Leaderboard

I beg to differ. The 'greenhouse gas' effect is well understood, and related to the characteristic black body re-radiation of heat fron the Earth at about 10o ( in the microwave range whre it causes bending/stretching of intermolecular bonds ), as opposed to incoming solar, centered at 4000o ( the visble range which mostly affects electron energy levels ). The absorption and re-emission of this microwavw radiation is upsetting the equilibrium ( because a lot of it can be re-directed back to the Earth, instead of into space ) and causing the Earth to retain more heat, and I'm sure someone has probably quantified this effect by now. This is a large simplification, but it is Physics, Chemistry and Math. So do keep in mind we are a science forum.

Pretty cool - sounds like the Bayesian Belief Network that is used in diagnostic medicine. (except the prior P(A) is much better known in medicine, where e.g. accurate rates of pancreatic cancer are statistically available)

Just for fun, I've decided to run a little exercise in Bayesian inference. Let's say I am open-minded and believe that there is 1% chance of a UFO siting to be alien related. This is my "prior", P(A). Let's say about 90% of all UFO sitings have natural explanations. This is P(E). Let's say that even an alien related siting has 50% chance to be explained naturally. This is P(E/A). Now somebody reports a new siting, and somebody else points out a natural explanation to it. My new, updated believe in a chance of a UFO siting to be alien related is, P(A/E) = P(E/A)*P(A)/P(E) = 0.5*0.01/0.9 = 0.0056 So, I'm still open-minded but my confidence in alien related UFOs went down from 1% to 0.56%.

glad you're here to point this out for us

I can just about discern an overall trend. By no means conclusive, of course. If a patient's chart looked like that, without intervention we could say, "We won't have a definitive diagnosis until after the autopsy."

While I remain in the open-to-fresh-data camp, I am not sure that each sighting can be necessarily independent of other sightings, when you have the cases of dozens of sightings on one night in a particular area. For example, if you have 19 witnesses report seeing something that looks like a balloon, and at least half were able to distinguish the letters "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" across the side, and you have one who reports seeing a spacecraft with eerie lights and emitting a weird whine, you may have to give particular attention to that witness's visual identification skills and overall mindset, in comparison to the other 19. That's what I feel canvassing is so important, where an impartial investigative team interviews not just the person reporting something bizarre, but others who were outdoors at that time. Unfortunately, the smartphone era has introduced a confounding factor: fewer people are looking up these days. And electronic media has for several decades caused more humans to spend their evenings inside of houses.

Christ, that will change a few things !

Because there are no stock photos of the Governor of Florida ordering from a fast-food drive through. He's on a strict diet of unborn babies and the tears of reasoning humans.

@iNow [Florida parent...] I find that arrow coming off the Earth also pretty suggestive. Do we really want innocent Denebian children seeing such filth?

This is turning into an argument with Creationists: deflect one bit of nonsense, they quickly post another. Your graphic is from early March. LoL. No one has predicted an ice free Arctic in March - an absurd cherry pick of data. It is summer sea ice which is shrinking, and year to year comparisons are made in September when it's at its minimum extent. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/#:~:text=Summer Arctic sea ice extent,covered in ice) each September. As for prediction, look at the overall. The earth got warmer, as predicted, in a sudden spike that followed the Industrial Revolution and usually takes thousands of years when its part of a natural cycle. You can cherry pick data about ice or temperature fluctuations or whatever the Heartland Institute (or other oil industry sponsored think tanks) is peddling these days, or you can try to learn what changes are happening NOW, and what climatology and atmospheric physics have found to be causative factors. And no, climate science is not some idiot infant of a field. Indeed, its roots go back to Eunice Foote, who did research on the warming effects of CO2 in the mid-1800s, so one could point out that it is an older scientific field than subatomic physics, relativistic theory, genomics, virology, and others that we consider quite respectable.

An English man an Irish man and a Scottish man, walk into a bar, and the barman says "is this some sort of joke?"

The likelihood is pretty high imo, just not in our neighbourhood.

Some people want things yesterday and won't wait, so they wish too hard and start seeing things how they want something to be.

I'm inclined to think this. I'm also beginning to think the US needs whacking down some and geopolitical advantages from the internet spread more evenly. Social media dominance needs to be diluted and Tiktok is good for that. We don't want the US to become tyrants, which comes with a dominant position.

Ideal in an ideological world. Find me someone who has the funds, is prepared to make the investment, and is happy to deal with the whole logistical nightmare of re-locating 480 people. Oh, and that's if you get planning permission and approval from the environmentalists who don't want industry within agricultural or park land areas. There are thousands of ways all of us big or small can, and maybe, should reduce our waste in general, especially that which contributes to carbon emissions. It's beneficial all round to encourage renewable energy (except those that profit from fossil fuels).Unfortunately, profit takes precedence over everything else as we all know. The world is full of greed and selfishness. How do you encourage the have's to help the have not's? I'm not arguing against the need to reduce carbon emissions, I have conceded to it. I'm arguing that government's and agencies are not (at least in my experience so far) doing enough to support the efforts required to achieve net zero, especially so if the deadline is going to be brought forward.

Yes we do, it's a can kicking exercise; it gives them time to think of a new way to kick the can further down the road; all the while sporting a fixed grin, that be lies their hope that it will become someone else's problem before we reach the cliff... Off the top of my head, site the factory next to a big arsed shit farm and use the waste material; making both the shit farm and your company profitable (without taxing the people), worthy of a sizeable investment, no? OK that's fine, we can't predict the future, you might be right, however long the odds are. That's like a poor man spending every penny he will ever earn, on one national lottery ticket to solve his problem's; some people might say that's a really childish way to solve a problem.

Hi Trurl, I found this slideshow presentation informative Prime numbers and the Riemann zeta function, Carl Wang-Erickson, Nov. 12, 2019: There is some difficult math, but if you go through the presentation I think it can clear up how the Riemann hypothesis points at a pattern in prime number's average, logarithmic distribution. I would like you to describe that to me. I think of the argument (angle) for a complex number as rotating around. Can you refer me to that document or paper, please? I haven't gone through links or the paper you've provided, and I don't much understand the odometer question, but I read you're working at cryptography applications, so I'll think about it.