ornerynorsk
Industrial
Take that, Mr. Gore.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41
- Thread starter ornerynorsk
- Start date
- Status
Take that, Mr. Gore.
It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.
GregLocock
Automotive
... and then there is this paper
Figure 1 is almost funny.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Figure 1 is almost funny.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
JJpellin -
Presuming CO2 wasn't increasing before mankind came along, natural systems remove CO2 at the same rate that natural systems emit CO2. The entire Global Warming Panic Brigade's argument is that anthropomorphic CO2 isn't in balance, which means in order to stop it, we must stop all CO2 emissions. Not trade them on an artificially contrived derivatives market that allows Goldman Sachs to manipulate all global industrial production in the same way they manipulate mortgage rates and other investment vehicles. This is why "Globe is Warming Therefore Carbon Credits" is an empty argument. The logic isn't there - even if you presume the givens are right, the conclusion doesn't make sense.
But back to the science .. So JJ, at what rate do natural systems remove CO2? Do you know? Does it change? Does it perhaps increase with increased CO2 level? Nobody knows. The modelers have picked numbers out of a hat to throw into their models, and then tuned the models against historical data. They don't know either, but they think they know once they get their model calibrated to show the same trends they see in history. But their models leave out everything else that mankind is doing to warm the environment, so in the end they get a model that's simply correlating population expansion with warming, not necessarily CO2 to warming. They could build a different model that correlates length of roads to warming, or number of buildings to warming, or birth rate to warming, and get a similar level of correlation. In fact, if you abandon the early temperature record, which is bunk, and instead look at glacial recession as your marker of warming trends, which is well recorded, the warming trend we're in didn't start with CO2 at all. It started about 50 years earlier, with the human population expansion associated with the invention of mechanized agriculture. Just correlating warming to population growth actually correlates *better* than correlating with CO2.
This is why the whole thing is wrong. The modelers have jumped straight from correlation to causation without checking against other anthropomorphic causes, and then instead of defending their conclusion with good science, they defend it with hostility and obfuscation. I'm a dedicated environmentalist. I'm very serious about my positions on saving and preserving our environment. And I am terrified at the horrendous damage the CO2 Cult is going to do to environmentalism as a whole when this whole lie is finally exposed for the bunk science it is. Models are not proof of causation, they only indicate correlation.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Presuming CO2 wasn't increasing before mankind came along, natural systems remove CO2 at the same rate that natural systems emit CO2. The entire Global Warming Panic Brigade's argument is that anthropomorphic CO2 isn't in balance, which means in order to stop it, we must stop all CO2 emissions. Not trade them on an artificially contrived derivatives market that allows Goldman Sachs to manipulate all global industrial production in the same way they manipulate mortgage rates and other investment vehicles. This is why "Globe is Warming Therefore Carbon Credits" is an empty argument. The logic isn't there - even if you presume the givens are right, the conclusion doesn't make sense.
But back to the science .. So JJ, at what rate do natural systems remove CO2? Do you know? Does it change? Does it perhaps increase with increased CO2 level? Nobody knows. The modelers have picked numbers out of a hat to throw into their models, and then tuned the models against historical data. They don't know either, but they think they know once they get their model calibrated to show the same trends they see in history. But their models leave out everything else that mankind is doing to warm the environment, so in the end they get a model that's simply correlating population expansion with warming, not necessarily CO2 to warming. They could build a different model that correlates length of roads to warming, or number of buildings to warming, or birth rate to warming, and get a similar level of correlation. In fact, if you abandon the early temperature record, which is bunk, and instead look at glacial recession as your marker of warming trends, which is well recorded, the warming trend we're in didn't start with CO2 at all. It started about 50 years earlier, with the human population expansion associated with the invention of mechanized agriculture. Just correlating warming to population growth actually correlates *better* than correlating with CO2.
This is why the whole thing is wrong. The modelers have jumped straight from correlation to causation without checking against other anthropomorphic causes, and then instead of defending their conclusion with good science, they defend it with hostility and obfuscation. I'm a dedicated environmentalist. I'm very serious about my positions on saving and preserving our environment. And I am terrified at the horrendous damage the CO2 Cult is going to do to environmentalism as a whole when this whole lie is finally exposed for the bunk science it is. Models are not proof of causation, they only indicate correlation.
Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -
Like it's the only bunk science in town? That's the problem with bad science, the champions can be so convencing to those who don't dig deep into the facts.
So for those of us who may have little spare time, how would we know?
The problem is many of us require facts to make a decision, where most of the population does not require any facts what so ever to make up there mind.
Here's an idea: if carbon offsets are a way to reduce our carbon foot prints, why not give tax breaks for planting trees?
I just might anyway, because the price of food keeps going up, which is an indication of a shortage.
So for those of us who may have little spare time, how would we know?
The problem is many of us require facts to make a decision, where most of the population does not require any facts what so ever to make up there mind.
Here's an idea: if carbon offsets are a way to reduce our carbon foot prints, why not give tax breaks for planting trees?
I just might anyway, because the price of food keeps going up, which is an indication of a shortage.
-
5
- #44
moltenmetal
Chemical
I've been around this block with this group of people too many times already. So I won't argue. All I'll do is point out a few things that we have agreed on, to save time, in case anybody out there runs contrary and wastes yet more of our time:
At least everybody agrees that fossil fuels should be conserved and not wasted. Regrettably, it seems that nobody thinks that we should do so if it costs money rather than saves money.
Everybody, except David perhaps, agrees that we've very significantly increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning fossil carbon- pretty hard to argue with it, since it's based on actual measurements. At least the lie that this increase is due to natural processes such as volcanoes has been put to bed- this lie is still popular in the anti-AGW "press", despite the fact that it can easily be disproven.
Few here would argue that CO2 has IR absorption and emission spectra that make it a greenhouse gas. But some even argue with that.
Some continue to see water vapour emissions as no different than CO2 emissions. They're confused about physical chemistry and the water cycle in my view.
But as to whether or not the increased and continuously increasing CO2 concentrations are significant enough of a risk to the climate to merit doing something about it, it appears that you either take the word of the people qualified to offer an opinion on the subject (I'd argue that this extends to pretty much nobody on this forum), or you don't for whatever reason.
I'd argue that the predominant underlying reason that many technical people don't accept the climate scientists' view on this particular piece of science is not because they know better, but because it would be much easier and cheaper for everyone if it weren't true, and doing anything about it will be hard.
I'm going to be honest here: these discussions take the whole engineering community down a few notches in my esteem, and make me even more concerned for my kids' futures.
At least everybody agrees that fossil fuels should be conserved and not wasted. Regrettably, it seems that nobody thinks that we should do so if it costs money rather than saves money.
Everybody, except David perhaps, agrees that we've very significantly increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning fossil carbon- pretty hard to argue with it, since it's based on actual measurements. At least the lie that this increase is due to natural processes such as volcanoes has been put to bed- this lie is still popular in the anti-AGW "press", despite the fact that it can easily be disproven.
Few here would argue that CO2 has IR absorption and emission spectra that make it a greenhouse gas. But some even argue with that.
Some continue to see water vapour emissions as no different than CO2 emissions. They're confused about physical chemistry and the water cycle in my view.
But as to whether or not the increased and continuously increasing CO2 concentrations are significant enough of a risk to the climate to merit doing something about it, it appears that you either take the word of the people qualified to offer an opinion on the subject (I'd argue that this extends to pretty much nobody on this forum), or you don't for whatever reason.
I'd argue that the predominant underlying reason that many technical people don't accept the climate scientists' view on this particular piece of science is not because they know better, but because it would be much easier and cheaper for everyone if it weren't true, and doing anything about it will be hard.
I'm going to be honest here: these discussions take the whole engineering community down a few notches in my esteem, and make me even more concerned for my kids' futures.
GregLocock
Automotive
The problem is that asking scientists to solve a political problem isn't going to work. How do you tell 5 billion people who don't have cars, freezers or air conditioning that your grandchildren's convenience requires that they carry on without those things? CO2 emissions are a global effect, and the various expensive antics of the first world are not even close to keeping pace with the developing world's contribution.
Lomberg says adaptation is going to be cheaper and more practical, and IPCC is about to announce that global warming will actually be beneficial to mankind as a whole until 2080.
So, stuffing pandora back into the box by reducing first world carbon emissions is a dead end for several reasons, let's think of ways of exploiting the improvement in the Earth's climate.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
Lomberg says adaptation is going to be cheaper and more practical, and IPCC is about to announce that global warming will actually be beneficial to mankind as a whole until 2080.
So, stuffing pandora back into the box by reducing first world carbon emissions is a dead end for several reasons, let's think of ways of exploiting the improvement in the Earth's climate.
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376
I've been staying out of this discussion to see where it whet without a stalking horse, and then moltenmetal had to say "except David perhaps" and I had to clarify my actual position. Modern CO2 levels represent the only objective, and unassailable data in this whole damn discussion (although some of the statements above above about the rate of change during the 20th century being "unprecedented" are groundless hyperbole). The AGW discussion revolves around computer models and "adjusted" (I spell that "adulterated") data. The link the Greg provided a couple of posts back is the essence of the problem--Figure 1 purports to be data, but the text describes it as an average of the outputs of 17 "independent" models. Somehow, model output as data is more palatable if you take the average of 17 meaningless values. Separating measured parameters from model output is impossible in this "science" (and I contend that any field of study that needs to include the word "science" isn't science at all). That makes it "mutual masturbation via algorithm" to me.
I categorically refuse to ever accept computer models as "proof" of anything. They can be really helpful in many ways, but "proving" a future state is simply not one of them. I could (almost) accept that the original data without adjustment no longer exists in any form if I had any confidence that the adjustments had been done without bias. I don't have that confidence.
It was once "settled" that the sun revolved around the earth. One day the society will put AGW in the same bucket as Eugenics and Heliocenterism. That bucket can be labeled as "Pre-scientific prejudice".
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
I categorically refuse to ever accept computer models as "proof" of anything. They can be really helpful in many ways, but "proving" a future state is simply not one of them. I could (almost) accept that the original data without adjustment no longer exists in any form if I had any confidence that the adjustments had been done without bias. I don't have that confidence.
It was once "settled" that the sun revolved around the earth. One day the society will put AGW in the same bucket as Eugenics and Heliocenterism. That bucket can be labeled as "Pre-scientific prejudice".
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
moltenmetal
Chemical
Oh jeez, there we go again, confusing "risk" with "proof". Models certainly ARE useful for estimating risk, David! But there I go, talking to the wall again. I promised myself I'd try to stop doing that.
Greg's argument is that the risk of serious, irreversible harm is small- so small that adapting to the consequences is cheaper than even trying to mitigate the root cause. I certainly hope that he's right, because nobody is really going to do anything effective about the root cause. Imagine the sheer impossibility of doing that on a global scale, if you can't even convince rich, educated technical people in the 1st world that we should TRY... Whatever the cost of adaptation is, we're going to be paying it, and will do so for a very, very long time.
I can't think of any other effluent we permit to be dumped for free, except for emissions to the atmosphere. We tried that with lakes and rivers and look where that got us. As immense as they are, we even had to try our best to stop doing that to the oceans. One thing seems very likely to me- we're going to collectively pay big time for these "free" atmospheric emissions one day. If it isn't AGW, it'll be something else. And we'll be fighting a losing battle against entropy to do anything about it.
Greg's argument is that the risk of serious, irreversible harm is small- so small that adapting to the consequences is cheaper than even trying to mitigate the root cause. I certainly hope that he's right, because nobody is really going to do anything effective about the root cause. Imagine the sheer impossibility of doing that on a global scale, if you can't even convince rich, educated technical people in the 1st world that we should TRY... Whatever the cost of adaptation is, we're going to be paying it, and will do so for a very, very long time.
I can't think of any other effluent we permit to be dumped for free, except for emissions to the atmosphere. We tried that with lakes and rivers and look where that got us. As immense as they are, we even had to try our best to stop doing that to the oceans. One thing seems very likely to me- we're going to collectively pay big time for these "free" atmospheric emissions one day. If it isn't AGW, it'll be something else. And we'll be fighting a losing battle against entropy to do anything about it.
Do you ever "listen". Models are incredibly useful at estimating risk. If that was the discussion, I would be happy. IT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION. In this field models are first used to "prove" an hypotheses, and then the same self-fulfilling models are used to quantify risk. My son last tried that when he was 8. "Climate scientists" still try it every day.
Other uncontrolled effluents? How about control air? We dump that into the atmosphere by the thousands of tonnes/year without controlling it. CO2 fits into the same category.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
Other uncontrolled effluents? How about control air? We dump that into the atmosphere by the thousands of tonnes/year without controlling it. CO2 fits into the same category.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
zdas
Would you object less if the official statement was something like this.
""
There is a 95% chance that unchecked CO2 emissions will eventually severely alter the Earths climate and require
massive changes to the way we live on the planet that will be very very costly.
""
So this would not be a 100% exact 'proof' statement only a statement of very likely outcomes.
I would guess that if your doctor told you that unless you got X treatment there would be a 95% chance you would
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.
Would you object less if the official statement was something like this.
""
There is a 95% chance that unchecked CO2 emissions will eventually severely alter the Earths climate and require
massive changes to the way we live on the planet that will be very very costly.
""
So this would not be a 100% exact 'proof' statement only a statement of very likely outcomes.
I would guess that if your doctor told you that unless you got X treatment there would be a 95% chance you would
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.
I find that is common in modern science, people release 'studies' that are simply an agglomeration of other studies and models, and suddenly, instead of 5 studies 'proving' something, you now have 6.
Original actual research is taking a back seat to reading other papers and summarizing them. Not just in the field of climate research, but many other fields, medical research is one of the biggest where this happens.
CajunCenturion
Computer
==> I would guess that if your doctor told you that unless you got X treatment there would be a 95% chance you would
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.
Actually, I get a second opinion before handing my money off to that physician. And I'd bet that so would you and almost everyone else as well. One of the issues with respect to climatology is from whom do you get that second opinion?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.
Actually, I get a second opinion before handing my money off to that physician. And I'd bet that so would you and almost everyone else as well. One of the issues with respect to climatology is from whom do you get that second opinion?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
2dye4,
I have 95% confidence that if a compressor measured parameters are more than 10% different from the model, there is a mechanical problem with the compressor. I don't have the same confidence in a multi-phase pipeline model (closer to 95% that it is wrong). I certainly don't have any confidence that a massive CFD model of the earth can "predict" last week let alone next decade. Anyone who says they have more than 1% confidence in a climate model is lying to themselves, you, or both.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
I have 95% confidence that if a compressor measured parameters are more than 10% different from the model, there is a mechanical problem with the compressor. I don't have the same confidence in a multi-phase pipeline model (closer to 95% that it is wrong). I certainly don't have any confidence that a massive CFD model of the earth can "predict" last week let alone next decade. Anyone who says they have more than 1% confidence in a climate model is lying to themselves, you, or both.
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"
"" Models are incredibly useful at estimating risk. If that was the discussion, I would be happy. IT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION. In this field models are first used to "prove" an hypotheses, and then the same self-fulfilling models are used to quantify risk""
A model is nothing more than a mathematical relationship whether implemented on slide rule, calculator or computer.
Some common models.
F=MA (force)
V=IR (volts)
E=MC^2 (energy)
V=AT (velocity)
Models are created to allow prediction. Now whether you consider the prediction a 'proof' is up to you.
Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.
If I say my turkey cooks with an exponential time/temperature response because that is what heat transfer predicts
and then I hypothesize that this 'model' can be used to predict how long it takes the turkey to cook given temp and mass
am I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling. You can argue about accuracy but there is no
justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.
A model is nothing more than a mathematical relationship whether implemented on slide rule, calculator or computer.
Some common models.
F=MA (force)
V=IR (volts)
E=MC^2 (energy)
V=AT (velocity)
Models are created to allow prediction. Now whether you consider the prediction a 'proof' is up to you.
Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.
If I say my turkey cooks with an exponential time/temperature response because that is what heat transfer predicts
and then I hypothesize that this 'model' can be used to predict how long it takes the turkey to cook given temp and mass
am I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling. You can argue about accuracy but there is no
justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.
CajunCenturion
Computer
==> Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.
I think climate models are woefully inadequate because climate systems are far more complex than any current climate model technology.
==> I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling.
The fundamental difference between your cooking model and climate models lie in the completeness of the model, the number and significance of unknown factors that are in play, and in subjective assumptions being applied to the base model. There are considerably more of all three items in climate models than exist in the cooking model.
My concern is the amount of confidence and certainty being placed in the models, despite the awareness of incompleteness, the recognition of unknowns, and the acknowledgement of subjective assumptions. That's the red flag to me. If you will, it's akin to thou protesting too much.
==> You can argue about accuracy but there is no justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.
How much inaccuracy is acceptable before the model is considered invalid?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I think climate models are woefully inadequate because climate systems are far more complex than any current climate model technology.
==> I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling.
The fundamental difference between your cooking model and climate models lie in the completeness of the model, the number and significance of unknown factors that are in play, and in subjective assumptions being applied to the base model. There are considerably more of all three items in climate models than exist in the cooking model.
My concern is the amount of confidence and certainty being placed in the models, despite the awareness of incompleteness, the recognition of unknowns, and the acknowledgement of subjective assumptions. That's the red flag to me. If you will, it's akin to thou protesting too much.
==> You can argue about accuracy but there is no justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.
How much inaccuracy is acceptable before the model is considered invalid?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
actually, models are not strictly a mathematical relationship, they are a series of algorithms. They are much different, as some of the steps in the algorithm may have little or no basis in mathematics, statistics or science. So, the results of a "model" are not the same as the results of a mathematical equation. And certainly, some of the equations used in some "models" are based on "scientific" relationships which may or may not have been fully vetted.
one of the hallmarks of "good science" is that a fully objective view must be maintained. The fact that some "Doth Protest Too Much" indicates a lack of objectivity.
(take this opinion with a grain of salt, since I may not be fully qualified to render one...)
one of the hallmarks of "good science" is that a fully objective view must be maintained. The fact that some "Doth Protest Too Much" indicates a lack of objectivity.
(take this opinion with a grain of salt, since I may not be fully qualified to render one...)
moltenmetal and 2dye4 - I am going to make a wild-a$$-guess here, but it sounds to me like you don't work with numerical simulations (FEA, CFD, etc) in your working career. These are the types of numerical simulations that we are talking about with the "climate models". cvg hits the nail on the head in that regard. These models discretize the simulation space (on our case, the atmosphere, the surface, and by some measure the oceans). In each discretized volume (if I were creating a climate model, I would use a control volume approach, rather than a Galerkin-method discretization), there is stuff that goes on inside the cell, and there is flows across the boundaries: both energy and mass transport terms. A reasonable model should be able to simulate such large-scale features as Hadley Cells, the Jet Streams, the Antarctic Polar Vortex, etc. However, small-scale features such as thunderstorms (and even smaller, such as clouds) are not directly simulated, but are somehow accounted for by what I can only describe as fudge-factors. These models are started with a set of initial conditions and assumed boundary conditions (volcanoes, CO2 concentration change assumptions, etc). Then, these simulations march off in time.
Sure, the models have F=ma, temperature/specific heat capacity relationships, buoyancy, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, etc. Those are the fundamental equations also included, but are not the sum of the "model". The algorithms have assumptions (clouds, for example) that, while perhaps based on a relationship between temperature at height, RH, etc, is still not well understood. We don't even have a fundamental understanding why clouds form discrete entities...
If you don't work with numerical simulations, I can understand why you may put some measure of faith in them. To almost a person, everyone that I know that works with numerical simulations is rather critical of the "climate models". Sort of a situation of "it takes one to know one".
And don't even get me started on discretization error...
Sure, the models have F=ma, temperature/specific heat capacity relationships, buoyancy, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, etc. Those are the fundamental equations also included, but are not the sum of the "model". The algorithms have assumptions (clouds, for example) that, while perhaps based on a relationship between temperature at height, RH, etc, is still not well understood. We don't even have a fundamental understanding why clouds form discrete entities...
If you don't work with numerical simulations, I can understand why you may put some measure of faith in them. To almost a person, everyone that I know that works with numerical simulations is rather critical of the "climate models". Sort of a situation of "it takes one to know one".
And don't even get me started on discretization error...
-
1
- #57
SomptingGuy
Automotive
We all know that atmospheric simulations are coupled, non-linear, 3D, partial differential equations and no amount of computer fire-power or clever formulation/programming will ever get us better than perhaps an overview of general behaviour. It's kind of sad that we try really.
- Steve
- Steve
SomptingGuy
Automotive
...every simulation engineer or climate scientist should be forced to create a simulation of the Lorenz Attractor
- Steve
- Steve
I was addressing zdas point about models not 'proving' things. Most of you seem to agree that they can be very reliable under proper circumstances as does zdas himself a couple of posts down. I just don't understand how he can say "models don't prove things" or even really what he means by that.
Others bring up good points about models inadequacy to predict past the point of chaos. Of course no disagreement.
But is it really necessary to track every molecule in the atmosphere so to speak to know the warming will happen???
""models are not strictly a mathematical relationship, they are a series of algorithms.""
Nope, the models of climate science are partial differential equations, their solution on a computer is through the use of an algorithm which is itself based on a mathematical discretization of the domain using numerical analysis to accommodate finite sampling, again a model.
TGS4
It simply isn't necessary to model to the level you have described. Look up the 1980 Hansen paper where he proposed a PDE model of CO2 forcing which did very well to date.
Remember the important number is the overall climate temperature. It is by nature an averaged value so the swings of heat around the globe, which are zero sum transfers when taken together are just not necessary to proclaim an expected mean forcing due to CO2.
""...every simulation engineer or climate scientist should be forced to create a simulation of the Lorenz Attractor ""
Low brow old news to the mathematicians that do this work, guaranteed...
BTW a Lorentz attractor is a particular solution to the Lorenz equations.
Others bring up good points about models inadequacy to predict past the point of chaos. Of course no disagreement.
But is it really necessary to track every molecule in the atmosphere so to speak to know the warming will happen???
""models are not strictly a mathematical relationship, they are a series of algorithms.""
Nope, the models of climate science are partial differential equations, their solution on a computer is through the use of an algorithm which is itself based on a mathematical discretization of the domain using numerical analysis to accommodate finite sampling, again a model.
TGS4
It simply isn't necessary to model to the level you have described. Look up the 1980 Hansen paper where he proposed a PDE model of CO2 forcing which did very well to date.
Remember the important number is the overall climate temperature. It is by nature an averaged value so the swings of heat around the globe, which are zero sum transfers when taken together are just not necessary to proclaim an expected mean forcing due to CO2.
""...every simulation engineer or climate scientist should be forced to create a simulation of the Lorenz Attractor ""
Low brow old news to the mathematicians that do this work, guaranteed...
BTW a Lorentz attractor is a particular solution to the Lorenz equations.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
