One idealization (the ideal tank) matching another idealization (the algebraic prediction) isn't physics. It never involves Planck's constant.
The simulation gets the physical situation wrong, but not because the simulation is chaotic. It gets it wrong because the physics includes the chaos.
On the face of it, that means you are only ever using worst-case statistics. You, an otherwise practical person, are too prissy to accept long-tail statistical distributions, or deal sensibly with them. There's no worst-case limit on Schrodinger's Cat; there IS NO TIME PERIOD which has a definite solution.
Similarly, there is no lower limit to the oxygen you inhale in a room full of air; all the O2 molecules might randomly cluster at the ceiling for a few minutes. There are lots of situations in which worst-case statistics do not work, like in climate modeling. Breathe, it'll be all right, there's probably oxygen there...
This is John Larkin's "the weather is chaotic, climate is just extended wea ther, and it's got to be chaotic too" argument. It's always been lame.
Climate isn't chaotic or unpredictable - farming wouldn't work if it were. John von Neumann was well aware of the butterfly effect when he championed climate modelling back in the 1950's, and was happy with crude climate mode ls that reproduced basic feature like Hadley Cells.
Climate models aren't used to extrapolate over centuries. They are used to work out what the climate would look like if you throw in more CO2 (and les s polar ice). They've been used to work out how the climate would have look ed during an ice age (with less CO2 in the atmosphere - 180 ppm - than you have during an interglacial - 270 ppm and more ice sheets over the Northern Hemisphere) and they have been used to work out what the climate would hav e looked like during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when the atmosph eric CO2 levels went up from something like 1000 ppm to perhaps 1700 ppm (t hough the 700 ppm rise is more reliable than the 1000 ppm baseline, and nei ther is particularly tightly constrained by the data we've got).
In that context, working out what 450 ppm or 500 pmm of CO2 in our atmosphe re would mean isn't much of an extrapolation.
And James Arthur adds the criterion of whether a particular model produces results that suits his political agenda, or is inconvenient to it.
date
Sadly, that involves opening the box and collapsing the wave function.
John Larkin's opinions on anthropogenic global warming are all taken from d enialist propaganda - he never posts links to any other kind of source on t he subject, so his optimism is more a side effect of his gullibility than a reflection of the positive nature of his personality.
It's worth noting that people with clinical depression make more realistic estimates than normal people - a certain measure of irrational optimism doe s make life easier and - by encouraging you to do stuff that might work - m ore productive. Dismissing anthropogenic global warming because it's a gloo my idea may be taking that tendency a little further than is wise.
Note the switch from weather models to climate models. The butterfly effect makes long term weather forecasting impossible. The climate is a lot more predictable (otherwise farming wouldn't work). We explain this to John Lark in from time to time, but then he finds another denialist web-site and it r eprograms his brain back to making the same mistake.
.
John Larkin gets his "anthropogenic global warming predictions" from denial ist web sites. If you go look at the actual "predictions" they come down to some UK science journalist fishing for quotes from some junior academic wh o should have known better.
None of them come from scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals.
But making your judgement on the basis of stuff you read on denialist web-s ites is only going to let you know which models are useful to the fossil ca rbon extraction industry, whose interests don't seem to include leaving the ir grandchildren a planet where agriculture is going to work as well as it does now.
With John Larkin it's obvious - he posts links to the relevant web-sites
Which you got from the Climategate files - a graduate student's programming sandbox.
Even you should know that this isn't representative of published or publish able climate models.
You do like to make this kind of claim. It's total nonsense.
formatting link
spells out the history. Joseph Fourier in 1824 made the point that if the e arth were a black body, it's temperature would be about -18C. He was right, but the radiating surface at -18C turns out to be a couple of miles above the surface we live on.
There's nothing tiny or fractional about that conclusion.
m
That's what science is all about. We've thrown out a lot of bad guesses alo ng the way. You claims about computer models don't specify which - or whose - computer models you are being rude about. At one stage you boasted about being on social terms with a climate computer modeller whose models didn't work, and who comforted himself with the idea that everybody else in the f ield was equally incompetent, but less honest. One can see why you (and the Koch brothers) are happy to take him seriously, but it's not a particularl y plausible myth.
y
No, It means that you think that the models you know about can't possibly s upport the claims. You aren't a climate modeller, and your politics give yo u a vested interested in being sceptical.
What gets published in the newspapers is the bad news. Academic papers on t he subject don't go in for outlandish hyperbole - in fact as Hansen has poi nted out, the IPCC has been over-cautious about sea level rise because the mechanism that accounted for most of the sea level rise at the end of the l ast ice age - ice sheets becoming mechanically unstable and sliding off int o the ocean - isn't easy to model, while the ore implausible process of the ice sheet melting in place is easy to model.
ya.
tml)
Depends where they were farming.
formatting link
the end of the last ice age involved roughly 120 metres of sea level rise, which eventually flooded places like the Black Sea which had been extensive ly farmed - for a while.
We've only got some 10 metres of sea level rise locked up in the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet, but that's going to be enough to swamp quite a few coastal cities.
Wrong. You can "prove" the math is correct, but you can't "prove" that a pa rticular mathematical model is a correct and complete representation of rea lity, though some of them are looking pretty good at the moment.
Why do you think that the duration is a "fundamental property"? Slingo, Inn ess, and Sperber do point out that most of the models they look at get the duration wrong, and discuss why, but that's more because the models get eve rthing lese more or less right.
The models don't diverge from one another. They don't give exactly the same result - each one simplifies reality in a different way - but the current generation of climate models seem to agree with one another to better than half a degree for 450 and 500 ppm CO2 levels
formatting link
You do like to think that, while getting your core beliefs from fossil carb on extraction industry funded denialist propaganda.
You've fallen for a money extraction scheme and believe all the twaddle the y shovel down your gullible gullet.
Rejecting real science for money grubbing propaganda while claiming that th e real science is money-grubbing propaganda is a fairly comical misapprehen sion, and I really ought to sit back and laugh at you, rather than wasting time responding to the rubbish you post.
More CO2 does enhance plant growth in greenhouses, where every other nutrie nt is readily available. In the wild plants exploit more CO2 by having less stomata, saving the water which goes out as the CO2 comes in.
g5.png
formatting link
The short response is that the authors weren't looking for it - they were i nterested in what was going on around the Younger Dryas - and the signals t hey were looking for take a couple of centuries to settle down into the for m they were looking at, as snow compacts into ice.
This is also a feature of the Antarctic ice core data. John's denialist Web
-site will have skated over this, as denialist websites frequently do, when paying too much attention to the data destroys the deceitful story they wa nt to tell.
John's just discovered a 60 year cycle which we are at the peak of. The Mul tidecadal Atlantic Oscillation may be what he has in mind, but nobody who k nows what they are talking about seems to be game to claim that period is s ufficiently well-defined to let you talk about a "60 year cycle", and it lo oks more as if we've just been through a minimum rather than a maximum.
So does heat. Climate change tends to be problem which ever way it goes, an d denying that it's going on isn't a helpful response (unless you want to p reserve value of your investments in the fossil carbon extraction industry) .
[not sure exactly what the referent is; it was about uncertainty and Planck's constant and eventual chaotic behavior in a variety of systems]
Every rubidium stabilized oscillator was designed by someone who knows quantum mechanics. That's engineering, those get bought/paid for.
One ought never declare a model 'invalid' without something better to put in its place. Otherwise, it's just a lame excuse and someone will eat your lunch. Quantum mechanics, IPCC's approved model set, Spice... they can all be confusing, but confusion is truly invalid.
A very dubious proposition, that. To design an reference, you have to know approximately where the resonance is, and what conditions you need to make it show up and be stable. You don't need to know any QM, any more than you do to use a transistor. There are a lot of smart engineers here, who use a lot of transistors, but I suspect that few could give a detailed account of , say, Bloch waves or spin-orbit coupling without opening a book or regurgi tating Wikipedia. Same with Rb reference designers.
Famously Louis Essen the inventor of the first atomic clock could not accept Einstein's theory of relativity despite his obvious brilliance as an experimentalist measuring the speed of light and as a practical engineer making ultra high precision oscillators.
formatting link
The same problem persisted in the designers of GPS satellites who insisted on having switches to disable the SR and GR corrections to the satellite local oscillators. I suspect there is something fundamentally wrong with how relativity is taught to electronics engineers.
Engineering is generally turning physics into an actual product without necessarily understanding the detailed physics but with enough knowledge of the subject to make it work properly.
Have you any idea how much expensive coastal real estate would be swamped b y a ten metre sea level rise? The nasty bit about the sliding-off mechanism is that once the ice sheet starts sliding, you get a lot of sea-level rise over a decade or two - which doesn't give you much time for levee building .
Considering how fast 'people who do matter' have been able to move all those factories to China, the same can be done with people over a much shorter distance. Or is that maybe why China has been building those ghost towns?
Anyway, I have never understood why people were choosing to live near or under sea level. Or on a fault line for that matter. Bad choices...
w approximately where the resonance is, and what conditions you need to mak e it show up and be stable. You don't need to know any QM, any more than yo u do to use a transistor. There are a lot of smart engineers here, who use a lot of transistors, but I suspect that few could give a detailed account of, say, Bloch waves or spin-orbit coupling without opening a book or regur gitating Wikipedia. Same with Rb reference designers.
Hmm, I would mostly agree with you Phil. On the other hand I've known/ (ha d contact with) several of the places making Rb standards and all of them had a few physics types* "on board" who understood the physics involved. As well as a bunch of engineering types too.. someone to help with the RF heavy lifting.
George H.
I'm not sure about SRS. My memory is that the president (John someone or other.. I'm blanking on his last name.) was an EE at Stanford. But he's plenty smart, and I'm guessing he understands the physics.
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.