3 ms·

Who cares if I can run a formula/program that tells me Y from X if I can't understand/trust the program/formula ? If you think that stuff like economics/climat

Who cares if I can run a formula/program that tells me Y from X if I can't understand/trust the program/formula ? If you think that stuff like economics/climatology/etc. has the same level of rigor and validation applied to it as established and verified theories from hard science then boy do I have some bad news for you (struggling for SD 2 as ideal vs SD 5 for eg.).

acqq 11y ago
I see you don't want to trust even yourself in actually learning the formulas and the basic principles of physics behind them, but that's how it is. Physics works. Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. Reading other people's mails won't refute the physics. And no, other factors aren't the answer: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor...
- moonchrome 11y ago
  >Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. CO2 is a green house gas - good job mr. high-school physicist - now show me the temperature projections along with human CO2 production graphs and estimated impacts and error margins and past model prediction performances vs measured data. You know the actual things that matter for policy implications. See that's where things go beyond high school.
  - acqq 11y ago
    There they are, they are agreed by the scientists of the whole world, so again no need to worry about the e-mails of one country's organization: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against.
    - moonchrome 11y ago
      >There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against. Wait - but you didn't verify it your self ? After all : >You don't have to be a rocket scientist to repeat most of the basic calculations which give similar results. Or does it all boil down to trust and your original argument is nonsense.
      - acqq 11y ago
        Why does it matter what I have personally done or not done? Science works. E-mails are irrelevant. That's what we're discussing. If you claim that science doesn't work, you can prove that, but you have to know the science, or nobody will believe your claim. The major problem you'd have in order to prove that the current findings are wrong is that even the simplest formulas are against you. So you'd have to accept 99% of the existing results at the end and then to discover something completely new that amazingly nobody discovered up to now but that makes bigger influence on the results than everything known up to now. Good luck with that, as the data already add up now, as you can see in these graphs on the Bloomberg.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  Physics works, but that's because physicists don't even try to address large-scale phenomena like weather. Sufficient application of physics will let you know who's going to win the Super Bowl. And yet, nobody can do that.
  - acqq 11y ago
    But we don't ask who's going to win the Super Bowl. It's that we know that if we let 100 people in one isolated room to watch Super Bowl the room will be always warmer as long as people actually live in it and are allowed to eat (life also involves more heat from the food, assume we add them food all the time). The doubters claim that it doesn't have to happen. It does. We can calculate how much warmer approximately even if we can't be 100% sure for every minute, on the average the curve will match. It's the same with the Earth. It's as isolated as the isolated room would be -- we know exactly how much heat can dissipate and how much must contribute to the increase of the temperature for the room, and we have quite good estimates for Earth too (less heat dissipates to the space when CO2 increases, and the Sun shines the heat nevertheless - we can nicely calculate even the contributions of the changes in orbit and some clever scientist did that even before the computers were available, it took years of calculations by hand then but it was done). We can be wrong for some particular year, but the direction and the average increase match. The room is of course simpler than the Earth. Imagine having some water pumps, some fans and some chunks of ice in the room. You know the formulas for the water and ice but you have more to calculate for short term effects. But you still know there will be less ice as the time goes by and more water. And still always a bit warmer.

acqq 11y ago

I see you don't want to trust even yourself in actually learning the formulas and the basic principles of physics behind them, but that's how it is. Physics works. Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. Reading other people's mails won't refute the physics. And no, other factors aren't the answer: http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wor...

moonchrome 11y ago
>Humans produce immense amounts of CO2, CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the planet. It's as simple as that. CO2 is a green house gas - good job mr. high-school physicist - now show me the temperature projections along with human CO2 production graphs and estimated impacts and error margins and past model prediction performances vs measured data. You know the actual things that matter for policy implications. See that's where things go beyond high school.
- acqq 11y ago
  There they are, they are agreed by the scientists of the whole world, so again no need to worry about the e-mails of one country's organization: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against.
  - moonchrome 11y ago
    >There are other countries among those who took part in making the reports who would be more than eager to point on anything that's wrong there. And nobody did find anything significant against. Wait - but you didn't verify it your self ? After all : >You don't have to be a rocket scientist to repeat most of the basic calculations which give similar results. Or does it all boil down to trust and your original argument is nonsense.
    - acqq 11y ago
      Why does it matter what I have personally done or not done? Science works. E-mails are irrelevant. That's what we're discussing. If you claim that science doesn't work, you can prove that, but you have to know the science, or nobody will believe your claim. The major problem you'd have in order to prove that the current findings are wrong is that even the simplest formulas are against you. So you'd have to accept 99% of the existing results at the end and then to discover something completely new that amazingly nobody discovered up to now but that makes bigger influence on the results than everything known up to now. Good luck with that, as the data already add up now, as you can see in these graphs on the Bloomberg.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
Physics works, but that's because physicists don't even try to address large-scale phenomena like weather. Sufficient application of physics will let you know who's going to win the Super Bowl. And yet, nobody can do that.
- acqq 11y ago
  But we don't ask who's going to win the Super Bowl. It's that we know that if we let 100 people in one isolated room to watch Super Bowl the room will be always warmer as long as people actually live in it and are allowed to eat (life also involves more heat from the food, assume we add them food all the time). The doubters claim that it doesn't have to happen. It does. We can calculate how much warmer approximately even if we can't be 100% sure for every minute, on the average the curve will match. It's the same with the Earth. It's as isolated as the isolated room would be -- we know exactly how much heat can dissipate and how much must contribute to the increase of the temperature for the room, and we have quite good estimates for Earth too (less heat dissipates to the space when CO2 increases, and the Sun shines the heat nevertheless - we can nicely calculate even the contributions of the changes in orbit and some clever scientist did that even before the computers were available, it took years of calculations by hand then but it was done). We can be wrong for some particular year, but the direction and the average increase match. The room is of course simpler than the Earth. Imagine having some water pumps, some fans and some chunks of ice in the room. You know the formulas for the water and ice but you have more to calculate for short term effects. But you still know there will be less ice as the time goes by and more water. And still always a bit warmer.