Not all science research is true (roughly half) but this one is great. Trees dump gaseous organics into the air (presumably at some expense) and those things go high, become nanoparticles, get swept down by turbulence, and become raindrop seeds.
So all the climate models up to now have been wrong. They will again.
Nice planet.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Out of curiosity, what evidence /would/ change your mind w.r.t. global warming?
If none, then it would be revealing, but I'm presuming that's not the case.
A few hundred years of calibrated satellite data.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
OK, that wasn't a touchstone question :)
What evidence could we /get/ that that would /predict/ global warming, and would change your mind?
Thus I'm not interested in practically achievable results, not in omniscient perfection, nor in hindsight.
You seem to have settled on the fact of global warming, and want positive prediction, but sort of admit there's no proof.
I work with an organization that has the best plasma scientists and the biggest supercomputers in the world. And experiments have confounded simulation.
And I work with aircraft and jet engine people who still use wind tunnels and prototypes to test their ideas. The models aren't good enough, even for a simple aircraft wing or a fan blade.
Spice is amazing for passive circuits and simple active stuff... PPM precise in seconds of sim time. Lately I've been simulating switchers and PLLs, and the results depend a lot on simulator settings and subtle circuit changes. I have to balance things like time step size against runtime to get things done in tolerable runtimes. So now I'm tuning the circuit and the simulator settings until I get what I want to see. That is of course dangerous. But I can breadboard the real thing to confirm the simulation, and if I lay out a board that doesn't work as expected, I can kluge or iterate it without destroying my company.
The idea of simulating climate seems preposterous to me. And people keep discovering/conjecturing effects, like the one mentioned here, that change all the rules. It's dropping bricks on a system that has butterfly-level sensitivity.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
Make that few thousand years with calibrated solar radiation levels to explain the pre-industrial temperature variations during the historical times.
a two foot increase in global sea level.
a two foot change in global sea level
Out of curiosity, what evidence would change your mind ?..
and what evidence have you seen that forms your present opinion?
M
How does one "prove" a scientific theory, anyway?
How else do you intend to do experiments on a system like global climate, other than simulations? We only have one set of data points.
Arguing that such a limitation should place such systems somehow beyond the realm of scientific inquiry seems like the preposterous notion.
Yes, that's called "science"
Not at all.
The only way I can guess you think that is by your putting too much (i.e. more than I intend should put) emphasis on the /precise/ phrase I used.
So, do you have a concrete (or even semi-solid!) answer to the question. Or is /your/ mind /irreversibly/ made up?
The idea of /simulating/ climate change seems preposterous to me too. Ditto simulating how PLLs lock-in in the presence of noise, and turbulence, and the motion of atoms above absolute zero.
But that doesn't mean we can't /model/ effects, especially aggregate effects such as large numbers of atoms, or PLLs after lock-in, or when turbulence will/won't occur.
Modelling can help reveal the boundaries of what is/isn't known, and the relative sensitivities of the various parameters.
But I'm sure you know that.
Repeat predictive experiments, have no counter-cases, and assume it's a good approximation until something better comes along.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
It's a multiple choice question...
Changing the composition of the atmosphere in which 'climate' largely runs will:
1) Do nothing at all. In God we trust.2) Do something, I'm not expert enough to predict what but any rapid change from the status quo is likely to be disruptive.
3) Bill Sloman may be right.4) Noooo! Save me, President Trump!
Cheers
-- Syd
Hypothesis Falsifiable prediction Experiment to test that prediction
And everything checked out pretty much fine with F = ma for hundreds of years (barring a few nagging questions such as the precession of Mercury), until a guy named Einstein.
Grin. 2.) I've been saying that for years... yeah maybe warmer will be better, but you can't know for sure.
I read this depressing article about nuclear waste storage in the US. (the wrong cat litter) (The Atlantic.) It made me think that we need to get the greenie's to embrace nuclear. (Seems like a hard sell.)
George H.
IMO, nuclear is the right way to go -- once its been thought through completely. The problem is always one of cutting corners on the technology, timing, etc. And, kicking the problems down the road.
But, until there is a perceived cost to NOT solving those problems, they will remain unsolved.
[If we could dispose of this stuff in outer space, there's be a crowd advocating THAT! Without concern for our future use of space *or* any potential occupants of that place!]Sort of like the "Galactic Bypass" that demolished Earth...
In the short term, perhaps. Trouble is, it uses up real estate, which has a cost.
IMO people need to stop breeding so much. Everything else is just sticking plaster.
Cheers
-- Syd
Not wrong, merely imperfect (and not as imperfect a John Larkin's comprehension).
He hasn't yet worked out that Anthony Watts is a paid shill for the anthropogenic global warming denial machine, and can be relied to put a denialist twist of every fact he publishs.
Not climate model denied that there was rain in the Amazon because they hadn't known where the nanoparticle rain nuclei in the streatosphere came from.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
That discovery didn't break any rules. It explained where the nanoparticles had come from that nucleated the rain, but everybody knew that the rain kept on falling.
John Larkin hasn't noticed that it's weather than has butterfly level sensitivity, while climate is a lot more predictible. If you only have to say that it's going to rain in spring, the prediction job gets a lot easier.
John von Neumann knew about this in the 1950's, and simulated climate - complete with Hadley cells - very early on, but the news has yet to get to John Larkin.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
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.