Jax

I noticed yesterday that the angle of the front edge of 2727 looks really cool. It's sort of being built to angle out over Kirby or at least towards kirby. Should be very cool when its done.

It really is a shame that the waterfront is lined with jails. I went on a boat cruise in the Bayou last summer and the guy giving the tour said that most people mistake one of the jails for condos, but always ask why those condos don't have balconies. It actually doesn't look that bad from the outside, and it's got to have an amazing view of the skyline.

There will be bridges like that connecting all of the buildings in the project, I think.

That bridge is even more impressive as you drive under it. There a big circular hole in the center of it!

Taken from the roof of the Toyota Center garage.

I think I have a picture of it. I'll post it.

That's a really good sign!

Yet another photo of One Park Place.

Very nice job documenting that part of town. Keep it up, I'm looking forward to your next blog entry.

I guess that explains the statement about the Hines parking garage on Main!

I noticed today that Metro has a few renderings up for the North and Southeast corridors. Click North and Southeast at the top of this page to see. http://www.metrosolutions.org/go/doc/1068/112135/

Just what Montrose needed... It's like Starbucks in San Francisco. One on every corner, sometimes two across the street from each other.

Yeah its only a few stories, not much to see yet...

Oops, I guess I started a new thread for no reason. Damn, another gas station?

Recently? I remember last year when they tore the old pumps and buildings down, I think there was a thread about it, but it has been quiet for a year until just recently. I hope it's not another gas station. There's one right across the street from it! EDIT: Or is that just auto repair across from it...

Anybody know what's up at the old gas station lot at Montrose and Alabama? There is an outhouse, a bunch of machines and the concrete has been removed. Hopefully it's something good, it's a nice location. Also, I noticed a variance sign in front of the Turkish sandwich shop (DNR?) near Montrose and the 59. Any ideas about that one?

So how long in comparison has the Hardy Rail Yard project been in progress? Have they been working on remediation or is that only starting now?

That kind of sucks but I heard that disco tower would have ground level retail. I wonder how likely it is that it will be in the garage part of the structure (similar to Main Place, right?)

Yes, peer review is the foundation of modern Science. Here's how it goes. 1) Somebody writes an article with a theory that solar irradiance causes global warming. Peers read the article and try to apply their data to the problem 2) A few months later, somebody releases their data showing the lack of a correlation, or evidence that solar radiation causes only a fraction of a degree temperature change. 3) Hudson institute counts 2 articles because the first one introduced the theory, and the second one had a sentence saying that "solar irradiance was proposed as an explanation for global warming", before going on to show that evidence does not support that theory. Do you see what I mean? Neither of these scientist proved that global warming was natural. One simply proposed a theory that was later proven wrong. Most of the other facts that the press release mentions (for example the idea that less organisms die due to heat than cold, therefore global warming will be positive) have been similarly proposed, debated, and ultimately defeated in the peer reviewed literature. Just because an idea is proposed, studied, and defeated doesn't mean it should be counted as evidence that scientists don't believe in global warming.

This study says they are counting papers that show " our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance.", yet this was been proved wrong years ago in the peer reviewed literature. That leads me to believe that this study is counting out of date articles. I actually went over this last sumer in another thread (as I also went over everything else I have said in this thread in another thread), where I critiqued several of the articles this study mentioned as "refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming", and they were mostly refuting elements of the theory that had more recently been proved otherwise. Of course I didn't go over all 500, but the fact that they put facts in their press release like "our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance" is a bad sign. This is a statement that an uneducated person will read and say "wow, global warming must not be happening". But if you read the literature on solar irradiance, you ill realize that it effects the temperature on the order of a fraction of a degree, definitely not enough to explain global warming. Several other facts in the press release are similarly sensationalized. I hate posting something like that without citing my sources but I already posted a link to the exact article in Science last summer, and since nobody here but me has a subscription to Science, they couldn't read it anyways. If you are interested in that article, PM me. Interestingly, the Hudson Institute is largely funded by several companies which stand to benefit from the lack of carbon regulations, and several others with poor environmental records.

Wikipedia articles are only as good as their citations. If you check on the citations (the numbers in the middle of the article text with link to other articles), and the sources are good, you can trust what you have read in the article For example, if an article on Al Gore states that Al Gore created the internet, and the citation takes me to the National Enquirer, I'll most likely ignore that fact. But if the article states he helped write a particular bill, and the citation takes me to a governmental webpage with a document which shows that he was indeed involved, I can be pretty safe to say that the fact is correct. If an article in wikipedia lacks citations, I won't even bother reading it. You can think of Wikipedia almost as a database of different resources with text written around them to help you find the resources easier. Last week I used Wiki to help me prepare a presentation on medical imaging techniques used in the staging of prostate cancer. Of course I didn't cite Wiki as a reference, instead I cited an article by the National Cancer Foundation which Wiki helped me find . There's nothing wrong with that. Now referencing a Wikipedia article directly, that would not look good.

What an awesome construction camera! I wish HP had a webcam that good.

Funny you say that because I just got out of a class where the professor was really excited that the Wikipedia page on the filtered back projection algorithm for tomographic image reconstruction was so good, it was better than his own notes he made for the class. I guess filtered back projection isn't as politicized as global warming though. P.S. TJones: Do you know how much money scientists make? Not a whole lot, especially when you compare scientists to oil companies. The US doesn't exactly dedicate a large portion of the budget to climate research either. There's WAY more money to be made in the war and oil industries. Anybody who's a climatologist for the money is going to be extremely disappointed.

How much is a lot more. Quantify it. Was it two or three article? There may have been more than one, but I am sure it was not on the order of hundreds or thousands of articles. OK I found a website and this guy tries to collect all of the articles he can find in scientific literature (so this list does not include sources like newspapers or Time Magazine) which mention global cooling. He also annotates his list with a description of each article. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ So it looks like we're talking about 10s of articles in the 1970s which mention global cooling (keep in mind that some of these articles mention it briefly). Compare this with the magnitude of research being done presently on global warming and it's not very significant. This is probably comparable to the number of papers published per month on global warming, if not less. I am still not convinced that "Everyone though "all" the scientist agreed." and that "They were "all" wrong back then also", or that this has anything to do with our current situation.  The Galileo argument doesn't mean much in this situation. Galileo had to deal with the church, and it's view of the universe which makes it a totally different situation. It wasn't like the church had empirical evidence which Gallileo had to argue against.

You're right, we already went over that. One article in Time Magazine in the 70s is not the same as thousands of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals on global warming. Time isn't even a good scientific resource. How many articles did you find on this ice age in Nature or Science? And what do you mean by "all" the scientists agreed? How many scientists are we talking about here? Two? It even says in the aritlce you posted: It doesn't really sound like "all" of the scientists agreed that the earth was cooling. They simply agreed that they needed to study the earth's climate more. Did you even read that article you posted?