There is a great deal of difference. The physics of CO2’s effect on temperature is only one of scores of things that affect temperature, most of which are not well understood by scientists. Landing a machine on Mars is straight forward compared to predicting the climate 10, 20 … 100 years from now.
I was responding to a specific post, not making a statement.
That seems to be your stock response to everything you disagree with.
“Fat dumb and happy is no way to go through life son.”
(Play on Dean Werner’s admonition to Flounder in Anmal House )
I stand corrected. Apparently you have several (or at least two) inane responses in your repertoire.
Right i obviously don’t understand the term. You made a specious claim in comparing this to climate science without realizing that both sciences use mathematical equations by plugging in variables and solving for them. That’s in part how projection models work. There are constants and variables. Did you mean constants when you said absolutes?
I guess it made sense in your head and i guess it still does since this is all the response you can muster
Yes I know. I was agreeing with you by offering a different perspective.
That you do not understand the fundamental difference between the math and physics required to land a mass on Mars and that required to predict the climate on Earth 100 years hence, tells me and everyone else that you do not understand the word “variable” in math and science.
Okay. Esoterica is not my game.
can one of the pro-humans-ruining-the-earth left tell me what this experiment will show/prove/provide in terms of data?
remember now, from 8th grade, good experiments provide meaningful data. you learned this right before you refused to dissect an earthworm on grounds it was cruel
In your fairytale world, this is the same thing…amirite?
It is spelled out in great detail in the link in the OP.
It’s also a long ways from happening as they are still working on the engineering of the test.
everything’s spelled out in the Constitution too Lucy Lulu. Yet people give their take. dare to formulate an answer for once.
that this has 100 logistical reasons why it is scientifically absurd is obvious. Yet you perceive this as “working out the engineering”
they depend on people like you
click this button to flag this post because it surely upsets you “O”
It doesn’t upset me. I’m not going to re-write what is spelled out in detail in the article. They really are still engineering it. It’s not an imminent thing, yet. They’re still trying to find a balloon company who can get a balloon to do what they are hoping to do.
None of these people are even working on this project full time.
They understand the logistical absurdities, and talk about limiting those factors, also in the article.
I mean honestly, it looks like the OP didn’t even read her own link, probably just got pointed to the title from somewhere else and went off that.
so no idea what it’s supposed to do, achieve, show, prove?
You keep being told it is in the planning stages, what is so confusing about that?
Who said I am confused?