|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 11, 2023 7:37:20 GMT
I'm not sure why you think you can talk down to me 90% of the time and then think I would be interested in your stories. You are a very strange person. I wanted to confirm that the butterfly effect has been denounced but thought my experience might raise questions as to what causes tornadoes. As to your comment, you think I'm the only one who talks down to you; now that is strange. There are very few, if any, who take note of your wild ramblings other than those trying to correct you; stop listening to the voices of your workforce and clientele, along with those in your head. I am aware of many on here who disagree with my views, there is a big difference between disagreeing and just being rude for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 11, 2023 8:10:36 GMT
Yes. Maths is based on deductive logic and can be PROVED to be true - or not. Science is based on seeking relationships between various observed data and postulating a theory as to why it is so. It can never be proved to be true. You would have to explain what you mean by proved and true. I can use F= ma where v<<c and get true results as far as my purposes would need truth. You can create some philosophical argument whilst I achieve the job in hand. Maths and science are fundamentally different. Maths is made up of axioms (statements that are regarded as self-evident or by definition) and logical deductions (theorems). These are all "true". It doesn't rely on observation (or data). It's basically a "tool". Science is basically the search for relationships between observed data and the postulation of theories as to what that relationship is. The only "truth" in science is the observed data - or at least it should be true, but there have always been regrettable cases in history where "scientists" have "massaged" data to fit their theory. The "theory" is never "true". It either fits the data or it doesn't. If it doesn't fit then it's wrong - like the climate models. But even if it does fit the data it's not "true". Maths is obviously a tool of science. Einstein needed the help of mathematicians to derive the equations for his theory of relativity - in particular with 4 dimensional Calculus. But the mathematicians had no understanding of Einstein's theories and didn't need to have. And, accurate as it is, Relativity is not "true". It's just a way of looking at things. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 11, 2023 8:38:12 GMT
If they do not build every known variable into their models then the models are effectively worthless. I disagree, when calculating the likelihood of an asteroid striking the Earth scientists did not need to include the earths wobble even though this wobble could mean an asteroid might hit or miss the earth. That's because the odds of such a wobble making a difference is infinitesimally small. The climate models are worthless because they don't take into account all the factors - mainly because we don't have the equations to model all the factors involved. That means that every prediction they make is wrong. It's the same with the weather models (which form the basis of the climate models). They can work reasonably well for a few days but that's about their limit. The Met Office have stopped issuing long term weather forecasts because they always ended up with egg on their face. The problem is that climate change, by its very nature, plays out over decades. Yet every year they have to change their models (and their assumptions) in order to fit the new data they have. This is NOT the way that science is meant to work. Science is meant to present a theory that makes accurate predictions. Anyone can derive a theory that fits past data, but that's pointless when it simply proves wrong whenever you get new data. Yet bodies like the IPCC are making predictions decades ahead.  Ridiculous. BTW was that feeble Guardian article the only source for your daft claim that 95% of scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming? |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 11, 2023 8:53:21 GMT
If we were to consider the wing flap of each butterfly cooling the air we should never finish the calculations. The idea of the butterfly effect has been dismissed as far as weather is concerned but scientists are still interested in what starts a tornado. A few years ago there was request for people to come forward with eye-witness accounts of the start of tornadoes. I didn't respond but back in the fifties I was fishing in the canal when I suddenly heard a swishing sound. I looked up to see a swirling mass of spiralling water rising from the canal on the opposite bank. It moved very rapidly in my direction and though I tried to get out of the way it came straight at me, hitting the bank immediately in front of me, drenching me with water as it fizzled out. Within a few seconds another one started, again on the opposite bank but probably five feet away from the original. That too fizzled out when it hit the bank having run a more erratic course than the first. A quite frightening experience. That's the kind of thing that can't be explained by classical theory. It should never happen. But it is predicted by Quantum Theory where weird things can happen for absolutely no rational reason. It reminds me of the discovery of 30 metre waves in the oceans. Classical theory had always calculated that the maximum wave height should be about 10 metres. Anything larger would be highly unlikely and 30 metre waves would never happen at all. Yet, with the advent of satellite measurements the scientists had the ability to measure the height of waves in the oceans, and the surprising thing was that they immediately found 3 massive waves in the Atlantic which exceeded 30 metres. In fact they're relatively common - which is a bit embarrassing because most ocean going liners are only built to withstand 10 metre waves. And 30 meter waves are about 10 times more powerful and would easily punch a hole in the hull of most liners. These waves are predicted by Quantum Theory, but like all things that come out of QT they can't be explained in a simple rational way. They're just derived from impenetrable mathematical equations. Basically anything can happen and the trigger for it happening can be something very tiny - or even nothing at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 11, 2023 9:13:08 GMT
I wanted to confirm that the butterfly effect has been denounced but thought my experience might raise questions as to what causes tornadoes. As to your comment, you think I'm the only one who talks down to you; now that is strange. There are very few, if any, who take note of your wild ramblings other than those trying to correct you; stop listening to the voices of your workforce and clientele, along with those in your head. I am aware of many on here who disagree with my views, there is a big difference between disagreeing and just being rude for the sake of it. You say that is if you are never rude when you frequently are and many of your views are enough to make a saint swear. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 11, 2023 13:51:41 GMT
If we were to consider the wing flap of each butterfly cooling the air we should never finish the calculations. The idea of the butterfly effect has been dismissed as far as weather is concerned but scientists are still interested in what starts a tornado. A few years ago there was request for people to come forward with eye-witness accounts of the start of tornadoes. I didn't respond but back in the fifties I was fishing in the canal when I suddenly heard a swishing sound. I looked up to see a swirling mass of spiralling water rising from the canal on the opposite bank. It moved very rapidly in my direction and though I tried to get out of the way it came straight at me, hitting the bank immediately in front of me, drenching me with water as it fizzled out. Within a few seconds another one started, again on the opposite bank but probably five feet away from the original. That too fizzled out when it hit the bank having run a more erratic course than the first. A quite frightening experience. I think the butterfly effect is just a way of saying that any small thing can affect weather and much depends on luck. If your mini tornado had veered along the canal it may have become something else. I live along the SW coast of Scotland and when the wind is from the S or SE we are generally sheltered most of the time however turbulence builds up on the lea of the hill behind us and we get damaging tornados that come down the hill sounding like an express train and try to blow our greenhouse into the next door neighbours garden. It is very scary as you can hear it coming but it depends very much on wind direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 11, 2023 13:59:04 GMT
The butterfly illustration is a mite poetic, but I don't think the underlying notion has been refuted at all. However, a butterfly has few effects on practical weather forecasting because there are lots of other, far larger unmeasured factors that make weather forecasting inaccurate before we get down to butterflies.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 11, 2023 19:33:53 GMT
I disagree, when calculating the likelihood of an asteroid striking the Earth scientists did not need to include the earths wobble even though this wobble could mean an asteroid might hit or miss the earth. That's because the odds of such a wobble making a difference is infinitesimally small. The climate models are worthless because they don't take into account all the factors - mainly because we don't have the equations to model all the factors involved. That means that every prediction they make is wrong. It's the same with the weather models (which form the basis of the climate models). They can work reasonably well for a few days but that's about their limit. The Met Office have stopped issuing long term weather forecasts because they always ended up with egg on their face. The problem is that climate change, by its very nature, plays out over decades. Yet every year they have to change their models (and their assumptions) in order to fit the new data they have. This is NOT the way that science is meant to work. Science is meant to present a theory that makes accurate predictions. Anyone can derive a theory that fits past data, but that's pointless when it simply proves wrong whenever you get new data. Yet bodies like the IPCC are making predictions decades ahead. Ridiculous. BTW was that feeble Guardian article the only source for your daft claim that 95% of scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming? I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion. Its very difficult to have a reasoned argument with someone who constantly claims superior knowledge while not doing basic checks before posting. How can they know if they've got it wrong if they never check anything. I think I'll leave you to your imaginings. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 11, 2023 19:36:44 GMT
The butterfly illustration is a mite poetic, but I don't think the underlying notion has been refuted at all. However, a butterfly has few effects on practical weather forecasting because there are lots of other, far larger unmeasured factors that make weather forecasting inaccurate before we get down to butterflies. I agree here. One off events have often escalated in a way no one would have expected. Where the butterfly effect stops is in continuous change. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 11, 2023 20:47:27 GMT
The climate models are worthless because they don't take into account all the factors - mainly because we don't have the equations to model all the factors involved. That means that every prediction they make is wrong. It's the same with the weather models (which form the basis of the climate models). They can work reasonably well for a few days but that's about their limit. The Met Office have stopped issuing long term weather forecasts because they always ended up with egg on their face. The problem is that climate change, by its very nature, plays out over decades. Yet every year they have to change their models (and their assumptions) in order to fit the new data they have. This is NOT the way that science is meant to work. Science is meant to present a theory that makes accurate predictions. Anyone can derive a theory that fits past data, but that's pointless when it simply proves wrong whenever you get new data. Yet bodies like the IPCC are making predictions decades ahead. Ridiculous. BTW was that feeble Guardian article the only source for your daft claim that 95% of scientists think that CO2 is the primary cause of warming? I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion. Its very difficult to have a reasoned argument with someone who constantly claims superior knowledge while not doing basic checks before posting. How can they know if they've got it wrong if they never check anything. I think I'll leave you to your imaginings. There is only one source for this opinion and that is the peer reviewed paper that published it. The majority of papers assessed attributed some effect to man, which was neither quantified specifically or even obliquely implied. It is one more game in the climate science game that puts science into disrepute and peer review as effectively worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 11, 2023 21:37:52 GMT
I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion. Its very difficult to have a reasoned argument with someone who constantly claims superior knowledge while not doing basic checks before posting. How can they know if they've got it wrong if they never check anything. I think I'll leave you to your imaginings. There is only one source for this opinion and that is the peer reviewed paper that published it. The majority of papers assessed attributed some effect to man, which was neither quantified specifically or even obliquely implied. It is one more game in the climate science game that puts science into disrepute and peer review as effectively worthless. Oh please Sandy, don't you start down the cheating road as well. Steppenwolf stated the Guardian article, not a peer reviewed paper. His lack of research is patent. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 12, 2023 7:37:48 GMT
Zanygame said "I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion".
If there are so many sources for this opinion why did you choose an article from the Guardian that patently did NOT back up your statements about CO2. It clearly states that it's talking generally about man's effects on climate - which no one is going to argue about. Not only do you not understand anything about the subject - you don't even understand what the question is, even after all this debate.
Just to reiterate, the argument is about whether CO2 is the primary driver of warming. So where is all this data that you've researched that shows that to be the case? You won't find any - just political opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 12, 2023 8:45:50 GMT
Zanygame said " I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion". If there are so many sources for this opinion why did you choose an article from the Guardian that patently did NOT back up your statements about CO2. It clearly states that it's talking generally about man's effects on climate - which no one is going to argue about. Not only do you not understand anything about the subject - you don't even understand what the question is, even after all this debate. Just to reiterate, the argument is about whether CO2 is the primary driver of warming. So where is all this data that you've researched that shows that to be the case? You won't find any - just political opinions. Just scientific opinions. You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 10:14:06 GMT
There is only one source for this opinion and that is the peer reviewed paper that published it. The majority of papers assessed attributed some effect to man, which was neither quantified specifically or even obliquely implied. It is one more game in the climate science game that puts science into disrepute and peer review as effectively worthless. Oh please Sandy, don't you start down the cheating road as well. Steppenwolf stated the Guardian article, not a peer reviewed paper. His lack of research is patent. A cursory glance at the Guardian piece shows exactly where their opinion came from. In line with most of the MSM they do not consider it critically or carry out any analysis of how the conclusion was reached, they just publish and be damned, as they are. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 12, 2023 10:24:33 GMT
Zanygame said " I've realised your lack of knowledge on this subject is because you never do any research. This in borne out by your emboldened sentence above. I simple search would have informed you that the Guardian article is far from the only source for this opinion". If there are so many sources for this opinion why did you choose an article from the Guardian that patently did NOT back up your statements about CO2. It clearly states that it's talking generally about man's effects on climate - which no one is going to argue about. Not only do you not understand anything about the subject - you don't even understand what the question is, even after all this debate. Just to reiterate, the argument is about whether CO2 is the primary driver of warming. So where is all this data that you've researched that shows that to be the case? You won't find any - just political opinions. Just scientific opinions. You're so ill informed you don't even know when you're talking rubbish. You claim its deforestation causing warming without any understanding that forests reduce warming by reducing atmospheric Co2. While at the same time claiming there is no evidence that Co2 causes warming on a global scale. You claim its urban heatsinks without understanding either the conservation of energy or that its atmospheric Co2 that stops that energy escaping the planet. I have tried to argue reasonably with you pointing out these obvious errors, but in return you just accuse ME of not knowing the science. Well I'm done with trying to educate you. Scientific opinions are backed up in the normal course of events with vast swathes of data that confirm the conclusion. There is no data to date that confirms man as the primary driver of climate change. If there is research that confirms this view perhaps we can see it. So far it is an IPCC conclusion repeated in many scientific circles but the specific data that confirms this is the case is sadly lacking. There is a conclusion that is broadly reached. Man has an effect, to an unknown level which ranges from insignificant to calamitous and there is no consensus on the level. There is political drive to make it calamitous which is riddled with hypocrisy and double dealing and science has been co-opted into that political drive. How willingly and how duplicitously remains to be discovered, but as more comes to light we can see the manipulation that has occurred and is underway and it does science no good at all. |
|
Ridiculous.