Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
Yup. Do you want to fly on an airplane in which I can accurately predict 50% of a cause and effect relationship?
The entire field of climate science is fuzzy because it's [1] all theory backed by a [2] very small sample size (relative to the entire data set aka the life of the earth). There are relatively few ways to actually [3] test or prove a hypothesis, it is more an attempt to [4] establish links between variables through statistics and extrapolation. We use analysis to do initial airplane sizing and design, then test the hell out of it. More often than not we discover that the analysis was not perfect and drive design changes due to test results. In this case, there is no way to definitively test the analysis. Hell, [5][weather prediction] struggles to accurately predict yearly temperature and rainfall patterns.
|
1. wrong
2. wrong & the age of the Earth is not relevant
3. yes, it is a complex field
4. only a part of it
5. you are conflating two different things here
You might want to look into this area of science a bit more. It IS science, not engineering.
My comment re cracking was where it would go not whether it would occur. As you know, large safety factors are included to ensure low risk. That makes sense in other areas, does it not?