{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/31/2017 5:31:00 PM
19
Is this from the same people that can't tell me if it's going to rain on Tuesday accurately?
English
-
[quote]Is this from the same people that can't tell me if it's going to rain on Tuesday accurately?[/quote] Is the cloud that caused the rain on Tuesday still going to be there in a year?
-
But one is prediction and other is reading data that already happened. Big big difference.
-
[quote]But one is prediction and other is reading data that already happened. . . [/quote] And using that to make a prediction for what will happen in the future. Kinda like how weather works, just on a much longer and much larger scale.
-
They see changes and they predict how these changes will effect us.
-
[quote]They see changes and they predict how these changes will effect us.[/quote] You just described weathermen (broadcast meteorologists). Because climatology and meteorology are almost exactly the same, except for the time-scale. Crazy, right? So in fact the weatherman and a climatologist might sometimes get some things wrong, due to the nature of attempting to predict global atmospheric conditions being incredibly difficult, and all.
-
[quote][quote]They see changes and they predict how these changes will effect us.[/quote] You just described weathermen (broadcast meteorologists). Because climatology and meteorology are almost exactly the same, except for the time-scale. Crazy, right? So in fact the weatherman and a climatologist might sometimes get some things wrong, due to the nature of attempting to predict global atmospheric conditions being incredibly difficult, and all.[/quote] True.
-
Edited by The Cellar Door: 8/2/2017 5:36:10 AMYou're making a false equivalence. Yes, trying to make locally accurate predictions of atmospheric conditions is incredibly difficult, because of the local variables making for a mathematically chaotic system. The local variables which cause the chaotic nature of weather are intuitively short lived. That's practically a tautological statement, but I'll make sure it's clear to you that a local variable implies it is localized about a neighborhood in time and space. Now, if these variables were not so localized, weather would be easier to predict, hence why climate is far easier to predict than weather is, because the variables that influence it are not as localized and make the system far less chaotic. If I sound like it saying the same thing over and over again, it's because I am. It's a dreadfully simple thing to understand.
-
[quote]Is this from the same people that can't tell me if it's going to rain on Tuesday accurately?[/quote]You see, this right here is why the world might end in a century. It's baffling that the smartest race on the planet acts just so stupid.
-
[quote][quote]Is this from the same people that can't tell me if it's going to rain on Tuesday accurately?[/quote]You see, this right here is why the world might end in a century. It's baffling that the smartest race on the planet acts just so stupid.[/quote] Its pretty simple champ. For anyone who actually has knowledge in atmospheric science, we don't have the technology to determine forecasts even past three days out. The easiest way to describe it is based on the price is right Klinko. And when you guys state that no we have 50 years of data to determine the planet has heated up two degrees. Great now how can we figure out why that actually is accelerated if its even accelerated at all? And when you state well weather forecasting and climatology are different, no they are very similar in a ton of way. We use data to determine an outcome(forecast/weather models). The only thing thats diferent is where in the atmosphere it is and the weather patterns associated with each type meterology/climatology. And even with the most advanced models we still are having a hard time because in the small scale weather is very unpredictable. The same goes for the long term of climatology. We cant compare it to other collections of stats because of how random everything can be. Most people understand or have heard of el nino but dont even know what being neutral, la nina etc are and how they effect the United states and Canada diferently. Same with this Heat in BC being hyped as climate change when its the heat from a dessert being brought accross thats causing so many wild fires this year from you guessed it a certain pattern.
-
So...with an abundance of food and technology increasing on an exponential level in damn near a hundred years you think a rise of 2 degrees with kill all of us huh? Funny the earth was WAY hotter at one point and life FLOURISHED. I think you might be a bit paranoid. Ebola was going to kill us. And swine flu. And bird flu. And Y2K. And global cooling. And the Russians. And SARS. ....and each and every time the paranoia is [i]exactly[/i] the same: "People just don't understand how serious this [i]really[/i] is....." I think if the sea levels rise and we have a hundred year heads up the people from Santa Monica might figure out how to make it to the San Fernando valley in time.
-
Edited by Kody: 7/31/2017 6:22:05 PM[quote]So...with an abundance of food and technology increasing on an exponential level in damn near a hundred years[/quote]So you're rolling the dice, assuming all the scientists you criticize for getting your weather report wrong are going to fix all these problems for you. Interesting. You think a rise of 2 degrees with kill all of us huh?[/quote]Here is the problem. You hear a number, 2, and see it is a relatively small number. So you then skip everything, forming your conclusion immediately, that it isn't meaningful. Well I don't form my opinions that way, I either invest a great deal of time understanding the science myself, or I default to others who have. Climate science is tricky stuff and unfortunately I must default. So here you go (why 2 degrees matters): [url]https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/[/url] [quote]Funny the earth was WAY hotter at one point and life FLOURISHED.[/quote]I don't know what period in history you're referring to (not that you're wrong). [quote]I think you might be a bit paranoid. Ebola was going to kill us. And swine flu. And bird flu. And Y2K. And global cooling. And the Russians. And SARS. ....and each and every time the paranoia is [i]exactly[/i] the same: "People just don't understand how serious this [i]really[/i] is....."[/quote]Thankfully I don't have to rebut any of this because it doesn't correct anything I or the studies said. [quote]I think if the sea levels rise and we have a hundred year heads up the people from Santa Monica might figure out how to make it to the San Fernando valley in time.[/quote]You obviously didn't read the studies, let alone the commentary, because rising sea levels are the least of the problems.
-
Unlike you I will not plunge us into the living conditions of the 3rd world no. And you yourself will also do nothing. You will continue to engage in practices which increase co2 levels every single day
-
Government scientists are not inventing America's technology in most areas. Private industry is doing that
-
It's baffling, and comical, that you think the world is ending.
-
Why? I cited my source and you haven't responded to it.
-
But in the meantime you [i]personally[/i] should stop driving cars or eating meat or using electricity so you can do your part.
-
[quote]But in the meantime you [i]personally[/i] should stop driving cars or eating meat or using electricity so you can do your part.[/quote]I do a lot to help the issues, most notably spread awareness. My main fault is doing it aggressively. Close-minded, defensive people like yourself will remain that way as long as people like me attack you the way I have and treat you like you're idiots. I'm not perfect though. Regardless, hypocrisy doesn't change reality. I can say don't put a snake on your head or 10 children will die. I can then do it anyway. My hypocrisy will not change whether my claim was true or not. So appealing to my hypocrisy is really just another way you've attempted to skirt facing reality in this thread. Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time, read the studies, fact-check what you need to, and then come back. Until then you're doing the world and your position a disservice.
-
You're doing nothing by spreading awareness. Stop bullshitting yourself. Either stop contributing to co2 emissions or realize that YOU are the problem. Stop eating meat Stop using anything that requires gas Use minimal electricity etc
-
Edited by Kody: 7/31/2017 6:49:02 PM[quote]You're doing nothing by spreading awareness. Stop bullshitting yourself.[/quote]There is plenty of evidence you can find supporting the notion that spreading awareness speeds up progress. But you've proven adverse to evidence, seeing as how you haven't responded to any actual research I've presented you with, so I doubt I'll change your mind on this. At the very least, I've planted a seed in your brain or heart and others on the wall will read this conversation and it will help them understand as well. Either stop contributing to co2 emissions or realize that YOU are the problem. [quote]Stop eating meat[/quote]I've been eating less meat, but yeah maybe I should stop altogether. Man it's hard. [quote]Stop using anything that requires gas[/quote]This is impossible at the moment, but I plan on getting rid of my car so I can ride a bike when I end up moving. I deliberately don't buy new cars though and I make sure I don't drive guzzlers. [quote]Use minimal electricity etc[/quote]And water! ;) [quote]Government scientists are not inventing America's technology in most areas. Private industry is doing that[/quote]I'm confused about the purpose of this statement. Once again, none of this has any affect on the facts, which you continually fail to respond to.
