kallend 2,146
jakee 1,594
lawrocketI just find it interesting how all the usual Fox haters are talking about how accurate they are because Bible Thumpers are objecting to it..
I thought you were just making a joke, but now it appears you're serious. Wow.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
So climate science is not open to debate?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyDekker 1,465
lawrocketSo climate science is not open to debate?
Is science really a "debatable" subject. Isn't the only real way to debate, to bring new facts, adjust the hypothesis and continue on?
Debate sounds like there is a matter of judgement.
jakee***I just find it interesting how all the usual Fox haters are talking about how accurate they are because Bible Thumpers are objecting to it..
I thought you were just making a joke, but now it appears you're serious. Wow.
It was a joke. But not "just" a joke. It wasn't until I saw what NDT wrote that it occurred to me. He's the host and is no doubt up on the ratings and demographics. So he made a plea to people who won't watch the show just because it's on FOX to watch it on NatGeo.
Seriously. Check out the attachment. He calls it "FOXophobia." Just something I found to be an interesting change of sides.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyDekker***So climate science is not open to debate?
Is science really a "debatable" subject. Isn't the only real way to debate, to bring new facts, adjust the hypothesis and continue on?
Absolutely. Science advances because it is debated. Merely accepting what is told by those in the know leads to stagnation.
There are different views of it. Someone like Feyman says that if the observation doesn't match the prediction, then the hypothesis is wrong. Others says that there can be some adjustments - sort of a "mostly right" and continue to fiddle with it. As Gavin Schmidt just said, "Observations of the future are not available at this time." So how do we observe and fiddle with climate models?
[Quote]Debate sounds like there is a matter of judgement.
Here's a scientific debate: what is the climate sensitivity to CO2? Short term? Long term? Nobody knows. Estimates range from under 1 degree to over 5 degrees C. Attempting to project the future (let's face it - climate science is all about modeling and future projections) can be inheerntly untrustworthy when the dominat factor you're looking for has a range of over 500%.
It's why think that AGW is real. But not gonna be a big deal. There are lots of observations that support this belief.
But that's my judgment. Others conclude otherwise. More facts may change or confirm my belief.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
SkyDekker 1,465
lawrocket******So climate science is not open to debate?
Is science really a "debatable" subject. Isn't the only real way to debate, to bring new facts, adjust the hypothesis and continue on?
Absolutely. Science advances because it is debated. Merely accepting what is told by those in the know leads to stagnation.
There are different views of it. Someone like Feyman says that if the observation doesn't match the prediction, then the hypothesis is wrong. Others says that there can be some adjustments - sort of a "mostly right" and continue to fiddle with it. As Gavin Schmidt just said, "Observations of the future are not available at this time." So how do we observe and fiddle with climate models?
[Quote]Debate sounds like there is a matter of judgement.
Here's a scientific debate: what is the climate sensitivity to CO2? Short term? Long term? Nobody knows. Estimates range from under 1 degree to over 5 degrees C. Attempting to project the future (let's face it - climate science is all about modeling and future projections) can be inheerntly untrustworthy when the dominat factor you're looking for has a range of over 500%.
It's why think that AGW is real. But not gonna be a big deal. There are lots of observations that support this belief.
But that's my judgment. Others conclude otherwise. More facts may change or confirm my belief.
As soon as I hit submit, I knew it was a bit of a semantics argument. And, I probably didn't do a very good job explaining it.
Obviously I didn't mean to say that science should merely be accepted.
Science is used to create a model, with which a debate can take place. The stronger the model, the less debate and the more accurate the prediction of future behaviour gets.
billvon 3,107
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Here's a scientific debate: what is the climate sensitivity to CO2? Short term? Long term?
That seems like asking "so what's the year you will die if you smoke? 2020? 2040? If doctors can't even get it right within 20 years - are you really going to trust a doctor who says 'smoking is bad for you?' Of course not. They are inherently untrustworthy."
That seems like asking "so what's the year you will die if you smoke? 2020? 2040? If doctors can't even get it right within 20 years - are you really going to trust a doctor who says 'smoking is bad for you?' Of course not. They are inherently untrustworthy."
The model itself has debate. It's the data in support or against the model that provides the best source for robust debate. The more rock solid the underlying assumptions are, the more trust I put in the model.
Since we're on the topic of Cosmos, I believe that the fate of the Universe is to be a very cold, dark place. Because I don't think it's a theory - it's the law. And we haven't found exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. With the expansion of the universe accelerating, will it lead to the Big Rip?
That's the neat stuff that none of us will ever be around to het a certain answer.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Since we're on the topic of Cosmos, I believe that the fate of the Universe is to be a very cold, dark place. Because I don't think it's a theory - it's the law. And we haven't found exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. With the expansion of the universe accelerating, will it lead to the Big Rip?
That's the neat stuff that none of us will ever be around to het a certain answer.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,146
lawrocketSo climate science is not open to debate?
It's subject to the usual procedures of scientific inquiry. Exactly the opposite of religion.
Tell the size of the biggest system of non-linear equations YOU have solved before you criticize those who struggle with millions, because they don't get exact answers first time to a chaotic problem (correct mathematical sense of "chaos").
Tell us how many testable predictions climate change deniers have made.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,146
lawrocketAnd we haven't found exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. .
Right: (heat in) > (heat out) ==> warming
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
[Quote]Tell the size of the biggest system of non-linear equations YOU have solved
Nothing more than x + 1 = y.
[Reply]before you criticize those who struggle with millions, because they don't get exact answers first time to a chaotic problem
Nothing more than x + 1 = y.
[Reply]before you criticize those who struggle with millions, because they don't get exact answers first time to a chaotic problem
Correct. They don't get the right answer. I can read a thermometer. I can check GHCN data. So if I'm told that the answer will be 10, and the answer turns out to be 5, then I start questioning how they came up with 10. That's where I question the assumptions.
[Reply]Tell us how many testable predictions climate change deniers have made.
Like there won't be:
More and stronger hurricanes
More and stronger tornadoes
More and larger forest fires
More and accelerating warming
Accelerating sea level rise
Like those? Directly counter to the warmist propoganda?
Note: I personally thought there would be more tornadoes and fewer hurricanes because AGW theory predicts an increase in wind shear.
Problem is that AGW alarmists have predicted lots and lots of things. And lots of them haven't happened.
Somewhere in between alarmists and deniers are people like me. Those who admit there is warming but think it will be as it has been - marginal. And see no compelling reason why it won't continue to be that way.
Noitce, though, that the procedures of scientific inquiry that would cast doubt on other matters are being weaseled around. Take the debate over the "missing heat." Is there a pause of not? If yes, where's the heat? There are loads of explanations, all adding up to "we have been mostly wrong."
It doesn't take a Ph.D. And note that GCMs attempt to take the chaos out. Chaotic systems depend upon a starting point and changes in conditions make the forecast accuracy fade. Climate has some chaotic characteristics (oscillations, fluid turbulence, etc) but these are the "noise." Climate models filter this noise in order to make statistical sense of the system as a whole.
You're equating weather forecasting with climate projections. The former are forecasts which are limited by chaos. The latter are projections which deliberately filter out the noise to pick up the statistical signal they're looking for.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Except climate science.
Climate science is proceeding according to scientific principles. Take data, adjust hypothesis, take data, adjust hypothesis...
Just because the mathematics is horrendously complex doesn't mean the science is wrong.
Tell us, what is the largest system of non-linear differential equations is that you've ever tackled, before criticizing those doing it with a system of millions.
In contrast, not one testable prediction has come from denialists. Or young Earthers.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.