the green revolution hadn't occurred, Ehrlich's predictions would likely have been correct. So I ask who was able at the time to predict the green revolution was sure to happen?
It seems the counter for such dire warnings then and now remains nothing but optimistic guff, what I call the theory of "A Miracle Will Occur". It is a really more a dismissal of the problem than any reassurance of a solution, the idea that all looming problems can be ignored because God or Lady Luck will stop them becoming catastrophes.
There are a number of issues charging up due to rising human population and consumption, including peak oil, peak soil, aquifer depletion, climate change and species extinctions. Where are the *guarantees* or even half-baked guarantees based on *logic* that these issues are not imminent problems?
An example of something that has already gone wrong are various fish stock collapses due to overfishing, where very notably The Miracle Did Not Occur and instead it was a Nasty Surprise.
But of course we can safely ignore all future warnings because we got lucky once before.
I was being sarcastic not serious
I just download music and movies for free. Don't give a shit about artists. They should get proper jobs that produce real things that have real value, ie that cannot be copied for free. Just a fact of life.
So it's obvious that if the data shows continuing global warming it must be false? How convenient a filter to prevent you ever having to accept a world that was warming.
Also the idea that these researchers benefit in grants from this is wrong. These researchers would have grants to maintain the temperature records whatever the result was.
that's a very convenient conspiracy theory that creationists also appeal to in order to explain why they can't get their ideas published in leading journals.
In reality this is a sign that the ideas lack credibility, not a sign that there is something wrong with peer review.
it says you believe myths
"it sounded like they had just played a numbers game to me."
Brilliant, so you made your mind up early
"And from this write up, it looks like I was right"
Political think-tanks opposed to action on climate change are very much against any questioning that there has been a pause in global warming. So it was entirely predictable that there would be "write ups" to satisfy what you wanted to believe.
"No wonder we cannot actually get to the bottom and agree on what is really happening to our planet."
There are people who don't want you to know what is going on
Why do you assume the numbers were adjusted incorrectly? Right wing think tanks were publishing rebuttals to the paper before it was even published. Red flag: political think tanks reviewing scientific papers that they clearly have ideological objections to. Sure there's more of a reason to question the validity of that than the peer reviewed paper. I bet you that none of these criticisms will ever be submitted to peer review.
But why assume Ross's analysis is accurate?
"Observations showed warming wasn't increasing despite record amounts of CO2"
That's exactly what the commenter you replied to was talking about. Why do you accept the observations when they show a pause but complain about them when they don't?
The question that is being raised now is whether there was a pause at all. Many researchers are not doubtful of that. There is no statistically significant difference between the previous warming trend and the most recent rate of warming, therefore on what basis does anyone claim global warming has slowed down?
I've seen the content of their conferences and their textbooks. There is a clear consensus among people of expertise that man is driving the planet warmer. I don't think calling them liars or idiots is a particularly convincing argument, being the same argument the creationists and anti-vaxxers resort to to explain away the consensus in those particular fields.
And the expertise part cannot be emphasised enough - climate skeptics tend to overestimate their own knowledge on the subject. 9/10 when I bump into a person skeptical of manmade global warming I find them throwing out simplistic arguments that don't hold up, and having reached a conclusion on the matter via those arguments.
"Computing is still, at best, an inexact science."
what. does. that. mean. ?
"Almost unheard of is the concept of simply improving technology to the point at which we are using low-carbon technologies and emitting less fossil carbon than is locked up by natural processes"
Really? You've never heard of the concept of replacing fossil fuels with cleaner energy sources?
There is a consensus - the best human minds on the subject of climate are unanimous that man is driving up the temperature of the earth and will continue doing so. They are best placed to analyse the evidence and have been convinced by that evidence. This is a strong indicator that the idea has merit.
Given Dawkin's has been mentioned I would think the obvious parallel with climate science would be the theory of evolution. Dawkin's himself isn't particularly kind to some of the creationist scientists is he?
"H. pylori" was a small matter contained within a small field of science. Evolution and climate change are fully blown issues which threaten the ideologies of vast segments of the public. There really is no comparison.
"Since 1998 the IPCC climate models have all predicted various rates of warming, the average being 1 degree warmer by 2015"
"The actual warming over this time is zero degrees"
"Clearly the correlation of global warming with CO2 concentration has been disproved"
"I am impressed with the logical thinking of the general public who have grasped this fact far better than the Climate Science community."
It really makes no sense. Why would a field of experts around the world be convinced that CO2 emissions are driving up global temperature if it's so obviously wrong?
I am afraid you are in a position of error and you can't see that you are.
The majority of climate researchers accept that man is warming the world through greenhouse gas emissions. The evidence is quite convincing.
huh I thought sky and sunday times were both owned by murdoch. well part owned anyway.
yes because deliberately selling faulty chips won't cause a business to totally lose its reputation
Real Authors use Notepad
Does twice as much energy mean the black hole they inadvertently create will be twice as large, or does the inverse square law apply?
there is no temperature plateau
I think that's the gist of what the scientist was saying. Geo-engineering projects need to be sustained in the longterm. Which means it all goes to shit if some crazy future administration decides it doesn't believe in the science anymore and cancels the project.
"Well, of course deploying this sort of tech would be a stupendously bad idea. It's a complete unknown; all we have are models that keep being proven inaccurate at best, and biased for political reasons at worst."
It's funny how "unknowns" and "inaccurate models" are used as a justification to CONTINUE uncontrolled CO2 emissions.
But as soon as it comes to any other subject (geo-engineering or medicine for example) "unknowns" and "inaccurate models" are cited as a reason to AVOID the action in question.
Wonder why there is such a wildly different approach. One that assumes it is fine until proven dangerous, the other that it is a crazy idea until proven safe.
It is quite funny to read various climate skeptic blogs discussing this news about geo-engineering in which climate skeptic commentards drop their guard and shriek hysterically about the dangers of modifying the climate, citing the "law of unintended consequences", wailing "not on my planet!" and bemoaning the risk of messing around with the climate.
Somehow in complete contradiction to their casual don't-give-a-shit attitude towards ongoing CO2 emissions which are not only a form of geo-engineering but an uncontrolled one. Yet in that case the "law of unintended consequences" doesn't get a mention and anyone who dares suggest such a thing would be labelled as "alarmist".
If any evidence were needed that their "nothing to see here" attitude towards CO2 is all about the $$$
In the vacuum of space the only insulator is that which can block radiation from escaping, ie greenhouse gases like CO2. Mars has a very thin atmosphere so even though CO2 dominates, it has less CO2 than Earth. The heat on venus cannot be explained other than through the greenhouse effect
yet the world continues to heat up.
"A much bigger impact is the upwards convection of warm air at the equators taking heat away and allowing it to cool in the upper atmosphere"
That would cool, not warm the surface. The greenhouse effect which CO2 contributes to is why the Earth isn't covered in ice.
venus absorbs less sunlight than Earth
actually the answer is that the OCO-2 satellite doesn't show absorption of CO2 and therefore the "thinkers" who imagine it shows the CO2 all comes from the rainforest aren't seeing a greater amount of CO2 being sunk into the biosphere and oceans elsewhere. The human emission being the breaking point that is causing CO2 levels to rise. Whack.
Is it as bad as prometheus and interstellar?
"They publicly put out a heavily edited upwards graph after adjusting the data and then took it down when criticized it didnt reflect reality"
your recollection is a pile of steaming shit then. What you describe never happened.
The temperature records have been independently confirmed again and again.
"After all, releasing the raw data would reveal the true temps"
Well go at it then because the raw data from the weather stations have always been available.
"And this article focusing on the UK and the very wrong statement implying something which is demonstrably untrue"
Bob Ward is absolutely correct in his assessment. It's this article that is wrong. Perhaps you forget the heatwave at the end of July? Well this article averaged it out with the cool August to make in vanish.
The fact is the year to date in the UK is the warmest on record. Above average temperatures have persisted for the majority of the year. The climate normal in the UK is rising as the globe warms.
Central England Temperature requires the rest of the year to average just +0.6C above average to break a new record. All but one month this year has been above +1C and November is already so far +1.4C above average.
The absurd assertion in the article that we could just as easily see the coldest year on record requires November and December to be 25 degrees C colder than average.
Such straws to cling on just to deny the country, and the world is warming.
The world has continued heating up in recent years, despite the sun going quiet.
Ocean temperatures are currently the hottest on record for example.
If the quiet sun has ANY cooling effect AT ALL, then be very afraid because it has been completely overwhelmed by the rising greenhouse gases and means we have an even sharper jump in temperature in store when the Sun picks up again.
I don't know but I found a satellite with a similar orbit and NASA say:
"The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite was launched to monitor rainfall in the tropics. Therefore, it has a relatively low inclination (35 degrees), staying near the equator."
Altitude: 350 km, boosted to 402 km on August
"The TRMM orbit is non-sun- synchronous and initially was at an altitude of 350 km, until the satellite was boosted to 402 km on August 22, 2001. The objectives of TRMM center on rainfall and energy, including latent heat of condensation."
So what does this mean for 345 by 363 Kilometers at an inclination of 43.5 degrees?
macro means big micro means small
i learn things
Dear anonymous terrorist,
sorry but it is funny and has an undercurrent of underspoken truth
"Collins and three other defendants, Anthony Tadros, Thomas Bell and Geoffrey Commander called their pleas in on the misdemeanour offence yesterday."
Did they find out who was in charge?
only problem is such a simulation already ran in real life on a computer the size of the planet earth, and it took millions of years to produce intelligent creatures. There's little hope of producing anything equivalent by evolution on a small computer in a human lifetime.
The public are fed such BS to believe that AI is capable of far more than it is actually is. I get told that "they" have now made a computer as intelligent as a mouse, but I know that isn't true because AI just isn't there. I know full well what they've really done is create something analogous to the structure of a mouse brain. But how can I argue with newspaper articles? Everyone wants to believe hard AI is just 5 years away and they don't like me sounding like some neo-luddist when I say it's rubbish. People don't realize how frickin stupid AI is still and how ludicrously ahead of reality some of the proposed pie in the sky ideas (eg "google self-driving cars") and the like are. I think gamers perhaps have a better appreciation of how crap AI really is because they get to see the results (or lack of) of attempts to get code to do something truly intelligent - and that's in a controlled environment!
The best defense against a leak is to immediately leak a flood of substantial information yourself on a similar yet less important subject, but deliberately promote it as a shocking reveal. That way the media will focus on the larger more detailed leak you provided and overlook the real less detailed damaging leak.
Am I the only one who does not believe this hype about driverless cars?
This happened a few weeks ago. I was driving along a 60mph road. Ahead of me was a lorry parked in the opposite lane. Of course I see this ahead and start slowing down. Presumably an AI could do that too, I'll give it that much.
I notice a workman is standing in front of the lorry holding a pole that says "STOP". So of course I stop, and knowing the implications of this I leave enough space for traffic coming the other direction to pass. My human brain has learned this pattern of "workmen managing traffic" and I know on the other-side of the lorry is a workman holding a "GO" pole.
What would a driverless car do though? Would it stop and leave enough room for other cars to pass? Or would it ignore the pole and continue going through at 40mph only to break sharply when a car from the other direction pulled into it's lane? Then what? The driverless car presumably isn't going to reverse. So it's blocking the traffic. So the meat in the driver seat has just shit themselves and is fumbling to regain control.
I've said it before. If modern AI were really capable of driving a car then WHERE IS THE FRICKIN AI in simpler settings?
The dearth of decent AI in video games speaks volumes about the true capability of AI today.