The computer models (all models are wrong, some models are useful) 7

[GregLocock]

dik - given the title of the thread and what I was discussing why shouldn't I redflag your irrelevant post?


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[dik]

Go for it... his statement was incorrect, and I was just fixing it...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Have you made a correct statement? Greg has provided much data that contradicts your poorly informed predictions...

 

[dik]

It's not predictions or conjecture... it's data.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

we just don't know where the data is taking us...

Is that not conjecture? I don't see any data in the post.

 

[GregLocock]

A general observation


Karl Popper pointed out that the fact that we can never be sure of facts doesn’t matter, provided we do science right. Here are the steps to doing science right:

[ol 1]
[li]Start with problems. Try to explain them using models.[/li]
[li]Disbelieve these models. Test them both for internal consistency (do they make sense?) and externally, in reality. Do they work?[/li]
[li]If your explanation of the problem works (explains) and also is predictive, and you’ve tested it as best you can, then provisionally accept it as ‘true’. This doesn’t mean it is true, so you would be wise to go back to (1) and revise things from time to time. Try a more exacting test. Try again to prove yourself wrong.[/li]
[/ol]

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

More Popperisms.

The growth of knowledge depends entirely upon disagreement.

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.

No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does not want to adopt a rational attitude.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

The only way to test a hypothesis is to look for all the information that disagrees with it.

It is not possible to write clearly enough to avoid being misrepresented by people who are sufficiently determined to do so.

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.

It is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.

We hate the very idea that our own ideas may be mistaken, so we cling dogmatically to our conjectures.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

we have lost our way.

1) We want science to be certain. Postings cry out "new finding show science Wrong" ... no, the scientific explanation was in error (thought it fully explained all the data we had) but when you get new data inevitably you need a revised theory. Take gravity (why not). An astonishing simple simple explanation that works in an astonishing range of scenarios, and astonishing applicable to everyday life and experience, and yet we think the underpinnings, the understanding of the phenomenon, is quite in error. And Einstein's relativity (with gravity curving space-time) is only the next theory. Data will be found (if it hasn't already) to show that it doesn't explain everything and will need revision.

2) We want science to be simple ... ain't nobody got time to understand things any more, just a sound bite !

3) We want science to explain everything (and anything), though clearly we don't know everything.

"Hoffen wir mal, dass alles gut geht !"
General Paulus, Nov 1942, outside Stalingrad after the launch of Operation Uranus.

 

[dik]

I think the systems are so complex and so interdependent that it difficult to be certain. That, in itself, is part of the problem. The potential energy stored in the Oceans is almost beyond imagination. Lorenz butterfly keeps popping up, to further complicate things.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SnTMan]

rb1957, a further problem: We expect "Science" to tell us what to do, rather than just how the natural world works.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[TugboatEng]

Are you hinting that we should be extracting stored energy from the oceans? Here is a hint, that's very low quality energy as the temperature is too low. It makes a great sink for energy, though.

 

[GregLocock]

Now a shorter term model. Here's the prediction for December in Europe as of early November

and two weeks later the prediction is

The earlier one of course fits the narrative.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Are you hinting that we should be extracting stored energy from the oceans? Here is a hint, that's very low quality energy as the temperature is too low. It makes a great sink for energy, though.

Until someone comes up with a feasible way to generate power from the ocean, I'll remain skeptical. It's not quite the magical "unicorn fart" concept of energy, but it's close.

I just don't understand why the Global Warming Alarmists aren't jumping up and down talking about how important it is to expand the use of Nuclear Power Plants. That (IMO) is the main solution to de-carbonizing now. It's proven (in large and small scales). It's incredibly safe.

Those of us who really look to find an engineering solution to global warming should look no further. Nuclear power for base load electricity. Period. Then Solar power peak demand times during the summer heat when people are running their air conditioners.

We obviously still want to use wind and hydro-electric in whatever locations those are suitable. But, Nuclear should be the lion's share of a carbon free base load power.

 

[GregLocock]

I agree nuclear is the way forward for most countries, with perhaps 20% solar/wind/storage. Unfortunately at least for Australia we are smarter than the other G20 nations and have banned nukes. Hopefully the opposition will take this to the next election. Nuclear power is expensive, but so is solar/wind/storage when done properly. The turbines and PV panels are the cheap bit.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[GregLocock]

There are 3 satellites measuring CO2 concentrations around the world. One of the useful numbers is that the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 26.5 years. No surprises where the bulk of it is generated. Note this is detrended, for no obvious reason.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

And Australia gets criticized for its minuscule CO2 contribution.

 

[LionelHutz]

That seems to conflict with the tables claiming China has only twice the USA emissions.

 

[dik]

On a per capita basis, China has about half the CO₂ footprint of the US and India is about 1/10.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[bradrs]

That map doesn't seem to care about per capita, either.

 

[dik]

To be fair, China has 5x the population as the US. Map may reflect population density, too. Dunno.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik