81–90 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Train tracks in place of highways, for starters. Windmills and panels everywhere.
Yea totally! Does Hyperloop count as train tracks? I wonder what upcoming inventions in windmills look like...
Not until it exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the paper: "shows our estimate that there is only a 0.5% chance that the observed retreat of Kaskawulsh Glacier happened in the absence of a climate trend" The 0.5% has nothing to do with the river. It is their confidence that the retreat of the glacier could occur in the absence of a climate trend based on their model.
Can you clarify why it is incorrect to reverse that into the statement "We estimate that there is a 99.5 percent chance that the observed retreat did not happen in the absence of a climate trend."? I confess to a fair amount of confusion at this point :) I'm sure there is something subtle (or perhaps obvious, and my brain is failing) that I'm missing. What is the properly worded complement?
If there is not a climate trend, we would expect this to happen with a .05 chance.
If they meant the latter, my confusion is resolved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technology is not the biggest challenge to reforesting, people are. What good is planting millions of trees with robots if poor peasants graze their goats in the area that kill them all? To succeed you need to get them to buy into the outcome. China's efforts on the Loess Plateau has been held up as a success in reforestation which has also benefited the local agricultural economy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK8…
Thanks, I watched the whole video. A great success of natural capitalism. I wonder how drone surveys, satellite mapping, and synthetic biology could extend this 35 sq-km success to 3,500 sq-km and beyond, augmenting people's needs and efforts. As said in the video, let's "properly understand the miracles performed by trees" to make this more profitable and spread everywhere. I also agree with the farmer who said "wha…
Glad you found it interesting. In the text accompanying the video they link to more videos in the series from Ethiopia and Rwanda, with similar projects to rehabilitate the land.
Sweet, so what should we build to change this? Giant carbon-sucking machines, cube-sats pointed at glaciers? (planet labs is doing cool stuff in this space, including a project to count every tree on Earth every day). Solutions welcome!
At a low level: - Have fewer children - Burn fewer fossil fuels (less driving, flying, heating, cooling, more wearing sweaters at home in winter, etc) - Eat less meat - Develop technologies to create energy without fossil fuels At a higher level - Stop associating consumption and material accumulation with happiness - Stop targeting growth (population, GDP, etc) as solution to so many problems - Take personal respons…
Even in developed countries the differences are stark. Qatar emits 54.7 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, the United States 24.3 tons, Germany 12.3 tons, Switzerland 7.2 tons. A difference of almost 10x, with countries that all have similar standards of living! In a relatively undeveloped country like Burundi, the emissions are a mere 0.4 tons per capita[0]. A difference of literally 100x!
The best fix is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, with import tariffs on goods from countries that do not have such taxes (i.e. China). This internalizes the externalized costs of CO2 emissions, automatically encouraging development of more energy-efficient everything.
[0] Data from 2000, unfortunately, but the numbers have not changed in magnitude since then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks, I watched the whole video. A great success of natural capitalism. I wonder how drone surveys, satellite mapping, and synthetic biology could extend this 35 sq-km success to 3,500 sq-km and beyond, augmenting people's needs and efforts. As said in the video, let's "properly understand the miracles performed by trees" to make this more profitable and spread everywhere. I also agree with the farmer who said "wha…
Perhaps its not exactly the best example of capitalism given that it was centrally planned. Glad you found it interesting. In the text accompanying the video they link to more videos in the series from Ethiopia and Rwanda, with similar projects to rehabilitate the land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At a low level: - Have fewer children - Burn fewer fossil fuels (less driving, flying, heating, cooling, more wearing sweaters at home in winter, etc) - Eat less meat - Develop technologies to create energy without fossil fuels At a higher level - Stop associating consumption and material accumulation with happiness - Stop targeting growth (population, GDP, etc) as solution to so many problems - Take personal respons…
I'm not convinced having fewer children will help anything and I wish people would stop repeating this. People emit very few greenhouse gasses as a virtue of their existence, the extreme majority of them are emitted by lifestyle choices. Even in developed countries the differences are stark. Qatar emits 54.7 tons of CO2 equivalent per capita, the United States 24.3 tons, Germany 12.3 tons, Switzerland 7.2 tons. A dif…
http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
Would be cool to hear how it resonates (or not) with your perspectives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
P(A|B) was swapped with P(B|A).
The statement should be there is a 99.5% chance that we correctly rejected the null hypothesis. I agree it isn't careful wording. Thanks.
Sweet, so what should we build to change this? Giant carbon-sucking machines, cube-sats pointed at glaciers? (planet labs is doing cool stuff in this space, including a project to count every tree on Earth every day). Solutions welcome!
A lot more passive solar architecture and pedestrian-friendly spaces.
Sweet, so what should we build to change this? Giant carbon-sucking machines, cube-sats pointed at glaciers? (planet labs is doing cool stuff in this space, including a project to count every tree on Earth every day). Solutions welcome!
At a low level: - Have fewer children - Burn fewer fossil fuels (less driving, flying, heating, cooling, more wearing sweaters at home in winter, etc) - Eat less meat - Develop technologies to create energy without fossil fuels At a higher level - Stop associating consumption and material accumulation with happiness - Stop targeting growth (population, GDP, etc) as solution to so many problems - Take personal respons…
Children are also important to us adults. We need them to indirectly take care of us when we're old by keeping the economy around us functioning and providing services and for us. Some western countries are facing potential problems with aging populations and not enough young people to support them. That's big and important. Possibly more important than global warming. There's no point having a stable environment if you die from a treatable disease because there are no doctors available.
Whenever there's a problem or a risk, and you're deciding what to do about it, one option is always "do nothing". We don't _have_ to stop climate change. If stopping it causes more harm that letting it continue, then we would be wrong to stop it.
So what's the expected cost of climate change?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement should be there is a 99.5% chance that we correctly rejected the null hypothesis. I agree it isn't careful wording. Thanks.
...as best I can tell, you have still swapped them? It sounds like you're still talking about P(null hypothesis|evidence), whereas p-values are about P(evidence|null hypothesis). (Well, not quite the latter but something like it.)
I treat P(evidence | null hypothesis) equivalent to P(null hypothesis | data). When it should be
P(evidence | null hypothesis) = P(null hypothesis | evidence) * P (evidence) / P (null hypothesis)
As we don't know either of those extra terms we can't determine P(null hypothesis | evidence).
Thanks.
Interestingly wikipedia notes that P(Reject H | H) = pre-defined threshold for rejecting H [1]