leicsmac

Those were the days. Excellent use of Bran Van 3000.

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-climate-atmospheric-dynamics-unveil-future.html ...a collaborative team of researchers led by Michael Mann of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Arts & Sciences have peeled back layers of atmospheric dynamics to reveal a startling truth: The interplay of natural systems and human-induced climate change is setting the stage for more frequent and severe weather events... ...The researchers found that, prior to the heat dome event, the planetary wave—large-scale atmospheric fluxes in winds that cause weather change—over the Pacific Northwest amplified due to resonance, which is a related process where certain atmospheric conditions align in a way that reinforces the wave's strength and persistence. The increase in the wave's amplitude likely resulted in a reduction of soil moisture in the region. The drier soil, in turn, contributed to an increase in atmospheric temperatures, a key factor in the extreme warming observed during the heat dome event. The researchers note this complex interaction between the Earth's atmosphere and its terrestrial landscapes reveals an essential truth about extreme weather conditions: They don't occur in isolation but are the result of a series of interlinked processes. The link between increasing global average temperature and more severe weather events has been theorised in the past, but it continues to gain categorical empirical proof too. Also, Phys.org is such a brilliant resource for direct research news.

Yeah, whoever they bring in won't be as good, but they likely will still be very good. I guess we'll see.

And now no Kohli for the first two Tests. That might have an effect on the landscape.

Zverev too clinical in the tie break. Damn shame. Tbh I miss having extended fifth sets - perhaps they could do the TB at 9-9 rather than 6-6? That would give a little extra time for skill or luck to count and wouldn't be a much bigger strain on players or schedules.

This looks like it's going the full distance.

Yeah, but then any away Euro tie against a leading French or Irish side was going to be tricky.

Yeah, it does solve that particular dilemma, and given the way the ball is going to spit and turn out there we need Foakes playing.

Brook flying home from India tour for "personal reasons" and "will not be returning". Shit.

Oh, without a doubt. I think it's a bit rarer though when such hypocrisy actually contributes to a public health hazard.

I unreservedly agree that the decision made was wrong. I don't agree that the crowd should have much part in weighing in on that decision while the game is going on, because football shows it's obvious where that ends.

Hmmm... Bad reffing should be called out, but seeing crowds at football lets you know exactly where that leads if it isn't very well directed - pretty much any reffing gets called out and it makes the game poorer as a result.

Daily Mail headline: "UK Gripped By Measles Crisis". ... remind me which paper published the findings of "Doctor" Wakefield as if they were fact, leading to massive antivax sentiment and to this situation?

Well done to Norrie, hopefully he can get something of a run going this year. Someone needs to carry the torch from Murray.

Interesting. If these numbers are good then this would work for "heavy" vehicles as an adjutant to the other three sources for lighter passenger vehicles (which likely require less torque). Good to see more solutions being floated - the key issue is still energy generation as that's the biggest slice of the pie by far, though.

...well, yeah. That's because the ones it did harm aren't around anymore to complain about it. Or about "do-gooders".

Japan join the robotic lunar soft landing club!

Well, in terms of economic success, that did work for them. For a while. Of course, that's hardly the only arbiter of "success" anyway.

Right. And that is where we differ, because I believe them (mostly) to be neither malicious, incompetent or subverting the truth for the sake of an easier, better paid life. WRT proof, I guess we differ here too. I have no doubt you have seen what you have seen and drawn your own conclusions from it, but there's a reason that anecdotes don't become universal truth by themselves - there needs to be proper independent investigative, repeatable study done, in the same way any scientific matter is addressed (because this does concern the very use of the scientific method itself) before I would be satisfied that the accusations being levelled here - that the climate science corps are guilty of manipulating and ignoring data for their own ends and presenting what they have as false because of base interests, and that funding models are a key part of that data manipulation - are true across the entire academic corps (or even a small part of it). Now, I can understand that may seem unreasonable to ask that, because the very same people doing the investigation may have links to (or may even be) the people they are investigating so you're never going to get such ironclad evidence of wrongdoing, but that really is the burden of proof necessary here, so we're at something of an impasse. See below for more on this. There isn't one, but then I didn't say that - I said that there are both "free market" and command economy factors that cause harm to people through limiting their access to clean and healthy resources. I don't think that's overly controversial. I can supply evidence showing that the global average temperature is higher now than it has been for many thousands of years, but if we're going to quibble about the data source and reliability, yeah, better to leave that out. We don't have sole control over temperatures or anything like that, but we are exacerbating already existing cycles and causing them to go much faster than they would otherwise do. If that's hubris, then so be it - speaking personally and I'm agnostic and Marcus Aurelius had it right about gods two thousand years ago. We're certainly nothing to the Earth in some terms of the damage caused or the time we've been here, but we do have effects and we do have a responsibility to the future to been good custodians - that's not playing God or taking the place of one, that's just being nice. You clearly worry about the present and future as much as I do - we just have different ideas behind that worry. More on that, see below. WRT disasters, yeah, law of averages stipulates there's going to be one at some point, and preparation is our only defence - though perhaps as we advance along the tech tree we might be able to change things there. The "ideal food" debate is an interesting one. Yes, humans ate the same hunter-gatherer diet for thousands of years. But does that mean that it was in any way optimal in terms of health, or just good enough in terms of convenience and survival that humans were able to get by with it until mass agriculture? Long-lasting doesn't always = best. And here we come to the crux of the matter really, the fundamental disagreement that we have. You seem to lack any kind of trust in the scientific method of peer review, because it has somehow been "ideologically captured" and perverted and then through some other mechanism (not sure if you're specific about what it is) the "truth" comes out and has discredited it. Speaking personally, I trust the scientific method that we have now with the keyboard I'm typing this message on, with the set of cables that carry it onto the FT server, and with the pair of glasses I'm wearing to see the thing in the first place. All of those things, though products of engineering, required that same method to be conceived, created and maintained. I don't trust the current scientific method of deriving "fact" and "truth" because it's anywhere near perfect (no such thing involving humans could be), but because there is no other system that has derived such truth and resulted in more discoveries that benefit a greater number of people in history. Time was that we used the tenets of organised religion to explain how the world works (and a lot of places still do), but for me the method of empiricism, repeatable verifiable observation that is then verified by other experts in a field, remains the best way of discovering universal facts that we have at this time. It is like Churchill referring to democracy - the best imperfect option we have as a species right now. Allowing scientific fact to be left to whatever the populist call of the day is, rather than empirical expertise, leads nowhere good at all. And it leads there quickly. History shows that very clearly. Pardon if I appeared dismissive there, but I see pseudoscientific arguments based on zero evidence every day and I'm inclined to simply dismiss them via Hitchens Razor. Your argument is different because it goes to the very heart of epistemology, what "evidence" and "proof" is and how it is sourced, and I acknowledge and respect that. However, I simply cannot - will not - trust the word of these "top guys" you quote over a vastly larger amount of presented data saying otherwise. If these people are right, then their viewpoint will become the predominant one in time. But for now, it isn't. Anyhow, I think we've reached something of a junction here - we've both made our points very clearly and at length. I know my own viewpoint won't convince you, and I'm sure that yours won't convince me either. I guess that those observing this discussion will have to make up their own minds on the matter. As I said above, one of us is wrong. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me. There are far too many lives and futures at stake. Enjoy your day.

In such a situation, the ones that died so swiftly that they wouldn't even know what happened, to say nothing of painlessly, would be the lucky ones. On topic, asteroid mining.

Possibly. It'll happen one way or another.

A crossroads for our species. Sex robots. (These two things are probably not related.)

I'm sorry, but that still sounds like taking away agency from these often very smart, very decent people by saying they're all buying into a system that subverts scientific truth - when to uphold that same truth is the very reason many of them became scientists in the first place. It's unfair to have such a low opinion of the science corps without proof, IMO. Science changes and progresses all the time - that's a feature, not a bug. If it didn't we'd still think in terms of the ether and four elements, rather than spacetime/quantum mechanics and the Periodic Table. Was the Millennium Bug suddenly no longer problematic because it was planned for and dealt with in good fashion? Survivorship bias - or an offshoot of it. Of course it's difficult for anyone to admit they were wrong about something, but in the end physical, empirical method has the last word - as it has throughout history. And it will with this matter. There are already "artificial" food and water shortages caused by what some refer to as the "free market" and also through government intervention in places. Yeah, a future where that becomes a much more massive issue is one to be avoided, but one where we let emissions run amok and the global average temperature climbs into the roof is the much more likely way that happens. Nature is a much better killer than humans could ever be, that's why a single preventable disease killed more people in the 20th Century than all incidents of war in that same century put together. And yeah, if the shit hits the fan for whatever reason I'm refusing the call too. But that war and that shortage of resources is much more likely to be naturally than artificially caused. Ask Sergei Korolev how much innovation he was able to do in the former USSR. He perhaps would have single-handedly beat the Americans to the Moon if he hadn't suffered awful misfortune on the operating table. For what it's worth I agree that innovation has to be the cornerstone going forward, but in the way that you imagine it, it will be competitive, divided (in the way free market solutions often are, microcosms of evolution that they are) and I fear it will fail as a result (or at least, fail the vast majority of the human population). This is a massive task, a global one, and I'm sorry, but it does need unity to be successful - that is obvious to me. And especially when the consequences of something are beyond the line of sight spatially or temporally of the individual, they tend not to give a shit. That is a mistake - should civilisation be allowed to fall because of it, in the name of "freedom"? NB. Interesting list of disasters there - I wrote a manuscript on extinction events a while back that included all of those and which I should really get round to editing. I don't think that you're crazy at all. I would be a shit science communicator if I dismissed people as so, and I appreciate the time and the responses. But...one of us is wrong about this matter. I think that it is you. I hope that it is me, because then we might have a better chance of revisiting this discussion in a few decades without hearing about the biggest humanitarian crisis since the Toba supervolcanic eruption 70000 years ago and truly grotesque times as a result. And there were a few scientists paid off to write up cigarettes as harmless, and others to do the same with some medicines. But the scientific method found them out in the end, and that's what it does. Not some conspiracist with a YouTube video and a slick manner sometimes selling snake oil on the side, the scientific method of empiricism discovered and rendered wrong all of these things. So will the method deliver the truth regarding climate change, too. Again, that it results in change is a feature, not a bug. NB. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that things are going great with the "weather" and invent a more human threat that "they" can control, if increased control was "their" objective?

And when the teleprinter printed out a score with the number in words afterwards, like... Southampton 0 Leicester 9 (NINE) ... then one of the teams had a bad day.

Please don't sugarcoat - be honest. Being guided by money and/or power over truth = corrupt. The implication here is that the climate science corps is guided by the money at the expense of actual empirical fact, therefore they are corrupt. There is nowhere near any kind of ironclad widespread proof for this. Not when they are proven to be right by events and/or repeatable empiricism. Again, the scientific method doesn't care about politics, it makes itself known in time no matter what. How exactly are the current measures being taken going to bring about this population crash that the "elites" desire? If anything, the opposite is true; not taking these measures will result in increased global average temperatures, which will then result in vastly increased incidences of drought and famine followed by hugely increased global conflict over much more limited resources as a result. The Earth can easily support the current population and likely more besides, the issue is one of logistics. Those wanting to "reduce" population, on either side of the debate, are as insane as each other. You're right to be afraid of authoritarianism. You should be afraid of societal collapse more. Because that's not Big Brother controlling everyone through "15-minute cities", that's Immortan Joe enslaving, killing, raping and pillaging as he feels like in a world where the only rule is the rule of the biggest and toughest person. And that road leads directly on to extinction, not far further along the line. Tell me exactly which one of those is preferable. As bad as the 20th Century was, it carried through it the seed of hope that things would and can change to a freer, more just society - and that will be there as long as such civilisation exists. Take that civilisation away, however, and the only freedom there is is the freedom to enslave or be enslaved. To kill or be killed. Yeah, fight back against measures that take away freedoms where you can. But on some issues that involve consequences that cannot be reasoned with, bought, bullied or intimidated, the choice is simple - our species overcomes united, or falls divided. This is one of those issues.