That's what experiments are for, to slap them upside the head.
That's what experiments are for, to slap them upside the head.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
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
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
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
t t d r a g
-? has
ying 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Oh my God. You're from the '60s!
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.
:
on't
,le
te.
eive
ng
ught
f srked
fthe
at
on
ajor
fof
s dto
on a
he
he
st
king
els -? has
ely
ghly
arding the
ith
roduce
st.)
he input.
known
at
r gJust 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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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).
"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."
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.