Wait, yes, there are slight differences. Engineering is a bit more rigorous and subject to large amounts of fully proven facts.
Ooops, wait again, actually, in lots of cases, science is far far more rigorous than engineering, isn't it? (not actually asking @WillReadmore this point, as he and I have very different points of view on science and engineering, in spite of apparently both of us holding certificates of admission to the engineering tribe)
I wouldn't say that. Engineers have to be extremely rigorous, too. The larger difference is that science works to understand how this universe works. Engineers work to build specific objects that are useful for a well defined environment and purpose. Engineers consider issues such as cost and lifetime of their product.
In what way do you think they deviate from Ohm? They cannot carry an infinite amount of current because of the internal resistance of the supply. Prof. Lewin likes to point out that Ohm's law is flawed because it does not contain a temperature coefficient. It does, it's just buried in the calculation for R. The other problem is the time variable and the fact that information can only move at the speed of light. (A reason why we observe ringing in circuits.) It's sort of a Zeno's paradox. If you had the ability to observe the infinite for an infinitely small period of time you could measure an infinite amount of current in every circuit that was turned on, as the energy leaving the source has zero information about the resistance of the load the instant it leaves the source.
Engineers have a luxury of estimation. You don't engineer a bridge to be exactly strong as it needs to be. You make it 10 times stronger.
Engineers study how the universe works so that can use it to build real items rather than peer-reviewed "this is what I think" documents - which some other scientist well debunk.
Of course I'm generalizing. But the point is to nuance the meaning of rigorous. Both disciplines require precision, but the precision of an engineer must be buffered with a tolerance due to the consequences of failure...
More generally, engineers design and build stuff. Scientists further knowledge of how our universe works - in the large down to elemental. Many projects require both.
The fact that there are projects where safety can be improved in that manner, is NOT an indication of precision needed in engineering. For example, chip design and manufacturing is an engineering project. So is biochemistry in creating pharmaceuticals, which is a close combination of science and engineering. So is DNA splicing. Maybe you were guessing that engineering means bridges or something. And, it does. But, even there, the issues of design safety require significant precision throughout - not just slapping on some overall fudge factor.
I tried! There IS a difference between engineering and science. The fact that in some cases it requires teamwork or crossing lines does not clarify the basic difference.
I was not guessing engineering "means bridges or something" and in fact I'll double down. I know a good deal about board design. Everything has a tolerance. Logic levels, components, supplies. Just look at any datasheet. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/mfls/7.6.1?topic=templates-tolerance-limits-data-sheets I just finished OSHA 511 general industry training. Wanna know the acceptable tolerance for a specific cancer causing agent? Just ask. I can look it up. The pharmaceutical industry cannot make medications exact because people that take them aren't exact. Everything has a tolerance.
Of COURSE their are tolerances. That's true in science, too. That has NOTHING to do with whether it is engineering or science.
There is an old joke. There was a party that was attended by mathematicians and engineers (in this case you could substitute scientists for mathematicians). All the women were lined up on one side of the room, the men on the other. The men were then told they could step forward half the distance that separated. After a minute they were told they could step forward half the distance remaining and that every minute they could cover half the distance remaining. The mathematicians left knowing that they would never get to the women. The engineers stayed because they knew they could get close enough.
You've not written this such that I completely follow your line of reasoning. What I was thinking is that the dependence of resistance upon temperature was historically not accounted for below the threshold of low absolute T scales that produce the phenomenon of superconductivity, the dependence of resistance upon temperature is historically an empirical equation regarding the observation that it increases with temperature, and it lacked much theory or even coverage of how resistance vanishes below a certain temperature for, well, rings of frozen mercury were the first.....
I know this isn't your point, I just wanted to do some housekeeping... The temperature coefficient for semiconductors and insulators is negative. Resistance goes down as temperature goes up. We often use NTCs in thermal sensors that need to produce a logical high when temperature reaches a certain set point because they reset back to low once they cool back down. Stick an ntc to one side of an op amp, the other side to your power on switch and the output of the amp will only remain high as long as the NTC is not conducting. The cool part is that neither the switch or the NTC will ever use any power in the circuit. You'll find them (thermistors) in things like window fans that tend to overheat. Let the fan cool down and it'll turn back on again. When people say that superconductors violate ohms law they are typically referencing the divide by zero problem. So that's what I thought you might be taking about. Ohms law is V=IR. As R approaches zero I must approach infinity in order for IR to equal V. At first blush this appears to be broken, but that's because we typically take a short cut and analyze circuits from the perspective of an ideal voltage supply with zero resistance. It's like when your physics professor tells you to ignore friction for your calculation. Real supplies have internal resistance and that resistance would be in series with the zero resistance of the superconductor. Series resistance is cumulative, so resistance of the entire circuit cannot be zero.
Somehow you've managed to dodge the IPCC (read chapter 8 in particular) and information from all major scientific organizations from around the world. The following shows climate forcing in terms of watts per square meter of Earth's surface: https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/aggi.html https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf
Your usual claim without evidence. Which, even if it were supported by credible empirical evidence (it's not) would not be evidence for your claim.
