/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10238199
>You essentially did, since by saying that the difference is "simply time and scale" and analogizing to earthquake and volcanic activity over time and scale, you imply that they're equally unpredictable. But they're not, since averaging this doesn't remove anything chaotic about volcanoes and earthquakes.
No you essentially chose to believe i did...a simple difference can still be critical and i said that difference ivalidated what op said, yet theres still an underlying valid concept once you accomodate that critical difference.

Averaging doesnt remove anything chaotic about climate either. Observations of the distant past are not precise enough to observe sharp fluctuations in the sub 100 year range thus u cant make predictions if you cant account for the likelihood sharp fluctuations.
>I can think of several examples, for instance a physicist can predict how much of an element will decay over the next 100 years
Darn i should have qualified beforehand that pretending high school algebra exponential growth/decay equations are analagous to an entire branch of science clearly is faulty reasoning. I literally knew youd try to give exponential change like population growth or some other simple example.

Those examples dont have contrasting random variables which are so pronounced they can invert the exponential change itself. They obviously dont count as analagous to climate prediction.

>see
A propagana meme tier pic meant to be spread on social media. Its authors openly admit its been retroactively changed because reasons. See pic

>so you arent denying...
U said i "denied science" according to your subjective opinion. Pure strawman. Then you pretend I couldnt give a flaw in the science when the fact is i was merely focusing on OPs analogy in that post. Pure strawman.