Global Warming....laugh...laugh...laugh

[Guest bigbadbrent]

As to the "scientists can't model the weather" argument...The ability to predict short term (today, tomorrow, next week, next year) weather fluctuations is in no way indicative of the ability to predict long term trends. Those of you who don't believe in the accuracy or viability of long term climate models, you may want to pay attention to this. To the best of my knowledge, most recent models have UNDER predicted the rate of temp rise, and way under predicted the rate of the ice caps melting. Not very comforting.

 

 

It's been proven that long-term weather predictions cannot be viable, In fact, Chaos Theory was discovered by attempting to model weather. Weather is way too variable dependant (on an infinite number of variables), and far too many of those variables are still unknown, let alone once you get into the quantum physics and quantum states logic.

 

Predicting climate change, is like predicting where someone is going to go in their car, and how far, just by observing the person press the accelerator.

 

 

While things can go linear, the chances of anything being actually linear is viable to nearly 0%, there will always be an outlying variable that screws everything up or send its off hilter...

 

My cast could be going straight, but theirs a slight tick in my cast, bam, its not where i thought it was going

[bulltrout]

just a fair warning to anyone that starts a GW or jet boat typeish thread, i'm tying egg patterns...................

[reevesr1]

It's been proven that long-term weather predictions cannot be viable, In fact, Chaos Theory was discovered by attempting to model weather. Weather is way too variable dependant (on an infinite number of variables), and far too many of those variables are still unknown, let alone once you get into the quantum physics and quantum states logic.

 

Predicting climate change, is like predicting where someone is going to go in their car, and how far, just by observing the person press the accelerator.

While things can go linear, the chances of anything being actually linear is viable to nearly 0%, there will always be an outlying variable that screws everything up or send its off hilter...

 

My cast could be going straight, but theirs a slight tick in my cast, bam, its not where i thought it was going

 

Disagree. Depends on what you are talking about. Can models predict that it will rain 2 weeks from today at 4 pm? No. Can models predict long term temperature trends? Maybe. Again, back to causality. Just because trying to predict weather led to the discovery of chaos theory, doesn't mean weather is chaotic. Just because we don't fully understand all of the variables (and i'm willing to concede we may never) does not mean we cannot come up with models that factor in what we do understand and make predictions based on them. Of course the more things you don't understand lead to more error in the answer. Doesn't necessarily mean the model is 'wrong'. We don't really understand gravity. But we can model the hell out of it.

 

"My cast could be going straight, but theirs a slight tick in my cast, bam, its not where i thought it was going" Again, maybe. But most times it goes where you think it should. Not exactly, but close.

 

And we understand way more about quantum mechanics than we did 50 years ago. How? By making models, disproving, making another model, disproving, etc.

[reevesr1]

just a fair warning to anyone that starts a GW or jet boat typeish thread, i'm tying egg patterns...................

 

and I'm thinking of using a triple SJW pattern next year, all with nice big wide gap hooks. I'll be a foul hooking, eye putting out, fish catching machine!

 

Stir, stir, stir the pot

Use a nice big stick

Merrily, merrily, merrily

I am such a prick

[Guest bigbadbrent]

Just because the model is not wrong, does not make it correct, or even viable.... It's pretty standard that this is how most theories are (aka, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, you can't prove it wrong, so it could be right.. )

 

I'm in a debating mood, but i definitly see your viewpoint (aka, im not trying to be a prick, i get what you mean)

[esleech]

and I'm thinking of using a triple SJW pattern next year, all with nice big wide gap hooks. I'll be a foul hooking, eye putting out, fish catching machine!

 

Stir, stir, stir the pot

Use a nice big stick

Merrily, merrily, merrily

I am such a prick

 

Oh yeah! Well I'm using these!

esleech egg patterns

[snakeman]

At least we have another contentious subject to add to the list of contentious shack nasty subjects now. Let's see.....jetboats on the Bow, fishing at the mouth of the Highwood during spawn, Christmas, and now global warming. So much to choose from!

 

Don't forget hunting/trophy hunting/the Alberta grizzly bear hunt or spin fishing vs fly fishing

[esleech]

Hey guys, know any trails into fortress lake? Good spots to land a plane?

[reevesr1]

Just because the model is not wrong, does not make it correct, or even viable.... It's pretty standard that this is how most theories are (aka, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, you can't prove it wrong, so it could be right.. )

 

I'm in a debating mood, but i definitly see your viewpoint (aka, im not trying to be a prick, i get what you mean)

 

Agree with the first part, not so much with the second part.

Gravity is a theory. Relativity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. For something to be called a theory, in the scientific sense, means it has been tested time and time again and always works. Once it doesn't work, it ain't a theory any more.

 

Models are predictive. A theory says "here is what the outcome WILL be" models say "here is what the outcome MAY be, plus or minus some value". Or at least, I think that's what they mean.

 

Finally, debate with me all you want. I don't think your a prick at all. Or at least not right now

[reevesr1]

Oh yeah! Well I'm using these!

esleech egg patterns

So how about a triple SJW rig, tipped with esleech's egg pattern? I plan to rig some up riding in a model float plane into Fortress Lake. At least in theory....

[ladystrange]

evolution is theory to scientists... hogwash to the relgious types... still up for debate

[bulltrout]

as long as i get the jars afterwards rick....

[Guest bigbadbrent]

[reevesr1]

evolution is theory to scientists... hogwash to the relgious types... still up for debate

Oh, let's get started on THAT!!!! Talk about stirring the pot!

Evolution is a theory that has never scientifically been disproved. Hogwash to many religious types because it doesn't fit their belief system, not because they can disprove it. Speaking as a religious type myself, I don't have any problem with evolution. I figure God is a pretty smart fella. If He wanted things to evolve, then he could probably pull it off. He is God, after all.

[Weedy1]

So where does string theory come in on all of this?

[ladystrange]

LOL. i'm just trying to poke and get a few laughs...

 

come on rickr... Adam and Eve, God made man from dirt... it explains lots. **shrug**

 

hey don't blame me. i didn't write the stuff

[Weedy1]

Oh, let's get started on THAT!!!! Talk about stirring the pot!

Evolution is a theory that has never scientifically been disproved. Hogwash to many religious types because it doesn't fit their belief system, not because they can disprove it. Speaking as a religious type myself, I don't have any problem with evolution. I figure God is a pretty smart fella. If He wanted things to evolve, then he could probably pull it off. He is God, after all.

 

Do we really exist?

Is there such thing as existence?

Are we here but our minds are somewhere in the future?

Are we the non-existent figments of our own non-existent imaginations?

[reevesr1]

Dude, if you could put a picture of a 24K Jet Boat on top of that pile of eggs, that would be sweet!

 

While we are at it, don't forget, if you want to catch BIG fish, use streamers.

 

I'm getting cramps from all this stirring.

[ladystrange]

So where does string theory come in on all of this?

 

 

that should have come right after the chaos theory was introduced to the conversation

[ladystrange]

LMAO, this is the best entertainmen ever...

 

 

i'm absolutely positive i dont exist... but somehow i'm still here... somewhere

[snakeman]

Hey guys, know any trails into fortress lake? Good spots to land a plane?

 

[reevesr1]

Do we really exist?

Is there such thing as existence?

Are we here but our minds are somewhere in the future?

Are we the non-existent figments of our own non-existent imaginations?

 

I saw JP Sartre's grave in Paris. He wouldn't have cared. None of it matters anyway.

 

Saw you lurking down there by the way Weedy. Glad to see you make an appearance!

[Weedy1]

I saw JP Sartre's grave in Paris. He wouldn't have cared. None of it matters anyway.

 

Saw you lurking down there by the way Weedy. Glad to see you make an appearance!

 

Yah, I was bored!!

[monger]

I'm with you Rick. As a person with a degree in Zoology and Ecology I find you have to have more faith to believe the scientists than the Bible.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Not meaning to pick on your position directly rickr but these are standard arguments one hears all the time. With everything going wrong in the world it seems at least we can all agree it focuses a lot of peoples attention, time and money.

 

I don't think it is very disputable that the earth's temperature has been rising over the last century. And it is also indisputable that worldwide pollution has increased. So pollution and temperature increases appear to be correlated. But are they causal? (ie just because A and B are reacting the same doesn't mean A caused B ) That is much more difficult to prove. Equally difficult to disprove.

The temperature rising over a century is a joke insofar as the fluctuations the Earth has experienced over the last million years (a blip in geologic and weather record). Just because pollution increases does not mean temperature is linked whatsoever. Also C02 is not pollution as global warming advocates cry... CO2 is responsible for everyone being alive on Earth at this moment. Without C02 in the atmosphere we would all die. Think about it please.

 

As to the "scientists can't model the weather" argument...The ability to predict short term (today, tomorrow, next week, next year) weather fluctuations is in no way indicative of the ability to predict long term trends. Those of you who don't believe in the accuracy or viability of long term climate models, you may want to pay attention to this. To the best of my knowledge, most recent models have UNDER predicted the rate of temp rise, and way under predicted the rate of the ice caps melting. Not very comforting.

 

Stating the model can not predict accurately either way does not make the models more reliable. Others have used this argument and failed. Do you seriously think people should believe that failure to predict shorter term patterns with fewer compounding variables is a good thing LMAO. Clearly you too are a believer in what you are told versus common sense. Have I got a new island for you to buy. Not yet formed yet but soon to erupt... I will sell it to you cheap.

 

A French mathmetician named Pascal, when commenting on religion once said something to the effect: If I believe in God and I'm wrong, I've lived a good life and nothing has been wasted, however if I don't believe in God and I'm wrong, I may spend a long time in a hot place (I did paraphrase there a bit). To me, same thing with global warming. If we do something about it and we didn't really need to, then so what? Less pollution is at the end of the day a good thing in itself (and please don't tell me how there was once more CO2 in the atmosphere. It was too hot for humans then too!) Conversely, if we don't do anything about it and we WERE the cause, what do we say then? Oops, our bad. Sorry there kids. Good luck with that whole inhospitable planet thing. You may want to start working on really big domes to live in.

 

My bet is we are in the midst of a general temperature increase that we are exacerbating with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But really that's just my guess. I'm probably wrong. Whatever the case, IMHO, we would be effin crazy not to do anything about it. Simple risk management, ain't it?

 

Philosophy is not science but the art of understanding mind and soul. Please convince other pro-global warming zealots to realize this and then honest debate can happen. The funniest thing about the argument is that the pro-global warming side considers this an emotional issue. Non global warming folks consider this just a factual debate on scientific principles. As soon as the emotional side got involved the pro side lost credibility.

 

My bet is we are in the midst of a general temperature increase that we are exacerbating with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. But really that's just my guess. I'm probably wrong. Whatever the case, IMHO, we would be effin crazy not to do anything about it. Simple risk management, ain't it?

 

The problem with the argument that in the face of lack of evidence one should over react and go nuts is insane and I might add the credo for all the pro global warming zealots. One major zealot friend of mind would resort to violence if he felt it would help sway the "non believers". His analogy as a risk management decision is as follows:

 

Say you wake up in the morning and someone says you are going to hit a bus in an intersection on the way to work... Would you leave that morning without changing your outlook on life and your travel route through it? My response to this argument is that if you could without a doubt or even 50/50 probability say this would occur I would definitely have to change something that morning to prevent a tragedy. But what this argument is truly reflective of is:

 

Should I wake up in the morning with a small risk of an accident, not leave my garage, house or even bed for fear of what if something unknown and unproven and unlikely will happen. Then while sitting at home I fail to earn a living, lose my house, car, wife, kids and sanity? If that was the law then yes this is the path we are all on based upon a bogus hypothesis. The hypothesis is not are we causing global warming but are we smart enough to react properly, spend our money and resources to adapt.

 

I have been trained in University as a scientist with an open mind. I am swayed on debate of fact all the time but sadly not only is the research one sided, the media one side and now the public totally believe bunk...it is just sit back and wait for the GLOBAL COOLING SIDE to start up with the same folks preaching the global warming debate.

 

Stay tuned and hopefully stay warm this winter... At least the ice will form faster this year than last..

 

Cheers.

 

Sun