Climate Change Prediction is bunk...

That's what experiments are for, to slap them upside the head.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

When you get a computer that makes accurate long-term simulations of the earth's atmosphere, buy another one and do the sub-surface stuff, volcanoes and ocean heat fluxes and continent migration and mag fields and such. Heck, negotiate a quantity discount and precisely model the sun, too.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

But it's wildly chaotic. A your initial-conditions data approaches atomic level, quantum uncertainty wrecks the sim. And one TEV cosmic ray trashes everything.

The party line is "sure, weather is chaotic but climate is predictable because it averages out." The averaging time constant is at least a billion years.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

On Feb 7, 2018, John Larkin wrote (in article):

Exactly. This was explored in the "OT: but frequently seen here - A PNAS paper on why conservatives devalue climate change and what can be done to cure them? SED thread in December 2016 to January 2017 time frame. The key example was the National Ignition Facility. Here are some key excerpts from that thread: (posted 31 Dec 2016)

There are lots of models that have been used and studied for decades, and yet

regularly fail to correctly simulate new phenomena. Try Plasma Science, the

science behind nuclear fusion:

For instance, the US National Ignition Facility - despite the best of models,

no break-even. It was sold as being able to get well past ignition, and the

world?s best physicists built the models, and were baffled when the NIG

fizzled. They will get there someday, and their models will have been greatly

improved by the experience.

.

In the engineering world, there is an old saying: "All models are wrong, but

some models are useful.? And the standard reply is that the proof is in the

lab, and not the computer. In practice, they interact until both are good

enough.

Joe Gwinn

Reply to
Joseph Gwinn

t
t
d
r
a
g

-? has

y

ing the

uce

)

input.

wn

Geesh James that's a bit harsh. We know lots of parameters that go in. Sunlight, clouds, Earth's Temp, albedo, emmisivity.. etc. But maybe we are talking past each other, I'm talking the climate of the whole earth, maybe you want something narrower?

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Don't need any such virtual reality level detail, all you need to do is predict average temperatures in a given area over a given timeframe. If you want specifics as to what a certain area of the Earth was like under those conditions you consult geology, ice cores, tree rings, and the fossil record, and make the not-terribly-absurd leap of logic that were the same temperature patterns to repeat then conditions would end up generally similar.

Earth is very old and has done most of the "computational" work for you already. The bulk of climate science is about studying the _past_, not trying to divine the future apropos of nothing.

Reply to
bitrex

And it's not like the climate hasn't swung wildly over short periods of time in the past due to natural processes, such events did happen. But the Copernican principle applies - it is most likely that we live around an average star, on an "average" life-bearing planet (assuming there are many such places we don't know), at an average point in its history. A natural process causing a rapid shift in the climate is possible, but would certainly be unusual even in geological time, much less over the course of human history.

Chalking such a thing up to the vagaries of nature when humans are actively injecting enormous amounts of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere would be violating Occam's Razor by putting zebras way before horses.

Reply to
bitrex

Occam'r Razor is not a good guideline for determing causality in physical systems. It is, among other things, constrained by peoples' ability to imagine. "The simplest explanation" is just the simplest one that you can think of, and may not be right anyhow.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

And new ones keep being discovered.

The more parameters affect a chaotic system, the more chaotic it is.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

The butler is kinda standing over the corpse with blood on his jacket and a knife in his hands. Yeah maybe in a Sherlock story he might be able to figure out how it was actually the maid all along and who came up with the master plan to frame him but...y'know.

Reply to
bitrex

There were several Sherlock Holmes (the Victorian variety) video games released by a Russian game company a few years back.

They were pretty well done, the creators would both punish your score for solving a case too early without examining all the evidence, but also for chasing too many red herrings or proposing chains of events that were too convoluted or involved too many people or Hollywood-type stunts.

They'd also put you playing as Sherlock in the uncomfortable position of being forced to draw the conclusion that suspects who were superficially hard-working, friendly, and cooperative were also murderously guilty as well.

Reply to
bitrex

Oh my God. You're from the '60s!

Reply to
bitrex

He says that climate models don't work now, and can't see any way that any fashion of model has any hope of having predictive power in the foreseeable future.

By his own statements he has, in his world-view, placed the topic outside the realm of scientific study. There isn't any statement to refute in a scientific way. I can think he's wrong, but I can't "refute" what amounts to an axiom.

Reply to
bitrex

:

on't

,

le

te.

e

ive

ng

ught

f
s

rked

f

the

at

on

ajor

f

of

s
d

to

on a

he

he

st

king

e

ls -? has

ely

ghly

arding the

ith

roduce

st.)

he input.

known

at

r
g

Just because it's chaotic, doesn't mean you can't make general predictions. You can't know the path of a chaotic pendulum, but things like the energy and such can be determined.

Chaos is over rated anyway. There are some chaotic things, but mostly things are just damn complicated, with some noise.

And why does 'damn complicated' or chaotic mean we should give up? I think we should do the best we can to understand our world. I assume you do too. Get more data!

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

One might wonder how he simultaneously professes to know so much about the Earth's atmosphere and climate, but also all the models are broken and don't work. Then how did he come by this knowledge, exactly?

Reply to
bitrex

Global warming, apparently is measured to be around the degree of so, say

0-1 deg from say, 1880 to 2018, or so.

The problem I have is, how do you measure temperature 100 years, 1000,

10,000 years, 100,000 years ago to an accuracy of say, 0.1 deg or so, over the whole f'ing planet. I wasn't aware they had Keithleys when Raquel Welch was running away from dinosaurs..., as entertaining as she was, to a youngster barely discovering the finer points of life...

I would say that anyone that claims the earth was a mere 1 deg cooler, is somewhat delusional...

I know dinosaurs existed, because I have seen their bits, I know Raquel Welch exists, because I have seen her t...

...

-- Kevin Aylward

formatting link
- SuperSpice
formatting link

Reply to
Kevin Aylward

You're an idiot. You literally posted the same paragraph into several of your inane replies.

I do not need a youtube movie snippet to see how stupid that is.

Reply to
Long Hair

Don't be silly: both weather (there's regular forecasts on TV or radio) and climate (regional growing conditions for crops) can be predicted, and are. What backwater do you live in, that you don't KNOW that?

If you want to understand the ice ages and interglacials, find a library and read up on it. Even your backwater burg has one, and public, at that: . There's good indications of what brings an ice age on, and what causes an interglacial period. Hint: stability of climate is not insured by negative feedback.

For the next millennium, though, that will take a back seat to human caused gases in the atmosphere. That data is clear. For a dozen millennia afterward, there could be an ice age, nuclear winter, or (another popular theory) the singularity. One of those is a climate-science predictable.

Reply to
whit3rd

False. That's the one-term Taylor series of any smooth function, and more terms gives a more accurate result. Applying such a model is like noting that cos(0) = 1, so probably cosine of any angle is ... one.

It's not a bad short-term projection (it's raining now, it'll probably be raining in ten minutes). But, for extrapolation, it's not a serious model.

cos(x) = 1 - 2 x^2 +24 x^4 would work better in a small range (x in radians, of course).

Reply to
whit3rd

"In short, I know a lot about the earth's atmosphere and climate," said Happer. 'I also know a lot about long-term predictive climate models,' he continues. And I know they don't work."

"In short, I know a lot about cooking. I also know a lot about cookbooks. I know that not a single one of the cookbooks I studied was correct, but through the process of studying all these incorrect books I became an expert chef."

Reply to
bitrex

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.