If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Post)   The Arctic Meltdown: Climate change has enabled companies like Shell to pursue previously inaccessible resources   (globalpost.com) divider line 206
    More: Interesting, Arctic Meltdown, Arctic, Eskimos, Royal Dutch Shell plc, trillion cubic feet, environmental organization, bowhead whales, environmental organizations  
•       •       •

3983 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 1:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-04 05:46:50 PM

EVERYBODY PANIC: Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?


The solution to most of mankind's problems:

upload.wikimedia.org

Not only that, but it can rid us of some really icky diseases as well. Too bad those farking priests / mullahs / witchdoctors are doing everything they can to stop people from using them.
 
2012-10-04 05:58:00 PM

Uncle Tractor: make me some tea: Given the uncertainty, I firmly believe we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel tit and invest in green tech and reduce our CO2 emissions. It just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand why there's so much drama about this issue.

People make money by selling you fossil fuel. They stop making money if you stop using it. Thus the drama.


Well yeah, obviously. Beyond those those people though...
 
2012-10-04 05:58:42 PM

gulogulo: There's a problem with your 'activist scientist' theory here. And that is that novel approaches get attention. They get funding, and they get, most importantly, recognition.


They don't in climate science. In climate science, people who want to disprove CO2 as a primary driver are shouted down. Prove me wrong there and I might accept that you have a point. All I've seen thus far is almost outright libel against scientists who might investigate some alternative view.

It was the same in String theory. Scientists who wanted to research something different had trouble getting funding. It's just human nature, in the desire to have a simple and elegant answer, some subjects take hold too strongly in human imagination. It is purely a function of how much we want them to be true. That doesn't make them a real part of nature, however.

kriegsgeist: Spinning a proposal or choosing to do a certain study based on available grant money is not even close to the same thing as falsifying research.


Doesn't have to be. If all you spend your money on is researching what soil is best for growing a particular plant, you might entirely miss everything else that's important like sunlight, water, availability of pollinators, etc... and conclude that soil alone drives plant growth. Proposals should be expected to be spun, it's basic advertisement. However when the flavor of money is only looking at one aspect of a problem then yes the scientists themselves have a hand in biasing the results of science at large.

kriegsgeist: Big Man On Campus:

The focus of study determines the result.

Not in real science.


Really? So studying flowers can unlock the secrets of star formation?
Yes, absolutely, the focus of study determines the result. Simply being contrarian because you disagree with me doesn't make your beliefs any more true.
 
2012-10-04 06:01:48 PM

Uncle Tractor: EVERYBODY PANIC: Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?

The solution to most of mankind's problems:



Not only that, but it can rid us of some really icky diseases as well. Too bad those farking priests / mullahs / witchdoctors are doing everything they can to stop people from using them.


Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.
 
2012-10-04 06:04:45 PM

Big Man On Campus: They don't in climate science. In climate science, people who want to disprove CO2 as a primary driver are shouted down. Prove me wrong there and I might accept that you have a point. All I've seen thus far is almost outright libel against scientists who might investigate some alternative view.


That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?
 
2012-10-04 06:07:02 PM

Baryogenesis: Long term climate forcings aren't the same thing as year to year fluctuations in ENSO or other weather patterns. The detail needed on small scales isn't needed on large scales. You're basically asking why we don't include the effect of Pluto on Earth's orbit around the Sun. Sure, there's some non zero effect there, but the Earth's orbit is dominated by the Sun and we can ignore those very small factors. The overall temperature of the Earth is determined by a handful of major factors and the greenhouse effect is one of them.


That's a talking point that was repeated to you somewhere, but it has no basis in reality whatsoever. When you remove influencing factors, your error-bars simply grow. In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.
 
2012-10-04 06:12:22 PM

gulogulo: That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?


I'm talking post 1990s. And discrediting their study doesn't discredit the theory. In the mid-1990s, Hansens speeches were still sinking in.

I'm not going to dive into the subjectivity of what makes a scientific circle "reputable", so I'm not going to respond to that query. Suffice it to say that if you really want to pretend that you didn't know there isn't an absolute political/PR war going on between established climate scientists and other scientists (Yes there are scientists) who disagree on this subject all over the web, well then in the words of John McClain, welcome to the party pal.
 
2012-10-04 06:16:39 PM
oh, it's this thread again.
 
2012-10-04 06:17:38 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: That's not true. Several authors in the mid 1990's came out with the theory concerning solar activity as the driver. It was published in reputable journals, and reached a wide audience. Obviously they were given their due credit, but when it was challenged it didn't hold up. It's not like there haven't been attempts to look at other drivers, like water vapor or methane driving the system. There was no 'libelous' claims, though. Where are you seeing that in reputable scientific circles?

I'm talking post 1990s. And discrediting their study doesn't discredit the theory. In the mid-1990s, Hansens speeches were still sinking in.

I'm not going to dive into the subjectivity of what makes a scientific circle "reputable", so I'm not going to respond to that query. Suffice it to say that if you really want to pretend that you didn't know there isn't an absolute political/PR war going on between established climate scientists and other scientists (Yes there are scientists) who disagree on this subject all over the web, well then in the words of John McClain, welcome to the party pal.


Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?
 
2012-10-04 06:23:42 PM
make me some tea:....

Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.

Probably because it's not the #1 issue facing our species. Our inability to live in sustainable ways is the #1 issue facing our species.

And no, buying a prius and using reusable bags has nothing to do with the scale/scope of how much we need to change to live as a species in a sustainable way.
 
2012-10-04 06:24:40 PM
HOLY CRAP! An entire *DECADE*'s worth of oil! That's roughly two terms. Drill baby drill!
 
2012-10-04 06:27:08 PM

gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?


You know, those scientists who disagree on this subject ... the ones engaging in a PR war, getting posted all over the web. Nobody has ever heard of them.

Seriously, boo hoo. A group of scientists disagrees publicly with another group of scientists. The horror!
 
2012-10-04 06:31:01 PM

gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.
 
2012-10-04 06:35:28 PM
Andddddd so far all this" melting" over the last one hundred years has raised the ocean level....one...inch...so excuse my complete lack of panic.
 
2012-10-04 06:36:30 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.


How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?
 
2012-10-04 06:38:29 PM
media.giantbomb.com

"Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill." ~ CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"
 
2012-10-04 06:39:48 PM

HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?


Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".
 
2012-10-04 06:46:09 PM

Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".


exactly.
 
2012-10-04 06:48:29 PM

Big Man On Campus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen


From the wiki article you linked:

"According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001[7], and offered more support in a 2009 paper[44], but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen's theory discredited." Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in an interview. "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." .[59]"
 
2012-10-04 06:49:18 PM

mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.


Hi, EatTheWorld here.

I say the world is full of resource for US. Lets use it. Your pessimism is sad, and your truths are wrong. Profit made someone sell you the device you just posted with asshat. turn it off, return to store, move out into the woods.
 
2012-10-04 06:56:24 PM

meat0918: wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?

I wonder if future archeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?


Try: the Age of Stupid

/good movie by the way, feel free to pirate it
 
2012-10-04 07:01:33 PM

HighZoolander: Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".

exactly.


It is interesting that "balance" is put in quotes in that sentence, all while you guys are trying to demonstrate that someone's ideas are being treated fairly. It speaks to a hypocrisy in the mind that you seem to have.
 
2012-10-04 07:05:20 PM

gulogulo: From the wiki article you linked:


Saw it, know it, point?
 
2012-10-04 07:10:19 PM

some_beer_drinker: oh, it's this thread again.


oh, it's this comment again
 
2012-10-04 07:14:09 PM

Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: From the wiki article you linked:

Saw it, know it, point?


A.) He is studying other things beyond the CO2 issues, and is getting coverage for it (reputable scientific circles.)
B.) He also accepts the CO2 hypothesis, which you seem to be implying is wrong merely because it's the popular theory.

So, you have yet to show me a scientist with radically different view that is being censored. Last time I checked, it's the climate deniars here in the U.S. that have consistently had the upper hand in policy.
 
2012-10-04 07:14:28 PM

Big Man On Campus: HighZoolander: Ambitwistor: HighZoolander: Big Man On Campus: gulogulo: Ok, which scientists are not getting their theories heard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen 

For one.

How did I know that he'd be the first one you mention. No love for Miskolczi?

Lindzen isn't getting his theories heard? By who? He publishes his papers just like anybody else, and he's the go-to media darling for any news article that's looking for "balance".

exactly.

It is interesting that "balance" is put in quotes in that sentence, all while you guys are trying to demonstrate that someone's ideas are being treated fairly. It speaks to a hypocrisy in the mind that you seem to have.


I don't think fairness means equal time for all ideas, though that's a model that certain "balanced" media organizations seem to follow. It's not hypocrisy to suggest that a minority view (that's largely been discredited or abandoned) doesn't need to have equal time with more viable viewpoints.
 
2012-10-04 07:40:10 PM
ironic tag surrenders
 
2012-10-04 07:45:49 PM
Shell to pursue previously inaccessible resources; Like the loose change in my sofa.
 
2012-10-04 07:49:05 PM

MrSteve007: Uhhhh, you know that TIME magazine cover is a fake right? A Photoshop? As in it never existed? Heck, the layout doesn't even match the era.


Well, that earns Joe Blowme an automatic spot on my ignore list, then. Faking data to make a poor argument is about as useless as you can get. Nothing but an intentional effort to drop the signal-to-noise ratio in the thread.
 
2012-10-04 08:04:12 PM

FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.


That's about all.
 
2012-10-04 08:29:45 PM
Stop driving and heating and cooling your houses, then stop using and/or purchasing and/or consuming all products that require liquid fossil fuels to grow, produce, process, manufacture, or transport.

Get back to me on how that works out for you, mm-kay?
 
2012-10-04 08:33:41 PM
//Bakken oil boom CDL Hazmat oil and fracking water hauler earning $100K laughs at this thread.
 
2012-10-04 08:46:05 PM

FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.


No one has ever claimed climate change isn´t happening, they claimed it wasn't man made.

Well, then they got confused by their derp and just said climate change wasn't happening flat out.

shiat.
 
2012-10-04 08:53:58 PM

MrSteve007: Joe Blowme:
[thecynicaleconomist.com image 299x400]
Uhhhh, you know that TIME magazine cover is a fake right? A Photoshop? As in it never existed? Heck, the layout doesn't even match the era. You can search all of the TIME magazine covers on their website. Link
These are the first two covers of April 1977:
[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]
[img.timeinc.net image 400x527]


img.timeinc.net

Why, look at that.

IRQ12: make me some tea:....
Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.
Probably because it's not the #1 issue facing our species. Our inability to live in sustainable ways is the #1 issue facing our species.
And no, buying a prius and using reusable bags has nothing to do with the scale/scope of how much we need to change to live as a species in a sustainable way.


You are so, so, right.
 
2012-10-04 09:19:33 PM

spawn73: No one has ever claimed climate change isn´t happening, they claimed it wasn't man made.

Well, then they got confused by their derp and just said climate change wasn't happening flat out.

shiat.


I think denying it's happening and denying it's man-made come and go periodically. Kind of a denial natural cycle.
 
2012-10-04 09:36:45 PM

make me some tea: Uncle Tractor: make me some tea: Given the uncertainty, I firmly believe we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel tit and invest in green tech and reduce our CO2 emissions. It just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand why there's so much drama about this issue.

People make money by selling you fossil fuel. They stop making money if you stop using it. Thus the drama.

Well yeah, obviously. Beyond those those people though...


Beyond those people are the people who refuse to change they lifestyles they lead because those lifestyles are dependent on fossil fuels. They feel somehow it's their gawd given right as americans to use whatever they can pay for, because fu(k you that's why.

And beyond THOSE people are morans who somehow feel that the bullsh*t from shills for corporations which makes billions for their industry is more reputable than the facts and science from relatively poorly paid scientists who've spent hundreds of man-years or more collectively studying this. Reading is for fa&&ots and all that.

And even beyond THOSE people are the uber-morans who see the end of the world coming soon and that their particular deity will fix everything, so it doesn't matter how badly humans fu(k sh*t up.
 
2012-10-04 10:35:18 PM

rewind2846: Beyond those people are the people who refuse to change they lifestyles they lead because those lifestyles are dependent on fossil fuels. They feel somehow it's their gawd given right as americans to use whatever they can pay for, because fu(k you that's why.
And beyond THOSE people are morans who somehow feel that the bullsh*t from shills for corporations which makes billions for their industry is more reputable than the facts and science from relatively poorly paid scientists who've spent hundreds of man-years or more collectively studying this. Reading is for fa&&ots and all that.
And even beyond THOSE people are the uber-morans who see the end of the world coming soon and that their particular deity will fix everything, so it doesn't matter how badly humans fu(k sh*t up.


You forgot the people who think that we're going to fly to the stars, (and the sooner the better), so who cares what we do to this planet? It is our destiny to leave here anyway.
 
2012-10-04 11:08:35 PM
What you people don't seem to realize is my vette and rx-7 use a lot of gas.
 
2012-10-04 11:35:43 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: //Bakken oil boom CDL Hazmat oil and fracking water hauler earning $100K laughs at this thread.


You forgot The Chesapeake Bay: Humans didn't do that. Svensmark of Denmark, biatches!
 
2012-10-05 12:41:42 AM
A benefit of climate change. GO Shell.
 
2012-10-05 03:15:36 AM

doubled99: And yet people love to yammer on about why it's supposedly a bad. thing


You don't know what albedo is, do you?
 
2012-10-05 03:27:23 AM

Joe Blowme: National Academy of Sciences Issued Report Warning of Coming Ice Age in 1975

Excerpt: "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century." - Newsweek - April 28, 1975 "The Cooling World"

NASA warned of human caused coming 'ice age' in 1971 - Washington Times - September 19, 2007

Excerpt: "The world "could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts," read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: "In the next 50 years" - or by 2021 - fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere "could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees," resulting in a buildup of "new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas." If sustained over "several years, five to 10," or so Mr. Rasool estimated, "such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age."

New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 - September 29, 2009 - By John Tierney - Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, "Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide," Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization ...


Bad things happen when you funnel science through the popular media. I'm surprised you don't know this, but, kudoes for being proud of it...I guess.
 
2012-10-05 03:53:26 AM

Big Man On Campus: Baryogenesis: Long term climate forcings aren't the same thing as year to year fluctuations in ENSO or other weather patterns. The detail needed on small scales isn't needed on large scales. You're basically asking why we don't include the effect of Pluto on Earth's orbit around the Sun. Sure, there's some non zero effect there, but the Earth's orbit is dominated by the Sun and we can ignore those very small factors. The overall temperature of the Earth is determined by a handful of major factors and the greenhouse effect is one of them.

That's a talking point that was repeated to you somewhere, but it has no basis in reality whatsoever. When you remove influencing factors, your error-bars simply grow. In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.


Climate scientists don't need every minute detail of the land, air and oceans to make general predictions about warming over the next few decades. Link

You can't just say other factors need to be taken into account without explaining why they would have an effect on warming. You can't just say CO2 is being illegitimately favored by climate scientists as the main human climate forcing without explaining why such a view is incorrect. You seem to be assuming CO2 isn't the answer instead of explaining why and then providing a good alternative explanation.

What are the primary drivers of short term warming? How would ENSO or cloud cover negate the warming produced over the next 100 years by a doubling of atmospheric CO2? Why would ENSO affect warming trends instead of the reverse? Why do you think no one is doing research on cloud feedback?
 
2012-10-05 06:52:10 AM

PunGent: Bad things happen when you funnel science through the popular media. I'm surprised you don't know this, but, kudoes for being proud of it...I guess.


So you really think your deflection from the purpose of posting those quotes from leading media outlets showing how WRONG! the prognosticators have been is a working solution to losing the argument?
I think not.

/How to Have a "Science Career" in the USSA: Create an emergency, then sponsor research to save us from that emergency.
 
2012-10-05 06:56:26 AM

cryinoutloud: You forgot the people who think that we're going to fly to the stars, (and the sooner the better), so who cares what we do to this planet? It is our destiny to leave here anyway.


Yes, so we can destroy some other place far, far away.
Humans have as much chance of getting off the planet as whales do of flying.
 
2012-10-05 07:04:34 AM

Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs



As god is my witness, it wasn't a dinosaur....... it was a manatee.
 
2012-10-05 07:50:46 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: /How to Have a "Science Career" in the USSA: Create an emergency, then sponsor research to save us from that emergency.


Says someone who doesn't work in science. I'm SO getting rich off my money and power.

Psst. Do you know how much more money the oil companies have to fund science to counter global climate change? If a scientist really wanted to rake it in, that's who you would be targeting for grants.
 
2012-10-05 08:20:56 AM
Threads like this just confirm for me the scientific knowledge 'deficit' in the American public. Our education system has failed in properly teaching the sciences when people can say with a straight face that because there was climate change in the earth's past it will pose no problems for us now.
 
2012-10-05 08:34:34 AM

Superrad: I'm sorry, there can be no upside to global climate change. It can only be bad, all the time.


humour

JackieRabbit: The melting of the ice caps can in no way be looked at as a positive development.


serious

jake_lex: That's why they're trying to change the narrative from "Global warming isn't real" to "Global warming is real, but it's a natural cycle." It's hard to totally deny it now, but if things are going to be OK anyway, then why not drill that oil?


radical

Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical. I think the argument was and will continue to be exactly how big a role our carbon emissions play in the grand scheme of things. Its not a simple formula either as several interconnected factors contribute to global warming. Personally, I drive a hybrid because I like the environment and hate gas prices. I don't know how big of an impact that will make, nor do I care.


sensible


meh.
 
2012-10-05 09:16:30 AM

Baryogenesis: In the case of worldwide aggregate temperature 50 years from now, they likely grow exponentially with the removal of dependent variables. It's amazing to me that people can believe in "the butterfly effect" but then believe that the worlds temperature can be predicted within 0.1C 100 years from now... stunning really.

Climate scientists don't need every minute detail of the land, air and oceans to make general predictions about warming over the next few decades. Link


In fact, it's physically impossible for error bars on global temperature to grow "exponentially", even in a chaotic system, due to basic physics like energy conservation . The lesson from stochastic climate models is that the error envelope saturates to a finite limit, given by a combination of uncertainty in physical parameters and stochastic weather/chaos uncertainty.

Anybody who yammers on about how chaos theory means uncertainty about some statistical average becomes arbitrarily large have no idea what they're talking about. A major lesson of chaos theory is that while states may diverge exponentially, their ensemble behavior remains near an attractor.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report