Newmark's Door

OK with me.

This is a conjecture not fact. But that it is even entertained seriously show modern astrophysics is weird.

See also "Black Holes Might be Defects in Spacetime".

Surprised me: "Controlling for familiarity, the vast majority of languages scored within 2% to 3% of each other in pleasantness." 

"Cosmologists are largely still in the dark about the forces that drive the Universe."

Related: "The dark universe: can a scientist battling long Covid unlock the mysteries of the cosmos?"

During the 20th century, scientists developed an extraordinarily precise account of almost 14bn years of the universe’s history. But an increasing number of scientists suspect that model may be profoundly limited, or even broken. Some leading astrophysicists have recently declared that we have entered an era of cosmological crisis, one that might lead to anything from the discovery of new fundamental particles to a new theory of gravity. “The proliferation of ideas is like nothing I’ve ever seen,” the Nobel prize winner Adam Riess, another key figure in cosmology’s current upheaval, recently told me.

Also related: "Whatever happened to the theory of everything?" and "The Universe sucks: The mysterious Great Attractor that’s pulling us in".

Sure sounds reasonable to me.

Eliminating taxation on compensation for being a human guinea pig is just good public policy.

Scientist thinks he sees the outcome of "a rare, bizarre game of galactic billiards among three massive black holes”.

Ouch. (12.5 minute video.)

Bjorn Lomborg:

Arguments for devastation typically claim that extreme weather (like droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes) is already worsening because of climate change. This is mostly misleading and inconsistent with the IPCC literature. For instance, the IPCC finds no trend for global hurricane frequency and has low confidence in attribution of changes to human activity, while the US has not seen an increase in landfalling hurricanes since 1900. Global death risk from extreme weather has declined 99% over 100 years and global costs have declined 26% over the last 28 years.

Arguments for devastation typically ignore adaptation, which will reduce vulnerability dramatically. While climate research suggests that fewer but stronger future hurricanes will increase damages, this effect will be countered by richer and more resilient societies. Global cost of hurricanes will likely decline from 0.04% of GDP today to 0.02% in 2100.

This seems really important for the debate.

I haven't tried to research it, but my impression is that much of the work showing recent global warming is based on land temperatures, while the skeptics often use atmospheric temperatures. As always is the case, the first step in understanding empirical phenomena is to try to make sure your data are good.

Me, too.