Origin :) the numbers

@stellspalfie said
Got another quick question for you - What is it about ice core and tree ring data that makes you think its an unreliable source for climate change modelling?

I wear glasses, they are trifocals because my eye sight is very bad. Part of my lens work for different distances, sometimes I have to raise and lower them to bring into focus what I need to see. I use to do testing on CPU where we introduced the parts into various stresses to simulate aging theoretically, to make sure we could say with a level of certainty, the parts will behave as we can guaranty under normal conditions for so many years. Those parts in a short time were affected as if they had been used for a long time if the theory on that test was correct.

Ice cores and tree rings can be affected by climate, and climate changes, can happen several times in a year, or not so much over a couple of years. The shorter the time the more reliable anything is, but greater the time involved the more things that can happen. Its no different than other rates, we can see a rate of speed of a car on the road, its going 70mph does that mean it was 70mph an hour ago?

@kellyjay said
You think truth is about how many believe something for a long time?

No, not in the slightest, stop being daft.

Have a stab at the question again. If your 6,000 year old worldview is correct that would mean mankind's entire understanding of our planet and the universe is completely wrong. How is that possible?

@proper-knob said
No, not in the slightest, stop being daft.

Have a stab at the question again. If your 6,000 year old worldview is correct that would mean mankind's entire understanding of our planet and the universe is completely wrong. How is that possible?

Human beings are not perfect!

@kellyjay said
I wear glasses, they are trifocals because my eye sight is very bad. Part of my lens work for different distances, sometimes I have to raise and lower them to bring into focus what I need to see. I use to do testing on CPU where we introduced the parts into various stresses to simulate aging theoretically, to make sure we could say with a level of certainty, the parts will b ...[text shortened]... n see a rate of speed of a car on the road, its going 70mph does that mean it was 70mph an hour ago?

So in effect you are saying that modelling based on things that happened a long time ago is unreliable because we are unable to verify the exact conditions at the time.

So why have you chosen not to apply this to the modelling presented in the video you presented in this thread? You have simply accepted they 'science' and 'data' put forward regardless of the fact it is modelling events that happened in the distant past...how do you know what the conditions were at the time?

I smell double standards and a side of hypocrisy, Sir!!!!

@stellspalfie said
So in effect you are saying that modelling based on things that happened a long time ago is unreliable because we are unable to verify the exact conditions at the time.

So why have you chosen not to apply this to the modelling presented in the video you presented in this thread? You have simply accepted they 'science' and 'data' put forward regardless of the fact it i ...[text shortened]... what the conditions were at the time?

I smell double standards and a side of hypocrisy, Sir!!!!

You watched the video?

@kellyjay said
You watched the video?

yep.

@stellspalfie said
yep.

Really what was the topic? Did they talk about the distant past, or overcoming odds as in what would it take to do this, with perfect conditions, without anything that could hinder the process?

@stellspalfie said
So in effect you are saying that modelling based on things that happened a long time ago is unreliable because we are unable to verify the exact conditions at the time.

So why have you chosen not to apply this to the modelling presented in the video you presented in this thread? You have simply accepted they 'science' and 'data' put forward regardless of the fact it i ...[text shortened]... what the conditions were at the time?

I smell double standards and a side of hypocrisy, Sir!!!!

Ever heard of confirmation bias?

@kellyjay said
Really what was the topic? Did they talk about the distant past, or overcoming odds as in what would it take to do this, with perfect conditions, without anything that could hinder the process?

Oh my!! You are arguing against yourself. That's exactly what modelling is!!! You don't accept it when climate scientist do it, but you are on board when it supports your religious beliefs.

You've been caught in the act mate. Hold your hands up and accept it.

@kellyjay said
Human beings are not perfect!

You have no explanation do you Kelly except for a couple of blithe one liners?

@stellspalfie said
Oh my!! You are arguing against yourself. That's exactly what modelling is!!! You don't accept it when climate scientist do it, but you are on board when it supports your religious beliefs.

You've been caught in the act mate. Hold your hands up and accept it.

You said my complaint was against the past and compared it to the video, suggesting I had different standards. The video was about probabilities not the distant past, so there was no correlation, you did watch the video I posted correct?

@proper-knob said
You have no explanation do you Kelly except for a couple of blithe one liners?

You don’t think I can pull up examples of human errors and bias changing outcomes?

@kellyjay said
You said my complaint was against the past and compared it to the video, suggesting I had different standards. The video was about probabilities not the distant past, so there was no correlation, you did watch the video I posted correct?

The video discuses the probability of a large bio-molecule being created in the distant past.
You say that scientists cannot accurately (and they also use probability when they model) predict climate change because it happened a long time ago, you reason that we do not know the conditions at the time so cannot predict what happened (once again I will stress - probability is a huge part and factored into their findings)

But when a scientist says that the probability of clumps of bio-molecules forming is x you accept it, you assume their modelling and math is spot on, their calculations to your mind are somehow immune to time and the changing conditions on earth.

You have to accept that either science can factor in the probabilities of various conditions over time or not, not just pick and choose when it suits you.

@stellspalfie said
The video discuses the probability of a large bio-molecule being created in the distant past.
You say that scientists cannot accurately (and they also use probability when they model) predict climate change because it happened a long time ago, you reason that we do not know the conditions at the time so cannot predict what happened (once again I will stress - probabili ...[text shortened]... he probabilities of various conditions over time or not, not just pick and choose when it suits you.

Working out probabilities is a straight up math problem, it doesn’t have to be about the past, present, or future.

What we assume historically may or may not be true. It doesn’t have to be about how you figure it out your math, that could be spot on, yet based on bad assumptions. So not the same thing!

You can look up how they came up the figures it isn’t that difficult.