BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
BIMMERPOST Universal Forums Off-Topic Discussions Board Politics/Religion President Trump. [ Hits and Misses Scorecard Thread ]

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-25-2017, 09:21 PM   #155
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar
United_States
5857
Rep
2,299
Posts

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
Provide evidence for that statement.
My last two posts were purely troll motivated.

But it seems a bit funny to me that you believe the EPA, a government entity, with politician appointed personnel, releases materials that in no way have been influenced by a politician's agenda.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic59612_1.gif
Appreciate 3
MKSixer23260.50
VRG_135794.50
scostu1227.50

      01-25-2017, 09:23 PM   #156
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
We've been through this. Please respond to my CFD question in another thread.
I did. You think one model that was wrong proves that all models are suspect. I am not sure what else you want me to say other than sure models can be wrong and some models will always have uncertainty.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:30 PM   #157
Jaghave
Colonel
813
Rep
2,136
Posts

Drives: 2016 BMW 340i (Auto) RWD
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: New Jersey

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
Climategate was not created by politicians. Climategate was also thoroughly reviewed by multiple organizations and no misconduct or data manipulation was identified.

Who did Obama fire exactly?
here you go

Of course the government concluded no wrong doing occured it like asking the mafia if they did anything wrong.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:31 PM   #158
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23261
Rep
9,739
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
I did. You think one model that was wrong proves that all models are suspect. I am not sure what else you want me to say other than sure models can be wrong and some models will always have uncertainty.
You miss the point. The complexity of a global climate model dwarfs that of the relatively constrained environment of a racing car and they couldn't get that right. How would it be possible that a model infinitely more complex be seen as credible?

I'm on your side as far as being a good steward of the environment. I drive an i8 for crissakes and believe that we should do all that we can to preserve and protect our living spaces.

I just don't believe that the sky is falling and I definitely haven't seen any proof that carbon credits and the other transfer schemes actually help the environment.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 2
bbbbmw2387.00
VRG_135794.50

      01-25-2017, 09:33 PM   #159
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
You miss the point. The complexity of a global climate model dwarfs that of the relatively constrained environment of a racing care and they couldn't get that right. How would it be possible that a model infinitely more complex be seen as credible?

I'm on your side as far as being a good steward of the environment. I drive an i8 for crissakes and believe that we should do all that we can to preserve and protect our living spaces.

I just don't believe that the sky is falling and I definitely haven't seen any proof that carbon credits and the other transfer schemes actually help the environment.
The human body is arguably more complex than our planet. You likely trust multiple model predicted conclusions about human health. Why?

I still have not heard what variables you think we are ignoring.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:38 PM   #160
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23261
Rep
9,739
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
The human body is arguably more complex than our planet. You likely trust multiple model predicted conclusions about human health. Why?

I still have not heard what variables you think we are ignoring.
Doubtful. We (humans) are a part of the planetary system.

Ok. I'll play along. How can they credibly model the oceans? Completely model all effects that the ocean have on any climate model? Please. Inform me.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:42 PM   #161
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Doubtful. We (humans) are a part of the planetary system.

Ok. I'll play along. How can they credibly model the oceans? Completely model all effects that the ocean have on any climate model? Please. Inform me.

I didn't say you could account for all variables. We know the most important variables. Every variable? No of course not. Who says you need to know every variable for a reliable model?

How do you model disease when you can't control all the variables? I have no idea what 70 year old Mr. Smith did every waking day of his life, but I am pretty sure I can tell you his risk of dying from certain diseases based things he did or did not do throughout his 70 years.

Humans are enormously complex. Just this week the Lancet posted an article suggesting the classification of a new organ. There is much we do not understand about the human body.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:49 PM   #162
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23261
Rep
9,739
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
I didn't say you could account for all variables. We know the most important variables. Every variable? No of course not. Who says you need to know every variable for a reliable model?

How do you model disease when you can't control all the variables? I have no idea what 70 year old Mr. Smith did every waking day of his life, but I am pretty sure I can tell you his risk of dying from certain diseases based things he did or did not do throughout his 70 years.
The more complex the model, the more important the accuracy of the variables. The problem with climate models is that one cannot validate and correlate the model vs. actual data except retrospectively, as you can in a more simple and/or easily managed model.

And even using your disease model example with Mr. Smith, you still have a measure of uncertainty.

Can you make a highly educated guess? Yes. Can you make a definitive statement excluding any other conclusion but the one derived from the model? No. This is what climate believers do. This is why there is even a name for non-believers: Climate Deniers.

Cheers-mk
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 09:53 PM   #163
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23261
Rep
9,739
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
I didn't say you could account for all variables. We know the most important variables. Every variable? No of course not. Who says you need to know every variable for a reliable model?

How do you model disease when you can't control all the variables? I have no idea what 70 year old Mr. Smith did every waking day of his life, but I am pretty sure I can tell you his risk of dying from certain diseases based things he did or did not do throughout his 70 years.

Humans are enormously complex. Just this week the Lancet posted an article suggesting the classification of a new organ. There is much we do not understand about the human body.
Lancet...meh. Not the highest quality medical journal.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 10:44 PM   #164
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar
United_States
5857
Rep
2,299
Posts

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
I didn't say you could account for all variables. We know the most important variables. Every variable? No of course not. Who says you need to know every variable for a reliable model?

How do you model disease when you can't control all the variables? I have no idea what 70 year old Mr. Smith did every waking day of his life, but I am pretty sure I can tell you his risk of dying from certain diseases based things he did or did not do throughout his 70 years.

Humans are enormously complex. Just this week the Lancet posted an article suggesting the classification of a new organ. There is much we do not understand about the human body.
There is plenty about how complex the human body is. But....

We know about and predict and diagnose disease because we've got millions of VERY similar models to study. Many coming from the same geographical places, exposed to the same types of food, amounts of exercise, etc... We can test DNA markers to predict propensity for developing certain types of disease. It's as simple as statistics sowing a large number of people with XX DNA markers developed XX type of disease some time in their life. Hence if you have those same DNA markers, you may also be susceptible to said disease.

That's not complex.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic59612_1.gif
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 10:56 PM   #165
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
The more complex the model, the more important the accuracy of the variables. The problem with climate models is that one cannot validate and correlate the model vs. actual data except retrospectively, as you can in a more simple and/or easily managed model.

And even using your disease model example with Mr. Smith, you still have a measure of uncertainty.

Can you make a highly educated guess? Yes. Can you make a definitive statement excluding any other conclusion but the one derived from the model? No. This is what climate believers do. This is why there is even a name for non-believers: Climate Deniers.

Cheers-mk
I think you equate validation to perfection or validation = lack of uncertainty.

Validating models does not eliminate all uncertainty. A "validated" climate model will not tell you tomorrow's temperature or the temperature 3000 years from now with absolute certainty.

If that is your measuring stick, then all models are wrong and add nothing of value. Th mathematician George Box said "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful."

If you really want to know how models are tested then I direct you to the following sources:
Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences (Science 1994).
Why atmospheric modelling is good science
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 11:20 PM   #166
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
There is plenty about how complex the human body is. But....

We know about and predict and diagnose disease because we've got millions of VERY similar models to study. Many coming from the same geographical places, exposed to the same types of food, amounts of exercise, etc... We can test DNA markers to predict propensity for developing certain types of disease. It's as simple as statistics sowing a large number of people with XX DNA markers developed XX type of disease some time in their life. Hence if you have those same DNA markers, you may also be susceptible to said disease.

That's not complex.
Medicine is far more complex than you have suggested.

We have only brushed the surface of how genetics relates to disease. If we really knew as much as you suggested we would have tailored treatments for innumerable diseases ranging from cancer to diabetes. We don't, not yet at least. I am confident it will arrive in the not too distant future though.

If we know as much as you say, why are there many conflicting papers on whether coffee is good for you, how much red wine one should drink, or does mammography really save lives?

Your statement on statistics is correct, however. We do use statistical models to help explain medical phenomena such as why certain people benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy while others do better with surgery alone.

If medicine and humans were as simple as you suggest why, in the absence of a catastrophic accident, can we not predict how long each individual human will live with near complete certainty? We can't even tell people how long they will live with various end stage diseases. We can tell them a model says you have x months remaining, but even then the number is only an estimate. We do the best we can with the variables we know/think have the greatest impact. Medicine and humans are complex, very very complex.

I think there is this general belief that scientific or medical models are perfect. That they removal all shadow of a doubt, and are certain in their estimates. That is simply not the case. However, that does not diminish the value of models. They still remain one of the most powerful ways to test theories and understand the world in which we live.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 11:21 PM   #167
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Lancet...meh. Not the highest quality medical journal.
Yeah that impact factor of ~40 is pretty pathetic.
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2017, 11:41 PM   #168
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar
United_States
5857
Rep
2,299
Posts

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
Medicine is far more complex than you have suggested.

We have only brushed the surface of how genetics relates to disease. If we really knew as much as you suggested we would have tailored treatments for innumerable diseases ranging from cancer to diabetes. We don't, not yet at least. I am confident it will arrive in the not too distant future though.

If we know as much as you say, why are there many conflicting papers on whether coffee is good for you, how much red wine one should drink, or does mammography really save lives?

Your statement on statistics is correct, however. We do use statistical models to help explain medical phenomena such as why certain people benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy while others do better with surgery alone.

If medicine and humans were as simple as you suggest why, in the absence of a catastrophic accident, can we not predict how long each individual human will live with near complete certainty? We can't even tell people how long they will live with various end stage diseases. We can tell them a model says you have x months remaining, but even then the number is only an estimate. We do the best we can with the variables we know/think have the greatest impact. Medicine and humans are complex, very very complex.

I think there is this general belief that scientific or medical models are perfect. That they removal all shadow of a doubt, and are certain in their estimates. That is simply not the case. However, that does not diminish the value of models. They still remain one of the most powerful ways to test theories and understand the world in which we live.
The complexity lies in the how. You were talking about models to predict disease, time left, etc... So far, that's done in the fashion we agree on. To determine what we can at this point in time isn't nearly as complex as climate change models. The variables are astronomical compared to human DNA and disease analysis. Anomalies, yes. But for the most part, it's just a huge collection of data run through statistical analysis. And because all humans are close enough to the same to make reasonable predictions based on what turns out to be few variables. Humans here or there, spread wide and far are relatively the same and as you said, very complex. But the statistical analysis of diseases and propensity of being affected by diseases isn't.

I understand that everything dealing with predictive medical diagnosis is an estimate. I don't deal in many certainties. One of the few things i'm certain of is that humans are the most emotional, arrogant and fallible animals on the planet.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic59612_1.gif
Appreciate 1
SakhirM410230.00

      01-26-2017, 12:37 AM   #169
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
The complexity lies in the how. You were talking about models to predict disease, time left, etc... So far, that's done in the fashion we agree on. To determine what we can at this point in time isn't nearly as complex as climate change models. The variables are astronomical compared to human DNA and disease analysis. Anomalies, yes. But for the most part, it's just a huge collection of data run through statistical analysis. And because all humans are close enough to the same to make reasonable predictions based on what turns out to be few variables. Humans here or there, spread wide and far are relatively the same and as you said, very complex. But the statistical analysis of diseases and propensity of being affected by diseases isn't.

I understand that everything dealing with predictive medical diagnosis is an estimate. I don't deal in many certainties. One of the few things i'm certain of is that humans are the most emotional, arrogant and fallible animals on the planet.
Again I think you are woefully underestimating the complexity of the human body. For example, how many different proteins and enzymes do think are encoded within the human genome? What is the percentage of those for which we know the purpose?

What critical variables in your opinion are missing from climate models? What more do you need to see before you are convinced? Why do you think there are more variables in a climate model.

We accept models of humans and disease yet the amount we don't understand about the human body is truly immense.

So when does a system become too complex for us to model? Who drew a line in the sand and said beyond this level of complexity we can no longer create robust models?

We accept predictions about our own health but not the health of the planet despite the complexity of both and the tremendous volume of information we have yet to discover about the human body.

If I can tell you smoking every single day will probably kill you sometime in the future but I can't tell you when, how, where, how much it will cost, or how uncomfortable it will be, do those uncertainties warrrant ignoring my recommendation to stop smoking?
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 01:34 AM   #170
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
23261
Rep
9,739
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
I think you equate validation to perfection or validation = lack of uncertainty.

Validating models does not eliminate all uncertainty. A "validated" climate model will not tell you tomorrow's temperature or the temperature 3000 years from now with absolute certainty.

If that is your measuring stick, then all models are wrong and add nothing of value. Th mathematician George Box said "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful."

If you really want to know how models are tested then I direct you to the following sources:
Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences (Science 1994).
Why atmospheric modelling is good science
I am not discussing weather. I am discussing climate. I will state this plainly since we seem to be talking around each other:

The models used to determine climate change are faulty in their very premise when their output is the foundation to determine vast policy decisions rather than simply provide an additional glimpse into the what our conditions MIGHT be under certain natural planetary and manmade conditions. The vast complexity in the system which they purport to measure and the variables which they attempt to capture make any output extremely coarse and therefore an unreliable policy instrument.

I will stop here. My discussion on global warming, climate change, etc. is complete.
__________________
Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...

Lewi6, First of His Name, Destroyer of Careers, Master of Pole Positions, 6X WDC, Master of All Tracks, Scorer of Maximum Points, Whisperer of Tires, Minimizer of Fuel Utilization, Maximizer of Consistency in Finishing. Look Upon Him With DRED.
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 05:40 AM   #171
scostu
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
1228
Rep
1,870
Posts

Drives: 2016 F25
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Space Coast Florida......aka NASA

iTrader: (0)

HIT for Trump ....IF....it's directly related to him being elected..... but a definite HIT finally for VA.

I can't believe half this article with respect to amount of criminals employed....

http://nation.foxnews.com/2017/01/24...being-fired-va
__________________
Wife's ride....2016 Dodge WD R/T

Retired:2014 F31, 2013 Audi Q5 3.0T P+,
2013 WK2..Hemi, 2011 E90, 2008 E70, 2004 E46
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 07:08 AM   #172
David70
Colonel
United_States
841
Rep
2,020
Posts

Drives: 06 Z4M Coupe - 13 Cadillac ATS
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
You miss the point. The complexity of a global climate model dwarfs that of the relatively constrained environment of a racing car and they couldn't get that right. How would it be possible that a model infinitely more complex be seen as credible?

I'm on your side as far as being a good steward of the environment. I drive an i8 for crissakes and believe that we should do all that we can to preserve and protect our living spaces.

I just don't believe that the sky is falling and I definitely haven't seen any proof that carbon credits and the other transfer schemes actually help the environment.
I agree, we can't prove it positively one way or the other, that's why I have such a problem with Trump saying it is a "hoax". Obviously he isn't in a position to prove this one way or the other and should be open to listening to the people doing the research.

Data show the climate is changing, and quickly. Based on all of the research I have seen there is a possibility we are causing it and we possibly should do something about it. Most of the actions we have or will consider come with the added benefits of reduced pollution and slowing our use of fossil fuels which will eventually run out. I see the downside of doing something not needed better than the downside of doing nothing when it was needed.

Pence believes it, not sure why others have completely discounted the possibility (especially Trump) -

Quote:
"Well, look, there's no question that the activities that take place in this country and in countries around the world have some impact on the environment and some impact on climate," Pence said during an appearance with host Chris Cuomo on CNN's "New Day."
__________________
2006 Z4M Coupe - Stromung exhaust, ZHP knob, stubby antenna, clutch delay delete
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 09:33 AM   #173
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I am not discussing weather. I am discussing climate. I will state this plainly since we seem to be talking around each other:

The models used to determine climate change are faulty in their very premise when their output is the foundation to determine vast policy decisions rather than simply provide an additional glimpse into the what our conditions MIGHT be under certain natural planetary and manmade conditions. The vast complexity in the system which they purport to measure and the variables which they attempt to capture make any output extremely coarse and therefore an unreliable policy instrument.

I will stop here. My discussion on global warming, climate change, etc. is complete.

I think we are actually on the same page. The purpose of climate models is not the predict daily temperatures or local sea level changes. The purpose is to define global trends based on a specific set of variables (specific scenarios).

Climate is, on the surface, essentially the average of weather. I can't tell you if you will win the next round in Russian roulette, but I can tell you with some degree of certainty on average how many times you will win and lose. Same general concept.

Again, it is not clear to me what variables you think have gone unaccounted for? Which model are you talking about since they are unique? Who says something is too complex to model? We have used models to help answer astronomically complex questions.

Despite the uncertainties and inherent imprecision you find in any model, when researchers across this globe are arriving at the same conclusion using vastly different models one should not discount the findings.

Governments have used models to shape and define policies for years. This is not a new circumstance.
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 10:04 AM   #174
VRG_135
Banned
United_States
795
Rep
1,944
Posts

Drives: 2012 Silver 135 DCT
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dallas Area (McKinney), TX

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by David70 View Post
I agree, we can't prove it positively one way or the other, that's why I have such a problem with Trump saying it is a "hoax". Obviously he isn't in a position to prove this one way or the other and should be open to listening to the people doing the research.

Data show the climate is changing, and quickly. Based on all of the research I have seen there is a possibility we are causing it and we possibly should do something about it. Most of the actions we have or will consider come with the added benefits of reduced pollution and slowing our use of fossil fuels which will eventually run out. I see the downside of doing something not needed better than the downside of doing nothing when it was needed.

Pence believes it, not sure why others have completely discounted the possibility (especially Trump) -
We don't want to end up like Venus.........
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 11:05 AM   #175
Mr Tonka
is probably out riding.
Mr Tonka's Avatar
United_States
5857
Rep
2,299
Posts

Drives: Something Italian
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sweatypeninsula

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stangorang View Post
Again I think you are woefully underestimating the complexity of the human body. For example, how many different proteins and enzymes do think are encoded within the human genome? What is the percentage of those for which we know the purpose?

What critical variables in your opinion are missing from climate models? What more do you need to see before you are convinced? Why do you think there are more variables in a climate model.

We accept models of humans and disease yet the amount we don't understand about the human body is truly immense.

So when does a system become too complex for us to model? Who drew a line in the sand and said beyond this level of complexity we can no longer create robust models?

We accept predictions about our own health but not the health of the planet despite the complexity of both and the tremendous volume of information we have yet to discover about the human body.

If I can tell you smoking every single day will probably kill you sometime in the future but I can't tell you when, how, where, how much it will cost, or how uncomfortable it will be, do those uncertainties warrrant ignoring my recommendation to stop smoking?
You can tell me that smoking every single day will probably kill me at some point because there have been millions of physically tested models that show this outcome.

I'm not underestimating the complexity of the human body. If you think of the body as a model used to predict disease you see that we have MILLIONS of models to test in real world environment. We accept predictions about health because we have millions of models that are older, younger, past, present, from this area, that area, with these DNA markers, with those DNA markers that we've tested.

If we had millions of planets within the last 100 years that we could test as climate change models, you analogy would hold water, but we don't, so it doesn't.
__________________
"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice. -Charles de Secondat"
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic59612_1.gif
Appreciate 0
      01-26-2017, 03:10 PM   #176
Stangorang
Major
Stangorang's Avatar
United_States
210
Rep
1,476
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA

iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
You can tell me that smoking every single day will probably kill me at some point because there have been millions of physically tested models that show this outcome.

I'm not underestimating the complexity of the human body. If you think of the body as a model used to predict disease you see that we have MILLIONS of models to test in real world environment. We accept predictions about health because we have millions of models that are older, younger, past, present, from this area, that area, with these DNA markers, with those DNA markers that we've tested.

If we had millions of planets within the last 100 years that we could test as climate change models, you analogy would hold water, but we don't, so it doesn't.
Again, you are not adequately representing medicine. Genomics/DNA is not as widely used in medicine as you suggest. Outside of a few cohorts and specific diseases (such as breast cancer) genomic testing is not nearly as mainstream as you imply. The connection between most cancers and risk factors was made utilizing virtually zero genomic information. That is changing rapidly, however, especially in the oncologic arena.

You seem to accept the connection between smoking and cancer as something we just know, it's just the way it is. In reality a model based on collected data says it's that way. Humans are not models. Humans can provide data on which a model is based. Several people have suggested that using historic data invalidate a climate model's ability to predict a trend in the future. By that same reasoning, any of our current disease based models would be inaccurate, as they are based on past observations.

Lastly, I do not quite understand your final point. We don't have other similar planets to study therefore we cannot study our own and arrive at sound conclusions? We don't have another universe to study but we certainly have made many reasonable conclusions based on the one in which we live.

We only have one Earth and we been able to test and support powerful theories. The thought that we need to study other planets to achieve an accepted conclusion is not only unreasonable, but to some degree it is simply impossible. We do the best we can with the planets in the solar system, but we are not going to drop humans on them and start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the name of science.
Appreciate 1
David70840.50

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST