Thread for all the board liberals

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and are you really incredulous to the notion of adding energy to a system leading to more turbulence (re:storms)?

[ElNono]

Your missing the point of insurance. You hedge as a matter of course. The question is how much.

It'll be more interesting to see how much they hedge, tbh... they have to come up with hard numbers, based on science that really doesn't know at this point where the danger threshold is at this time, or even if there's such a threshold.
But, yeah, insurance is it's own beast, they have to hedge even on "potentials of risk".

the thermodynamic principles of the various ghg are law. There is no grand climate equation that explains the world down to a preferred grid level but that doesn't mean that we cannot say that adding ghg to a system increases temperature. Looking at the temperature record there is a clear correlation between ghg levels and the increase in temperature observed over the last 100 years.

The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The biggest contributor to it is entirely natural (clouds, vapor). There's nothing inherently wrong with green house gases, the actual question is how much is too much, and even if that point really exists when it comes to climate on earth, considering the earth does also has natural ways to deal with those gases. I think science can answer that question, but it will take more research.

and why do you say they have only been studying this since 2004? That was just when IPCC started pooling all the peer reviewed work and tried to come up with a consensus you claim doesn't exist. the spatial geometry + gradient PDEs they use in the ocean and atmospheric models were written in the 60s at Penn State. theyve been modeling it ever since.

Can you quote me where I said all this?

I said climate-change did inspire a flurry of new research on the topic of severe weather events in connection to climate change since around 2004 (Towards Prediction of Decadal Climate Variability and Change, Meehl et al. 2009; The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves, Schär et al.2004; Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Karl et al. 2008, and many more). Research that I thought is worthwhile.

I'm also not sure where you gathered that I claimed the consensus doesn't exist. You can actually direct-quote me in this thread stating exactly the opposite.

and are you really incredulous to the notion of adding energy to a system leading to more turbulence (re:storms)?

I'd like more than an hunch. It should be testable at some level when applied to climate. Not the whole argument, but at least some bare parts. We don't really have that right now. I think further research can prove or disprove that alleged correlation when it comes to climate.


What we're really arguing here is what to do with the findings we have at this point. Do they warrant immediate action, or do they warrant more research (or both)?. I lean towards research simply because I think we can make more findings that are less abstract and more conclusive. Which in turn would give us a better handle on establishing the problem domain, and actually addressing it effectively. In the meantime, if we can do actions that have no cost towards what we believe would be beneficial, then they should be done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It'll be more interesting to see how much they hedge, tbh... they have to come up with hard numbers, based on science that really doesn't know at this point where the danger threshold is at this time, or even if there's such a threshold.
But, yeah, insurance is it's own beast, they have to hedge even on "potentials of risk".



The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The biggest contributor to it is entirely natural (clouds, vapor). There's nothing inherently wrong with green house gases, the actual question is how much is too much, and even if that point really exists when it comes to climate on earth, considering the earth does also has natural ways to deal with those gases. I think science can answer that question, but it will take more research.



Can you quote me where I said all this?

I said climate-change did inspire a flurry of new research on the topic of severe weather events in connection to climate change since around 2004 (Towards Prediction of Decadal Climate Variability and Change, Meehl et al. 2009; The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heatwaves, Schär et al.2004; Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate, Karl et al. 2008, and many more). Research that I thought is worthwhile.

I'm also not sure where you gathered that I claimed the consensus doesn't exist. You can actually direct-quote me in this thread stating exactly the opposite.



I'd like more than an hunch. It should be testable at some level when applied to climate. Not the whole argument, but at least some bare parts. We don't really have that right now. I think further research can prove or disprove that alleged correlation when it comes to climate.


What we're really arguing here is what to do with the findings we have at this point. Do they warrant immediate action, or do they warrant more research (or both)?. I lean towards research simply because I think we can make more findings that are less abstract and more conclusive. Which in turn would give us a better handle on establishing the problem domain, and actually addressing it effectively. In the meantime, if we can do actions that have no cost towards what we believe would be beneficial, then they should be done.

It is much more than a hunch. They've been studying storm formation for years. The difficulties in modeling storms comes because storms are turbulence and by definition it's nondeterministic flow which we don't know how to formulate simply. You end up having to slug out each interaction individually. We have several forms of approximation through regression, geometric, f domain and other means. We know that they closely adhere to reality because we are able to fly airplanes.

Meanwhile we've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over 100 years and we can see it shining obeying thermodynamic principles we understand perfectly adding a quantifiable amount of energy to the Earth's energy level. It sits there too because unlike methane and most of the other ghg it doesn't react with much outside of chlorophyll. I just don't understand why your incredulous that adding energy to a system would increase turbulence.

[ElNono]

It is much more than a hunch. They've been studying storm formation for years. The difficulties in modeling storms comes because storms are turbulence and by definition it's nondeterministic flow which we don't know how to formulate simply. You end up having to slug out each interaction individually. We have several forms of approximation through regression, geometric, f domain and other means. We know that they closely adhere to reality because we are able to fly airplanes.

Meanwhile we've doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over 100 years and we can see it shining obeying thermodynamic principles we understand perfectly adding a quantifiable amount of energy to the Earth's energy level. It sits there too because unlike methane and most of the other ghg it doesn't react with much outside of chlorophyll. I just don't understand why your incredulous that adding energy to a system would increase turbulence.

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.

Modifying positions on spurstalk is a big nono ElNono

[ElNono]

Modifying positions on spurstalk is a big nono ElNono

it's been done before. People survived.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you've read my position on a different discussion on why that is. I think we covered this on the religion vs science/god of the gaps thread a few years back and I thought you agreed with me in that case (although thinking back, I'm not sure if it was you, but it was certainly somebody very close to the way you generally opine). While we theorize in science, there isn't just a binary position of for or against in specific areas. "Don't know yet" is a very valid position to have at that stage. In that old thread my position was exactly the same. I'm not in the denial camp either, because if my opinion is that drawing conclusions from inconclusive evidence warrants a "don't know yet" position, then I can't hardly be ok with jumping to conclusions, for or against, be it by faith, association, etc. It was especially difficult to explain such a position to people of faith (and that was somewhat the premise of the god of the gaps discussion, assigning god to what we don't know yet). But anyways, while I'll concede that this topic is not at the very top of my reading material, I think a breakthrough in this area can come, will come, and will be highly publicized. And I certainly keep an open mind about this and if we find that connection, I'll be more than happy to modify my position on it.

I get the skepticism as opposed to the easy copout in the god of the gaps but I don't see how that applies here. God of the gaps means you fill in any gaps in knowledge with divinity as the explanation. I don't see that here.

You can come up with a statistically significant sample and reconstruct a signal with measurable degrees of uncertainty. There is no sample of God that I know of. They use geometric constructs and all the various dynamic equations that are the basis of our technology. We just cannot model turbulence as anything more than output and bounds. From that though you can also work backwards and start measuring probability of outcomes. Determine the frequency. It's all empirical.

You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative? Do you disagree that the glaciers are melting and going out to sea?

[CosmicCowboy]

If there really is a heaven and and I reach that great sorting pen in the sky without giving my ass to Jesus I'm gonna really be pissed.

[DarrinS]

You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative?

Ding ding ding. It's like a lightbulb just tuned on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ding ding ding. It's like a lightbulb just tuned on.

I'll let him speak for himself, dip .

So the actuarial report indicating the extra $100b we spent on extra climate related costs as opposed to the running average, what do you have to present that outweighs that?

https://www.soa.org/Research/Researc...e-reports.aspx

That is a dispassionate quantified cost.

[DarrinS]

I don't care about actuarial reports. Models vs observation is all that matters. We're on an 18 year hiatus. Essentially, since Duncan was drafted, the models and the data have diverged.

[DarrinS]

[ElNono]

I get the skepticism as opposed to the easy copout in the god of the gaps but I don't see how that applies here. God of the gaps means you fill in any gaps in knowledge with divinity as the explanation. I don't see that here.

You can come up with a statistically significant sample and reconstruct a signal with measurable degrees of uncertainty. There is no sample of God that I know of. They use geometric constructs and all the various dynamic equations that are the basis of our technology. We just cannot model turbulence as anything more than output and bounds. From that though you can also work backwards and start measuring probability of outcomes. Determine the frequency. It's all empirical.

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.

You don't seem to be arguing that the climate is warming. Youre just not sure that the consequences will be negative? Do you disagree that the glaciers are melting and going out to sea?

I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

[Cry Havoc]

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.



I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

Just to chime in, you're correct. Individual systems do not have strength determined by climate change, at least not in a directly measurable sense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't care about actuarial reports. Models vs observation is all that matters. We're on an 18 year hiatus. Essentially, since Duncan was drafted, the models and the data have diverged.

So the value of all the goods put at risk by climate events doesn't matter in determining risk?

So now we're not warming again? It's difficult to take you seriously. The last two years have been the hottest on record.



There was a solar peak around 2003 and you had it come back last year on its 1 year cycle. Funny how that works. Here in a few years as the solar radiance goes down the downslope we can hear you say the same as the temperature doesn't decrease. Latent heat funny how that works.

We have had this conversation too concerning the BEST analysis. When you look at ENSO too you look even more foolish.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's called an observed trend. We then offer one or more theories of why that developed (one of them would be high ghg concentration). Then we test the claim(s) and either prove or falsify the theory. In either case, the fact that we can test some of the parts, normally advance the science. Once we can find direct correlations, then we can better understand where the problem lies and if that statistically significant trend poses a problem the planet cannot handle.

You have, for example, been asking me to associate severe weather events with climate change, based on the premise that "adding energy to a system would increase turbulence". In other words, associate a fairly generic claim that would generally apply to every system, to the climate system. Now, it's not that your theory doesn't make sense. It's that I'm not aware that research backs it up when it comes to the climate system. That doesn't mean your theory isn't true. It means we don't quite know yet, and that's where we stand right this minute.



I actually said earlier that I would buy that climate warming has everything to do with releasing gases since the industrial revolution, provided we find more conclusive evidence. I think it's a theory that makes sense to explain what we observed. But observing a trend alone doesn't make a theory to a law, falsifiability does. I don't think our research is there yet, but I would really like it to be. For example, in the severe weather area, as I was explaining above, I remain on the "we don't know yet" camp, simply because I feel that's where science is at. On the overall theory, I think there's some other areas that also need more research. Like, is there a dangerous line?, if there is, what's the ballpark of where that line is?, etc.

Now if the insurance industry wants to apply risk management, go through every possible outcome, weight them based on whatever they feel the potential for risk is (which, as I told you earlier would be the interesting take, IMO), and then adjust policies accordingly, well, they're certainly free to do so, I suppose, as long as their clients are ok with the added cost. I don't think that changes anything on where we are at the science side, nor that such risk projections necessarily directly apply to other industries.

We don't know what? That if you add energy to a system you increase turbulence by a proportional amount or that the climate goes against this principle because of . . . .

The insurance findings are interesting because you can use the information to extrapolate the value of all the at risk property and not only that which is insured. It quantifies the economic costs and risk across the country.

[ElNono]

Fuzzy, I've been giving some thought to our conversation here, and I think I've established what our fundamental disagreement is. I think it will save us a lot of time and back and forth. You let me know what you think, ok?

I think our main disagreement boils down to the standard of rigorousness we would like applied. And because of that, I think our differences are irreconcilable at this time. I feel this is a pretty huge deal not just on it's possible effects, but also on the battle that some people wage on science, and as such, I really would like the full rigor of the scientific method to apply to it.

Under the standard I prefer, I'd like theories to be put together, then tests developed, run, and then either confirmation or rework as needed. The confidence level on the theory is built upon each successful test result. It's a process that takes time, a lot of research, but that I feel is the correct approach due to the magnitude (in more senses than one) of the problem. On the other hand, I think your position is that due to repeat observation, there's a certain high (or extremely high) confidence level that we can move past a specific area and then build on that. I think it's a more dynamic, but a bit looser standard than the one I prefer, but it's certainly respectable. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong. And so while your standard allows you to move on and build on that, I instead choose to be more cautious and await my test results and research, before building on it. As such, our standards are not really compatible, and so they're irreconcilable.

Thanks for the refreshing conversation, and let me add that while thinking about this, I thought about an article I read a bunch of years ago (link), about NASA finally being able to build a rig to test (and confirm) one of the claims in Einstein's theory of relativity. My first thought when I read that back then was, damn, science does take a long time sometimes, but it almost always catches up to you.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, I've been giving some thought to our conversation here, and I think I've established what our fundamental disagreement is. I think it will save us a lot of time and back and forth. You let me know what you think, ok?

I think our main disagreement boils down to the standard of rigorousness we would like applied. And because of that, I think our differences are irreconcilable at this time. I feel this is a pretty huge deal not just on it's possible effects, but also on the battle that some people wage on science, and as such, I really would like the full rigor of the scientific method to apply to it.

Under the standard I prefer, I'd like theories to be put together, then tests developed, run, and then either confirmation or rework as needed. The confidence level on the theory is built upon each successful test result. It's a process that takes time, a lot of research, but that I feel is the correct approach due to the magnitude (in more senses than one) of the problem. On the other hand, I think your position is that due to repeat observation, there's a certain high (or extremely high) confidence level that we can move past a specific area and then build on that. I think it's a more dynamic, but a bit looser standard than the one I prefer, but it's certainly respectable. Furthermore, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong. And so while your standard allows you to move on and build on that, I instead choose to be more cautious and await my test results and research, before building on it. As such, our standards are not really compatible, and so they're irreconcilable.

Thanks for the refreshing conversation, and let me add that while thinking about this, I thought about an article I read a bunch of years ago (link), about NASA finally being able to build a rig to test (and confirm) one of the claims in Einstein's theory of relativity. My first thought when I read that back then was, damn, science does take a long time sometimes, but it almost always catches up to you.

The question isn't whether or not increasing ghg levels increases latent heat. The question isn't whether or not adding energy to a system leads to increased turbulence. those are well studied and demonstrable truths. The question is what are the actual energy levels once you factor in all things physical and chemical. Ultimately thermodynamics is quantum behavior as atoms absorb and emit photons and bounce around because of it. A worldwide quantum matrix is unfeasible. Instead we use approximations through infinitesimal calculus to approximate the behavior wholistically with a measurable degree of uncertainty.

It's like when you say it's unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. ghg forcing is verifiable and quantifiable. we can observe it in the atmosphere and determine what its doing.

I just am uncertain at what you think is possible. That there is some force, element, dimension etc that we cannot account for that is absorbing the energy?

[ElNono]

The question isn't whether or not increasing ghg levels increases latent heat. The question isn't whether or not adding energy to a system leads to increased turbulence. those are well studied and demonstrable truths. The question is what are the actual energy levels once you factor in all things physical and chemical. Ultimately thermodynamics is quantum behavior as atoms absorb and emit photons and bounce around because of it. A worldwide quantum matrix is unfeasible. Instead we use approximations through infinitesimal calculus to approximate the behavior wholistically with a measurable degree of uncertainty.

It's like when you say it's unquantifiable and unfalsifiable. ghg forcing is verifiable and quantifiable. we can observe it in the atmosphere and determine what its doing.

I just am uncertain at what you think is possible. That there is some force, element, dimension etc that we cannot account for that is absorbing the energy?

Let me see if I can put it in analogous terms. This might be a little long, but I'm hoping you'll catch my drift. We know increasing ghg increases heat. We also know that photosynthesis is one way earth absorbs some of that ghg and turns it into something that doesn't (directly) contribute to the greenhouse effect. So I can theorize that another large contributing factor to increased heat on the planet is massive deforestation. It makes as much sense as the argument that temperature increases have to do with pumping more CO2 in the atmosphere (and they could both obviously be contributing factors). We know photosynthesis is a natural process that is falsifiable and a demonstrable truth. I'm sure you're nodding in agreement right now. But my theory is that it's a "large contributing factor to increased heat on the planet". So one obvious, interesting question that stem from my claim right away is: what's the photosynthesis absorption rate within that system (the planet)?

And within a complex entire global system, that's a tough as harder question to answer. While we already know the factors that increase the rate of photosynthesis (light intensity, CO2, temperature), we need to take into account that certain plants are in cold climates, and the rate is slower there. That some plants get a lot of light and heat, and so their rate is much bigger. That some plants might cast shade on other plants, and diminish their absorption rate. Under the scientific method, which has served science well for over 3 centuries, the fact that my claim makes sense, that massive deforestation is a historical fact, and that photosynthesis is a well studied, demonstrable truth is not enough to conclude my theory is right. What confidence level I have on my theory is not enough either. It's a massive claim, that, as I'm sure you imagine, will probably require massive testing to prove. The next step under the process is to come up and develop such tests that prove my claim, some maybe easier than others, but due to the vast complexity of the problem, I might not have answers to some of them for a long ass time (Could easily be dead by then).

And this parallels a lot of other claims that we don't know yet. We know and constantly measure the universe expanding, and that aligns with the big bang theory, but that doesn't mean we can conclude that theory is true. Or in the Einstein case I posted above, he was long dead by the time he had an answer to one of his claims. Science isn't for the impatient.

Now, because we're curious cats, or because some people don't want to wait (your insurance industry example is classical) what we normally do in cases like this is try to use different statistical processes to take into account a variety of values (like temperature, CO2 concentration, etc) and come up with a ballpark idea of what that absorption rate is, while we wait for the real deal. It's a cool hack, a well known and studied shortcut, and our statistics have improved tremendously over the years, due to a variety of reasons (computing power, advances in hysteresis, more and better quality data, etc). It's hard math. We understand it. We understand the pros. We understand the cons. We know that if you build a statistical model with 99% accuracy (especially on a incredibly complex system like that) you probably are deserving of a Nobel Prize, and, well, you have a 1% error rate. We know that if you try to build something with light interaction over it, the 1% error propagation is unlikely to matter a whole lot. Your error creep will likely be fairly low (always keeping in mind that you'll get the occasional crazy value). Now if the amount of interactions on top of it are pretty heavy, that 1% is gonna creep up like a mother er. (I can give you a more practical example of why this is, if you want).

So if you just want a ballpark value, that will probably work. If you want to use that approximation as a building block of a much more complex system (ie a global model, a t storm model, etc), then we might need to enter the fudging territory. If you're lucky enough to be able to detect some of the errors then you might be able to apply an error compensation system (ie: hysteresis) into it and the incidence of error creep will be diminished. Not gone, but diminished. That's not always an option though. The more complex the interaction of the parts, the more errors you'll introduce into the system. So we know that works for low interaction cases, but when you start building out too far, it gets extremely unreliable. Obviously, nothing matches having the error-free real deal.

Due to the complexity of this specific case, you have to statistically model not just photosynthesis, but precipitations, the natural mix of gases with the ocean, oxidization, and all the other factors of absorption, plus all the largest contributors (vapor/clouds, CO2, Methane, Ozone), interacting with one another. It's a massive, massive scale. Each single 'step' of the interaction is likely adding error from one or more components, which then propagates into the entire system as you interact into further steps. We see this kind of problem in every area where we apply statistical modeling, because it's a well know artifact of it. Up to a certain level of interaction, it's useful. But past that level it becomes nearly useless. So, at that scale and level of interaction, with our current tools, I don't think it's reliable. I, then, have to sit back and wait. Wait for major advances in statistical modeling (ongoing), error compensation (ongoing), technology (ongoing), or tests that corroborate the theory under the scientific method (not sure if this is even going on) or death (ongoing). That's what my position is (phew).



What do I think it's possible? That's more of a personal/philosophical question. I'm not a person of faith, I'm fully invested in science. I think the scientific process has shown over the centuries that's a suitable way to both acquire knowledge, and do so on a reliable way, which has given us and continue to give us solid building blocks. I think everything is possible, given time. Sometimes, a lot of time. But we need to be able to say, sometimes, that we don't know yet.

[pgardn]

Another vid taken out of context.

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

[DarrinS]

Another vid taken out of context.

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

Nope. If a theory doesn't comport with reality, it's wrong.

[JoeChalupa]

All I know is that when I moved back down here 22 yrs ago my progressive ass didn't go through such hot summers as recent years have been. That's all the science I need. Now for a tall glass of sun tea.

[DarrinS]

All I know is that when I moved back down here 22 yrs ago my progressive ass didn't go through such hot summers as recent years have been. That's all the science I need. Now for a tall glass of sun tea.

[ElNono]

How do you make a guess about anything unless you have observed or got interested in some physical phenomenon in the first place? What was, or was not left outbefore the first second of this video is hugely important. If Feinman did not say this he should have. It's painfully obvious.

The process is really ongoing, recurrent. You could certainly start with an observation, and observation is certainly part of the process. But you could instead start when the theory has been posited already, developing tests to falsify it. That might take different observations you could make on your own. There really isn't a start or end. Arguably, observation is generally the first step. But technically, you can start and contribute at any/every stage.

EDIT: didn't watch the video, BTW. Just addressing what you were commenting on.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't understand how anyone can believe that humans have not effected the climate with as much pollution as we've spewed into our atmosphere.