When you feel like you need a break :)
This subverse is a dwelling place where all the funny things reside.
1.Tag NSFW material in your title.
2.No clickbait sites. (If the image is from a clickbait site, please use the image address instead of the original web address.)
Guidelines-
we are not looking to define speech and then remove content that contains that speech. In this spirit we will remove spam, illegal material, personal information and nothing else. Leaving it to the community to cast their voat and decide what they want to about your content! happy posting
If it makes you laugh - share it here, just don''t be a dingus! We're all here to have a good time.
Also check out some other knee-slapping subverses!
/v/comedy
/v/jokes
/v/JobStories
view the rest of the comments →
[–] The_Cat [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Weather is a chaotic system. Even with extremely accurate measurements and a perfect model, the prediction will deviate from reality after about 10 days, which is inherent to chaotic systems.
Climate, on the other hand, is a general trend which takes into account the total budget of heat entering and exiting the global atmospheric and oceanic system, which then drives weather patterns. Climate is much easier to model and predict than weather. In short, we can predict the general trend of what the weather will be like at a certain time of the year at a certain location, but we can't really tell if it will rain or exactly how warm it will be too long in advance.
Cosmos explains it well.
[–] Morbo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
That makes climate a complex system that cannot be modeled so simplistically. It's more akin to the global economy in which the overall economic state can be visualized in simple terms but it fails to predict local economic booms and busts. Climate is weather effects smoothed out and averaged over time but you must understand the weather systems to truly know the climate. The model of heat in the atmospheric and oceanic mediums are too simple to accurately predict anything. This is why the climate models are not working and why "climate scientists" latch on to every freak weather event as proof of anthropogenic climate change when they've been telling the "deniers" that "weather is not climate" for decades. The models are broken and there is no consensus in science.
[–] Grospoliner 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
So you know that mathematical systems (function which describe behavior) can have chaotic or random inputs into the independent variables that drive the system's response right? This is a major thing that is dealt with in seismic design of structures. All earthquake events are entirely random in their periods and magnitudes throughout the entirety of the event, and as a consequence all structures must react to those inputs.
That doesn't mean, that we engineers are unable to design (analyze and model) a structural system which exhibits an expected response, meets design criteria, and is safe. Incidentally, a seismic event typically looks something like this as recorded by accelerometers. That data gets manipulated into something usable for us and resembles something along these lines. After we get that, we then compare it to a design value, which is something like this, and then design our buildings.
Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean that it is incorrect. Perhaps you should first strive to better yourself by becoming educated on a topic before ignorantly and arrogantly dismissing things out of hand that you have no idea about.
[–] The_Cat [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
We understand weather systems and the climate quite well. Our inability to predict the weather has only to do with the fact that the type of system we're dealing with prevents specific predictions about specific events at specific dates at specific locations. However, general trends can be predicted quite accurately, and climate models have been corresponding to observed climate patterns for decades.
No they're not.
Yes there is.