Huckleberry of Yore

It'd be interesting to have more details about what exactly the "calorie restricted" diet was, what and how much did they eat. Still, the article suggests longevity may be a consequence of genetics: "The researchers also note that in an unrelated study called the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, scientists found that men who had lower core body temperatures, probably for genetic reasons, lived significantly longer than men with higher body temperatures."

Could there be a link to the Flynn Effect, which suggests IQs appear to be rising? Surveying the Wikipedia article, the effect is a bit controversial, and the data doesn't seem to go back 150 years.

I didn't see it but only read the article, might try to find the actual study. Perhaps they recorded height and weight in the datasets. Another factor I considered, is that over that time have people been living in warmer houses? I have my winter thermostat at 65F which is low I think, but much higher than say my parents endured. Perhaps the body adjusts to the ambient conditions to which one is exposed to, over a lifetime. Looks like the study is here: https://elifesciences.org/articles/49555

https://www.popsci.com/story/health/body-temperature-dropping-history/?linkId=80609907 The study suggests that the average "normal" or healthy human temperature has dropped over a couple of centuries. If it's true I'd guess the major contributing factors are nutrition and general cleanliness both resulting in less infectious activity for the immune system to deal with. Still, I wonder if evolution has hidden tricks up its sleeve. Could there be genetic "cycles" experienced through generations? I've heard some traits skip generations; twins, and the widow's peak, for example. In the case of immune response or cell metabolism, perhaps nature has found it useful to "dither" biological functions to give the population a better chance at survival, a type of optimization. Even in that case, it seems unlikely that the population would be synchronized. I think.

There are countless implementations in C++ but ultimately the string is stored in memory and referenced by its pointer. If a particular C++ implementation doesn't allow access directly to the memory, it does the manipulations internally using that address or allocates a new one if necessary. Furthermore, in C++, give me a class that hides the implementation of the string and I can break it with casting and so forth. Regardless of language, a string is a sequence of characters, so I was suggesting that if each character is treated as a digit with radix chosen according to the encoding, each string can map to an integer. Not sure how useful that is, but it could be viewed as a scalar. 21534559H = "YES!"

Generally, I'd agree that a string would not be classified as scalar, but consider the following. First, ordinarily a string is manipulated via an address in memory. The address itself is scalar, and arithmetic can be performed. For instance, incrementing the address essentially removes characters from the beginning of the string, the number of which is equal to the increment. Second, you could consider the string as a list of digits, base 256 for ASCII, base 65536 for Unicode. Then, each possible string would map to a single integer.

I'm curious if the wavelength of a photon that was say emitted by an electron during fusion on the sun changes due to time dilation as the photon escapes the effect of the star's mass? Perhaps negligibly? I've read that in the vicinity of a black hole, ambient starlight can be "transformed" into X Rays due to dilation. Thanks.

I haven't asked a question yet other than for a consensus reference. I'm sure that video is very interesting but sorry, I tend to value people's responses. (I don't currently have sound hooked up to my PC so watching a video is a hassle - I'd assume it has narration.)

I have stated that I have questions, but also been discouraged to ask as the general attitude is IMO abusive. But I'll formulate a question, post it later, and see if that is the case.

I examined the graph but I didn't watch a video, do you mean the one about arctic ice? Sorry I didn't watch the video. Anyway, I saw the "alleged" temperature increase but this just leads to more questions. You know that would be just my luck! The world would boil over but I'd freeze my butt off somehow. Lol. @Sensei, Nihonjin desu ka? Watashi wa nihongo de heta desu. Demo Nihon e ikimashita takusan, ichiban ii desu. Sorry if you're not Japanese, years ago I worked there many times, and loved it. My poor knowledge of the language is fading. I understand what's going on now. You and moth et al are assigning a negative outcome to global warming, I tend to disagree that it would be negative, and believe the "solutions" proposed would be disastrous. Regardless, I'd argue that either sentiment is off topic to some degree as we are discussing whether global warming is real, not whether it is good or bad. Am I wrong? While I don't disagree I'd also point out the increased ease with which technology allowed research to bloom after the industrial revolution. Easier to travel, to publish, etc; my point is that these things may help explain the delay in developing that and other theories. At least you should agree that climate change is what is IIRC correctly longitudinal in nature, in that it requires a span of time to get a perspective. Not so much for evolution and relativity. To be honest, I suspect the other side is considerably more than 3%, but that is my opinion and I have not sought to persuade anyone except to ask for information. And, I suspect that even if the "other side" is 3% (or less) we could be in a situation like centuries ago when the prevailing opinion was that the earth was flat, a ridiculed minority believed otherwise. Of course I suspect I'll be accused of being the flat earther in this discussion so why bring it up. More than evidence I have questions regarding this topic, but as I've stated previously, I'll refrain as just abuse will ensue, and who has time for that? No need to go there, yes I understand the difference.

No, I'm saying that if even 3% are saying the plane won't make it, don't trust the 97%. Big difference I'd say. Peaking out my window reveals evolution is obvious; it's actually depressing science took so long to adopt it. Not quite so with relativity but it's application has been critical in implementing things like GPS not to mention all the evidence over the century or so. Global warming is much more difficult to perceive and to measure. Climate change on the other hand is impossible to disprove and also difficult to measure. Further, attributing such phenomena, even if they are measured, to human activity adds more difficulty. I keep hearing promises of increasing temperatures but I don't see it. it'd be nice if I could plant my tomatoes a little earlier, and get a better harvest due to higher temps. What I do fear is global cooling, but that's off topic, right?

Which section of the guidelines defines obscurity? An unfounded accusation. I'm not in favor of delays. Shouldn't prerequisites be clearly stated when they apply? It probably wouldn't but perhaps you've encountered something else persuasive on the topic; I appreciate your point of view! I don't know how to quantify the standards you are referring to, I was simply asking for information. Citations or guidelines? What's the cutoff point at which the minority is to be discounted, shunned, shamed, and ostracized? I've worked in the field of commercial aviation electronics; if someone tells you that your plane has a 97% chance of making it to the destination, my recommendation is: consider alternative transportation. Trying to remain on topic, I was interested in the previously posted information about Vincent E. Courtillot but apparently the cited video is in French. No discussion followed the citation. From years ago I recall a man called Landsea (?), a noted denier. Again, given the tone of these posts, I cringe at attempting a dialog on their points of view. They are ignorant or liars so why bother?

It doesn't appear to me that the authors of the referenced study included "quality" in their analysis and it isn't obvious how that could be measured. Under Methodology: "We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement." Well, I asked for a reference but was accused of litigating, and my query called nonsense. I'll refrain and educate myself on the basics, including the cited article which will make for interesting reading. Thanks. It's a spheroid. (Just giving you crap.)

While the bulk of your response is reasonable I would point out that the "evidence" I was directed to referenced the following: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming." Is this not evidence that there is another side? If we have no confidence in the 2.9% how can we objectively believe the 97.1%? Lastly, as the title of the thread suggests, several sincere and reasonable questions come to me while considering the question; I dare not pose them in this setting, as I likely would be ridiculed, ostracized, denigrated, belittled, insulted, suspended, banned. This does not apply to most other topics here, so I try to stick to those.

Better tell these guys. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321589753_Are_photons_really_massless "There are good theoretical reasons to believe that the photon mass should be exactly zero, but there is no experimental proof of this belief. Physicists have not stopped on assumption of massless." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316301083 "When setting an upper limit on the photon mass..." Why have such a fancy way of saying zero? I only mentioned a photon having mass as it would certainly get rid of the singularity, right? I don't know anybody that likes dividing by zero.

Are photons the only massless particles? Also, consensus is that a photon is massless but isn't there still the possibility that it has a miniscule undiscovered mass in which case it travels less than c?

Here's more: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/artificial-sweeteners-and-weight-gain May cause weight gain (!), disrupt gut bacteria, and encourage insulin resistance. For me, my only beverages are water, coffee, and beer. Reminds me of the controversy of around the late 1800's where IIRC the SCOTUS ruled tomatoes aren't fruit for purposes of taxation.

I disagree, but, again quibbling. You're right, my post misquotes you. Sorry, editing didn't seem to allow me to fix it. I haven't offered any opinion on AGW but simply asked for a reference for your claim, so I've litigated nothing. When I asked for a reference for your claim you could have simply declined. If we are beyond litigating then why in the heck did you allow this thread to exist? The title ASKS if global warming is real, right? Perhaps you could as moderator added "Yes" and locked it. Or added "any commentary suggesting the negative will be deleted".

Do we? Given the latency between neurons firing and keypresses maybe now is best defined as "in the very recent past". This is obviously philosophical, and whimsical. But I was alluding to something more fundamental, not just word play. Again, probably gibberish. It's relevant to ask, is time quantized? If so then one could identify a point in time (a now) as distinct from any other. So for any given time t1 in T (all of time) there exists a time t2 for which t2>t1 AND there is no t* for which t1<t*<t2. Also, can we say that in a universe, don't all time lines intersect eventually, with varying degrees of latency? But in a "multiverse" that would not be the case?

Thanks, that's better, something I can read and evaluate. I'd note from my brief survey of the information provided that I don't see anywhere that they actually polled the population of climate scientists. Rather, they asked only some of the scientists that had published papers on the subject of AGW over a span of time and came up in their search. Perhaps that's a good proxy for "overwhelming majority" of "well established" climate scientists, perhaps not. I see a variety of questionable trends in my field of software engineering, but I've learned the hard way to avoid criticizing them publicly, or face negative consequences. Hopefully that doesn't happen in the more objective arena of scientific inquiry.

The first quote I've shown implies what the second one says explicitly (overwhelming majority) and hints it could be 100%. But we are quibbling; if you have evidence to support the assertion I'd be interesting in seeing it. So far it seems that your claim (that the overwhelming majority of well established climate scientists are convinced of AGW. e.g. causes and solutions) is basically an opinion based on who you've "seen" but nothing else. It's OK to say you have no other evidence. Edit: the quote system didn't work right for me. It was my intention that the three quotes were by swansont. Now I have to go check I got it right.

That clock graph isn't physically possible is it? I've seen enough clocks on my oscilloscope to know there is ripple, undershoot, overshoot, and resonances. You can't have infinite ramp rates, right? Electrical engineers spend a lot of time designing to get these parameters into suitable tolerance.

Why would I be asked to prove something when I've made no specific claim? No "proof" is needed, just meaningful evidence. A specific claim has been made and there must be evidence on which this is based. Did someone take a poll? What are the details of that poll? Population size, specific questions, etc. That is probably too much detail to ask, but there must be something behind the claim beyond just the anecdotal. Perhaps there is no such evidence, just a prevailing opinion? And, even if it is just opinion it doesn't mean it's wrong, just a bit less definite.

I was giving you credit for writing something meaningful. Again, references? Great, but I didn't ask who you've seen, I asked for hard data backing up your claim in regards to a large population. I wouldn't expect you to have interviewed any significant fraction of that population or you'd be very busy!

What exactly is the specific data that backs this up? The last time I saw a claim that "97% of scientists" support AGW I determined that the conclusions for that specific claim were wrongly drawn from the source. Seemingly you are going further, saying 100% of expert scientists agree that humans are altering the climate and that alteration is meaningful increases in temperature. Risking sounding pedantic, interpreting your words precisely, you suggest the fulcrum of pro/con AGW is, if not exactly %100 of scientists pro, it is virtually so, in that the con population are of zero meaningful significance. I suspect you have valid references for this.