[tomxor]

> how are we supposed to reason about something that vague? [...] I feel that anyone proposing that it's just emergent behavior should be at least a little bit more specific.

Sometimes it rains when we predicted it wouldn't, sometimes we get a full blown storm we didn't see coming... And that's using advanced techniques developed over decades on a continually available complex system for which there is demand to be able to predict on a daily basis. The very nature of these things is to have unpredictable behavior... That does not mean we necessarily do not understand the governing rules, but that the emergent behavior is not reducible into a simplified description.

> We have a simple explanation that's consistent with the known facts

It's simple and correlated, but highly suspect when a significant degree of chaos adds massive error bars to the significance of that correlation.