Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (614290)	6/2/2011 3:56:59 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578288

However, it is consistent with predictions of chaos theory. Wrong. This is just something fakers like you make up. The fact of the matter is that weather has been getting more and more extreme Also wrong. Given the fact that chaos theory exists, and has been proven to be very predictive, You don't understand chaos theory and its ramifications for weather prediction. You're an ignoramus trying to sound smart by touting jargon.

To: combjelly who wrote (614290)	6/3/2011 6:55:15 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1578288

Its only a straw man if I falsely state your argument. Not if I accurately report it but make a somewhat exaggerated statement about how someone could apply it (it would be a straw man if I made an exaggerated statement about how you where actually applying it, but I didn't do that). And its debatable whether there was any exaggeration in my statement (although certainly it wasn't made conservatively, carefully minimizing the breath that it covered) It only applies to systems that are chaotic in some way, or depend on chaotic factors, but that's a huge area. If defining chaotic broadly, and including systems that are even slightly or indirectly effected by some chaotic system, that amounts to essentially everything, or at least pretty close. Even ignoring indirect effects and using tight definitions, the area of chaotic systems is huge. Tim, that is one of the major findings of chaos theory. But it isn't an argument. I called it an argument fragment before, a better term would be a potential premise. It could be used to develop an argument, but by itself it doesn't take us anywhere in this conversation. The fact of the matter is that weather has been getting more and more extreme as time goes on. The fact of the matter is that its rather uncertain that weather has been getting more extreme. It is certain we have more recorded extreme weather reports of various types (but not apparently for strong tornadoes see Message 27405367 ) but we also have people, satellites, radar stations, and other ways to notice and gain details about extreme weather events. This observation wasn't just something that some undergrad came up with, but the result of a lot of people working with the best tools of the time and far greater knowledge of the processes involved than you have demonstrated. And such experts have different reported values. I took the IPCC one as the headline figure for my point, leaving the lower estimates to a parenthetical comment. It was a stupid argument, it wasn't an argument at all, it was a reporting of the "official" version of the facts, with mention of other estimates, data not argument. "its not an extreme weather event, which was the subject of the conversation." There you go again, Tim. The original topic was GW The issue being discussed was extreme weather events. Of course that's largely in the context of GW, but it was not a general GW discussion.