Again you've not managed to answer the point I'm making about modelling here. I don't think you really understand what they are or how they work, do you? It's a shame you can have such a strong opinion about something of which you know so little.
That's fascinating riverat1. Truly fascinating. What you're talking about is the ideal world of scientific inquiry and publishing in your head, not the corrupt world of scientific inquiry and publishing that exists in the real world.
I see you haven't actually answered my point but instead written a wall of vague flannel. Shocking. So, answer it. If you model something and then compare your model results to actual reality and they're wildly divergent from that reality, what do you conclude?
And before you say it they are wildly divergent. They might look close at first but that's because (and many people don't realise this), they're tuned against past data. Yes, they're trained to match past data. That cannot in any way whatsoever take a current state and hind-cast it with any accuracy (which you might expect a good physical model to be able to do). Worse, much worse, the further forward in time you run them the more they diverge from the initial state they become.
Yes I have an agenda. The agenda is to not be a credulous prick, which you appear to be.
I referred to "the system", not every single law, field, particle, force and property of every single object in the entire Universe. So I ask you again, in what respect am I wrong?
Let me put it another way as you seem to be having trouble understanding the point: What do I learn if I model a system with my current understanding of its properties and that model fails to reproduce actual observed behaviour in the real world?
Just so I understand, when you simulate a GPS on a computer or model that CPU on a computer, does the model produce predictions that turn out to be completely wrong? If it does then you have not understood important aspects of the "system".
Because of this I can only conclude you haven't really thought the point through and your arm-waving about Quantum Gravity a somewhat distracting irrelevance.
The oceans transfer heat into the atmosphere. The oceans themselves are heated by that yellow-white thing in the sky that seems to get completely ignored here on slashdot. The point remains, the oceans have 1000 time the heat capacity of the atmosphere. So how is it that the atmosphere is warming the oceans? The whole argument is completely ridiculous.
Can't you understand this basic argument? What are the incentives here? Are climate scientists and institutions incentivised to support the hypothesis or not? And if they are (which of course they are), how is that any different to oil companies being incentivised against it? Is there another planet somewhere where the climate scientists are robots with absolutely no interest in their careers, tenure, professorships and the various career development opportunities that may be contingent on their ability to publish and attract grant funding to their institutions?
Science is corrupt. It progresses one funeral at a time.
By implication you are suggesting that the evidence for gravity existing is the same as the evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct? Really? And what implications are there apart from that Al Gore earning £100m, taxes needing to rise and scientific institutions being handed billions of dollars to "study" it? Who is studying the positive effects of a warmer climate? Anyone? Why is that I wonder...
Yes, yes it is required. You must understand every aspect of the system if you want to make predictions of a real=world system by modelling it. The analogy would be you trying to make predictions thinking a dice has 6 faces when in fact the real dice has 13. Kind-of screws up your crap tables doesn't it.
So what's this magic mechanism that fools the laws of Thermodynamics called? Because as far as I know the oceans have one thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
It doesn't work that way, and is much more complex
.
Yes, it's so complex that you don't understand it. And neither do climate scientists as evidenced by their modelling effort failures. Despite not understanding it, both you and they are 100% confident the hypothesis is correct, however.
Just read back what you've written there. Congressman votes to cut AGW funding? Climate Scientists and their institutions don't have any interest there but oil companies do? How the hell did your tiny fucking pea-brain manage to work that one out?
Don't be ridiculous. Huge grants to institutions would be lost if it was discovered that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming. There's a massive amount of research grant money tied to the hypothesis for NASA and almost every other "scientific" institution on the planet. If they don't get the results they're looking for they'll "adjust" the data or "calibrate" the instruments until they show what they want NASA to show.
Yes. Also I've noticed recently (over the last few years) quite a few people coming out of the woodwork to opine at how awful it is that white males exist. In 50 years time I think we'll be hunted with high powered rifles for sport.
Those aren't the only reasons Tiger Woods was (yes, was) good at golf. Not only was his dad a golf instructor but Tiger Woods also had the genetic potential to be a top golfer. The base assumption that everyone could be Tiger Woods if only their dads were golf instructors is such a load of twaddle.
Now on the point in question it seems to me that if genetic traits such as skin pigmentation, height and so on are selected for or against in various different Human populations, that the most important organ from a survival point of view, the brain, MUST have similar pressures put upon it and that therefore gene frequencies would differ between populations with respect to it. From here it's not much of a stretch to propose that some behaviour differences might result.
In today's world where we're not restricted by geographical boundaries and genes are free-flowing around the world, I expect these frequencies would by and large regress to the mean, in the absence of strong environmental or parasitic pressures of course.
It doesn't matter. IF something disagrees with it, it's wrong. That's really all you need to know. Now it's more likely that what's going on here is an error or some kind of mistake in the set-up of the apparatus, but the idea "we've built our edifice on top of this principle so it can't be wrong" is anti-science and horrendously arrogant.
That is indeed why proprietary software is almost always kinder to a developer, yes. You see if you don't maintain the documentation developers won't like it and if developers don't like it you won't make any money from it. Profit motivates good practice in this area.
They are but there's a quota in the other direction for Green Cards and it gets almost completely filled from the UK mostly by bankers (I assume). Yet the US lets in millions of Mexicans who's first act on arrival is to break the law (immigration law in this case).
Forgive me but it's really quite unfair, especially if like me you want to go and live and work in the US though I admit, not at a fast food joint.
Slashdot Mirror
You wanted to blame it on race, didn't you Anonymous Coward. You were going to blame it on white males.
Again you've not managed to answer the point I'm making about modelling here. I don't think you really understand what they are or how they work, do you? It's a shame you can have such a strong opinion about something of which you know so little.
That's fascinating riverat1. Truly fascinating. What you're talking about is the ideal world of scientific inquiry and publishing in your head, not the corrupt world of scientific inquiry and publishing that exists in the real world.
I see you haven't actually answered my point but instead written a wall of vague flannel. Shocking. So, answer it. If you model something and then compare your model results to actual reality and they're wildly divergent from that reality, what do you conclude?
And before you say it they are wildly divergent. They might look close at first but that's because (and many people don't realise this), they're tuned against past data. Yes, they're trained to match past data. That cannot in any way whatsoever take a current state and hind-cast it with any accuracy (which you might expect a good physical model to be able to do). Worse, much worse, the further forward in time you run them the more they diverge from the initial state they become.
Yes I have an agenda. The agenda is to not be a credulous prick, which you appear to be.
I referred to "the system", not every single law, field, particle, force and property of every single object in the entire Universe. So I ask you again, in what respect am I wrong?
Let me put it another way as you seem to be having trouble understanding the point: What do I learn if I model a system with my current understanding of its properties and that model fails to reproduce actual observed behaviour in the real world?
Just so I understand, when you simulate a GPS on a computer or model that CPU on a computer, does the model produce predictions that turn out to be completely wrong? If it does then you have not understood important aspects of the "system".
Because of this I can only conclude you haven't really thought the point through and your arm-waving about Quantum Gravity a somewhat distracting irrelevance.
The oceans transfer heat into the atmosphere. The oceans themselves are heated by that yellow-white thing in the sky that seems to get completely ignored here on slashdot. The point remains, the oceans have 1000 time the heat capacity of the atmosphere. So how is it that the atmosphere is warming the oceans? The whole argument is completely ridiculous.
You're forgetting that "truth" has a half-life and that group-think dominates the process from bottom to top.
Can't you understand this basic argument? What are the incentives here? Are climate scientists and institutions incentivised to support the hypothesis or not? And if they are (which of course they are), how is that any different to oil companies being incentivised against it? Is there another planet somewhere where the climate scientists are robots with absolutely no interest in their careers, tenure, professorships and the various career development opportunities that may be contingent on their ability to publish and attract grant funding to their institutions?
Science is corrupt. It progresses one funeral at a time.
By implication you are suggesting that the evidence for gravity existing is the same as the evidence that the AGW hypothesis is correct? Really? And what implications are there apart from that Al Gore earning £100m, taxes needing to rise and scientific institutions being handed billions of dollars to "study" it? Who is studying the positive effects of a warmer climate? Anyone? Why is that I wonder...
Yes, yes it is required. You must understand every aspect of the system if you want to make predictions of a real=world system by modelling it. The analogy would be you trying to make predictions thinking a dice has 6 faces when in fact the real dice has 13. Kind-of screws up your crap tables doesn't it.
So what's this magic mechanism that fools the laws of Thermodynamics called? Because as far as I know the oceans have one thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.
. Yes, it's so complex that you don't understand it. And neither do climate scientists as evidenced by their modelling effort failures. Despite not understanding it, both you and they are 100% confident the hypothesis is correct, however.
Just read back what you've written there. Congressman votes to cut AGW funding? Climate Scientists and their institutions don't have any interest there but oil companies do? How the hell did your tiny fucking pea-brain manage to work that one out?
Every time someone links to that propaganda website the IQ of the planet goes down a little.
Don't be ridiculous. Huge grants to institutions would be lost if it was discovered that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming. There's a massive amount of research grant money tied to the hypothesis for NASA and almost every other "scientific" institution on the planet. If they don't get the results they're looking for they'll "adjust" the data or "calibrate" the instruments until they show what they want NASA to show.
Yes. Also I've noticed recently (over the last few years) quite a few people coming out of the woodwork to opine at how awful it is that white males exist. In 50 years time I think we'll be hunted with high powered rifles for sport.
Those aren't the only reasons Tiger Woods was (yes, was) good at golf. Not only was his dad a golf instructor but Tiger Woods also had the genetic potential to be a top golfer. The base assumption that everyone could be Tiger Woods if only their dads were golf instructors is such a load of twaddle.
Now on the point in question it seems to me that if genetic traits such as skin pigmentation, height and so on are selected for or against in various different Human populations, that the most important organ from a survival point of view, the brain, MUST have similar pressures put upon it and that therefore gene frequencies would differ between populations with respect to it. From here it's not much of a stretch to propose that some behaviour differences might result.
In today's world where we're not restricted by geographical boundaries and genes are free-flowing around the world, I expect these frequencies would by and large regress to the mean, in the absence of strong environmental or parasitic pressures of course.
I am not a funding agency. Whether I apply 10^100th power to one odds is neither here nor there.
It doesn't matter. IF something disagrees with it, it's wrong. That's really all you need to know. Now it's more likely that what's going on here is an error or some kind of mistake in the set-up of the apparatus, but the idea "we've built our edifice on top of this principle so it can't be wrong" is anti-science and horrendously arrogant.
It doesn't have to "crumble entirely" any more than Newtons laws "crumbled entirely" when they were applied to the orbit of Mercury.
Yea, "neat little tricks" tend to be undocumented for a reason.
Autodesk Fusion 360? From what I can see they've got a quite comprehensive and professional learning resource set up.
That is indeed why proprietary software is almost always kinder to a developer, yes. You see if you don't maintain the documentation developers won't like it and if developers don't like it you won't make any money from it. Profit motivates good practice in this area.
They are but there's a quota in the other direction for Green Cards and it gets almost completely filled from the UK mostly by bankers (I assume). Yet the US lets in millions of Mexicans who's first act on arrival is to break the law (immigration law in this case).
Forgive me but it's really quite unfair, especially if like me you want to go and live and work in the US though I admit, not at a fast food joint.