/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10236171]

If scientists can predict climate change, why can’t they predict earthquakes and volcanoes?

[Anonymous No.10236173]

>>10236171
you can smell your fart after you farted
but you can't tell it is fart or diarrhea before hand

[Anonymous No.10236181]

Why can't you predict your faggotry before posting, OP?

[Anonymous No.10236185]

>>10236173
>>10236181
>2018
>can’t predict earthquakes
>can’t predict hurricanes
>can’t predict volcanoes
>can’t predict the weather
>can predict the effects of climate change and how it’s going to make humanity extinct in 10 years if we don’t tax everyone to death and use meme panels which can only be charged during the day

[Anonymous No.10236189]

>>10236185
can you read a thermometer?
good you are climate scientist now

[Anonymous No.10236404]

>>10236171
climate =/= earthquakes and volcanoes

You're comparing apples to oranges m8

[Anonymous No.10236452]

>>10236181
>faggotry
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.10236471]

>>10236171
Because one is determined by observable non-chaotic factors while the others are not. The global temperature change over the timescale of global warming is largely determined by only a few forcings: albedo, greenhouse gases, solar irradiance, aerosols, etc. Then there are various effects and feedback loops that determine the change in temperature for a change in forcing. Volcanoes and earthquakes are determined by processes going on deep under ground that we can't see creating a cascading effect of forces. This makes volcanoes and earthquakes more akin to weather than climate.

[Anonymous No.10236874]

>>10236471
The difference between weather and climate is simply time and scale. If you measured all volcanoes/earthquakes on a global scale and observed "trends" in past occurances your predictions over the next 100 years still wouldnt be worth shit, theyd just blindly fall somewhere within a set range. Theres no existing analogue to climate science where massive groups of people purport they can make accurate predictions 50-100 years into the future. If you dont think thats highly suspicious youre a sheep.

[Anonymous No.10236878]

>>10236874
the entire oil industry agrees with you nigger

[Anonymous No.10236886]

>>10236171

Because they can't. They can't accurately predict the fucking weather 10 days out much less 50 years.

The beauty about unfalsifiable/unverifiable claims is that you can make them all day. See: climate change.

And all of these monkeys are good products of the K-12+ institutional education system which is set up to pound home the idea of obedience to authority and blind trust therewith.

[Anonymous No.10236891]

>>10236886
Can't you post an argument that hasn't been debunked 100 times? It's getting boring.

[Anonymous No.10237470]

>>10236874
>The difference between weather and climate is simply time and scale.
That difference is very important since averaging weather over time and space removes many chaotic and non-linear local effects.

>If you measured all volcanoes/earthquakes on a global scale and observed "trends" in past occurances your predictions over the next 100 years still wouldnt be worth shit, theyd just blindly fall somewhere within a set range.
Yup, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are not like climate.

>Theres no existing analogue to climate science where massive groups of people purport they can make accurate predictions 50-100 years into the future.
I'm not sure about that, but so what? If you want to know whether climatology predicts correctly then simply look and see.

> If you dont think thats highly suspicious youre a sheep.
I find your denial of the science despite your inability to find a flaw in it highly suspicious.

[Anonymous No.10237475]

>>10236886

[Anonymous No.10237520]

Inb4 coal and oil shills blindly believing ilk regurgitated by media to keep fossil fuel industry afloat.

wait.. nvm I'm too late.

[Anonymous No.10237760]

>>10237520
Slowpoke lol

[Anonymous No.10237787]

>>10236171
>>10236185
We can fairly easily predict the likelihood a volcano will erupt or earthquake will occur within a few decades, which is about the accuracy of climate change.

[Anonymous No.10237825]

>>10237470
>That difference is very important since averaging weather over time and space removes many chaotic and non-linear local effects
I never said it wasnt....?

>Yup, volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are not like climate.
Its very clear this is my position from what I said. OP is a tard for not understanding this. However, the long term scale and global aggregate of volcanoes/earthquakes is analagous to climate in the analytics sense thus thereis an underlying concept which is correct. We cannot make accurate predictions regarding that hence it follows there should be a lack of "predictionability" with climate as well.
>I'm not sure about that, but so what? If you want to know whether climatology predicts correctly then simply look and see.
Its tru. Your inability to think of one demonstrates this.

Give a single verified accurate temperature prediction due to global warming (ie not involving ice caps or sea level rise)
>I find your denial of the science despite your inability to find a flaw in it highly suspicious.
Two strawmen one sentence. Im on a tablet so im not going to bother.

[Anonymous No.10238131]

>>10236471
Doesn't explain how inaccurate tornados, hurricanes, or even the 10 day forecast is

[Anonymous No.10238197]

>>10238131
Local forecasts are not climate.
Climate is more like trends, and those kinds of forecasts are pretty good. Don't be a dumb nigger and think that because we can't predict the weather down to the minute for the whole of tomorrow we can't predict climate trends.

[Anonymous No.10238199]

>>10237825
>I never said it wasnt....?
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.

>Its very clear this is my position from what I said. OP is a tard for not understanding this. However, the long term scale and global aggregate of volcanoes/earthquakes is analagous to climate in the analytics sense thus thereis an underlying concept which is correct. We cannot make accurate predictions regarding that hence it follows there should be a lack of "predictionability" with climate as well.
No there shouldn't, because the processes that control climate, earthquakes, and volcanoes are not analogous and not equally observable.

>Its tru. Your inability to think of one demonstrates this.
I can think of several examples, for instance a physicist can predict how much of an element will decay over the next 100 years, even though it's impossible to predict the individual events of nuclear decay.

>Give a single verified accurate temperature prediction due to global warming (ie not involving ice caps or sea level rise)
See >>10237475

>Two strawmen one sentence. Im on a tablet so im not going to bother.
So you aren't denying the predictability of climate and you have found a flaw in it? I'm confused how these can both be strawmen at the same time...

[Anonymous No.10238200]

>>10238131
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

[Anonymous No.10239543]

>>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.

[Anonymous No.10239552]

>>10236171
Because they're random. We don't know enough about what exactly it happening underneath the Earth's crust. They have like stochastic models though.

[Anonymous No.10239638]

>Predicting long-term climate change
>Predicting imminent events
only one of these allows you to get promoted before your results can be validated

[Anonymous No.10239718]

>>10236171
>If scientists can predict climate change
climate change isn't scientific

[Anonymous No.10239923]

>>10239543
>Averaging doesnt remove anything chaotic about climate either.
It does, turbulent flow of air essentially cancels out since you are looking at the entire system and not movement of every within that system.

>Observations of the distant past are not precise enough to observe sharp fluctuations in the sub 100 year range
Most proxies are in that resolution range.

>thus u cant make predictions if you cant account for the likelihood sharp fluctuations.
Which sharp fluctuations can't we account for? We're already in one and predicting it. Look, it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, just stop.

>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.
Which random variables can do this? This is simply false.

>A propagana meme tier pic meant to be spread on social media. Its authors openly admit its been retroactively changed because reasons. See pic
That picture is of CMIP5, so I don't see what it has to do with mine. How is my picture faulty?

>U said i "denied science" according to your subjective opinion. Pure strawman.
So it's just my subjective opinion that you deny that climate is predictable? What is the truth then?

>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.
If you were merely focusing on OP'S analogy then why are you criticizing climatology?