heckler73
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure Doer understands the math, at least, but does anyone else?
Just out of curiosity, has anyone read that climate science textbook chapter I uploaded? I'm trying to gauge the level of scientific literacy on this forum. The root question being, is the math still too complex at that level for an average enthusiast like Pada.
I'm pretty sure Doer understands the math, at least, but does anyone else?
You are looking at the product, not the theory, though.For me it really is not about *the math* as the climate model is still far too complex for us to be able to duplicate on a computer reliably. And that has been proven to the unhappiness of liberals that simply state that reality is not conforming to their predictions.
You are looking at the product, not the theory, though.
I have a text on the principles involved with developing models of climate science, too. But the problems of modeling tell you what is wrong with the method, not the theory itself. Or in other words, trying to fix a model based on faulty premises won't solve the problem.
In order to find the faulty premises, one must look at the underlying structure. To understand the structure requires a certain familiarity with the key sciences and math, and that is what I'd like to gauge; to what extent can a general participant comprehend the fundamental material?
You left out direct observation. That's not experiment.
And you have it backwards. You set out to ruthlessly disprove, rule out, tighten variables, in order to be extremely suspicious of any result that does not rule out a possibility.
If you have direct observation of the Ice Shelves failing exponential, you just keep watching.
We are already Doing Something, don't worry. We are spending Billions to get ready to get ready.
You cannot show me anything that rules out the possibility these Shelves will fail in next 100 years.
You cannot rule out that our Carbon 12 emissions along with killing a big portion of the global coral cycle did it.
We are looking to rule things out, in Real Science. (tm)
We are not trying to prove anything, only disprove all we can think of to rule it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_MaximumYou have no proof only scary stories...
I have no knowledge on whether the ice shelves will or will not fall and whether humans might have anything to do with it.
I do know however that all extinction level events on the planet resulted from lower temperatures, not higher ones. And that is pretty mathematical and scientific right there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
Go down to the section that says 'Life'. It refutes what's the second part of what you posted.
No it doesnt. I said global extinction event. What you posted describes a general extinction of certain types of sea life over 1000's of years while other life FLOURISHED.
What I am talking about is almost everything dying across the entire planet. It happens when the earth gets cold... That can occur due to normal global cycles, meteor strike, and/or other general disaster.