« First « Previous Comments 163 - 202 of 240 Next » Last » Search these comments
You seem to think using the laws of physics in their models makes it accurate.
The complexity of a system quickly invalidates the accuracy of the calculation. The Earth is too complex to model.
You seem to think using the laws of physics in their models makes it accurate. It doesn't. I used to run month long quantum mechanical calculations on single molecules using supercomputers. The complexity of a system quickly invalidates the accuracy of the calculation. The Earth is too complex to model.
theoakman saysYou seem to think using the laws of physics in their models makes it accurate.
I said no such thing.
theoakman saysThe complexity of a system quickly invalidates the accuracy of the calculation. The Earth is too complex to model.
You can't predict a single molecule... yet you can pressure a body of gas and predict exactly what the equilibrium is going to be. You can predict exactly how heat will spread in a body of water and how fast it melts ice. I can even describe the trajectory of an entire fucking planet a year in advance down to the millisecond. Why? Because aggregate calculations are far easier and accurate at their level than the details they are made of.
Climate projections are about a million times more complicated than forecasting the melting of ice in a closed system w scientifically added units of heat.
An entire planet and it's trajectory is a single point mass.
Nothing was wrong with the models. They predicted a rise of temperatures and we saw a rise of temperatures. Models are never perfect but they ballparked efficiently what is happening. I.e. a problem that will be unacceptable in 100yrs unless we do something about it.
By this standard we can't predict the human population on this planet in 2100: there's is way too many details we can't predict: will there be a world war? Will there be a dangerous pandemic? Will an asteroid hit earth? Will people decide to have kids? Who the fuck knows?
Yet we have very good projections of that number. Not predictions. Projections.
Because aggregate calculations are far easier and accurate at their level than the details they are made of.
these are incredibly detailed calculations.
That's true, but for a different reason; trends change. If third world countries get richer - and as we discussed in another thread this is happening in places like Vietnam and India - the birth rates may radically change, making the numbers way off.
Heraclitusstudent saysYet we have very good projections of that number. Not predictions. Projections.
How do you know they are very good?
Have you traveled to the future to verify their accuracy?
Seems to me that you’re taking a lot on blind faith in authority.
and btw...you did say such a thing...."Modeling climate effects is direct applied physics. "
You think Trump is president now, right? How do you know it is correct? Maybe he was just assassinated and you don't know it yet. Mike Pence is president.
Trump's Presidency doesn't depend on extrapolating current trends into the future.
Barring a massive disruption, I'll get 90-days to return the toaster.
It's also funny how you want to describe a system of planetary motion as more complex than a quantum mechanical calculation of a molecule that involves potentially hundreds of electrons in which you are accounting for both gravitational and electrostatic forces.
You mean, it's not?
Even if it is applied physics, multivariable chaotic systems are almost impossible to model; witness the "butterfly in China" effect.
Basic poll: what percent of climate "skeptics" are also vaccine "skeptics"?
Evolution "skeptics"?
People who use this kind of argument are doomsayers of the human spirit who refuse to admit we can know anything about the future, starting with basic facts such as adding heat to a system increases its temperature.
Onvacation saysEven if it is applied physics, multivariable chaotic systems are almost impossible to model; witness the "butterfly in China" effect.
The same effect applies to a 3 bodies problem with gravity, yet we are able to predict the trajectory of a planet 100 years in advance with good precision (and there are more than 3 bodies in the solar system).
People who use this kind of argument are doomsayers of the human spirit who refuse to admit we can know anything about the future, starting with basic facts such as adding heat to a system increases its temperature.
theoakman saysand btw...you did say such a thing...."Modeling climate effects is direct applied physics. "
You mean, it's not?
It's funny how you consider an entire planet is not more complex than a single molecule.
analyzing the climate in an entire plant is infinitely more complex than solving the Shroedinger equation
Heraclitusstudent saysReally? Why?
Do you think you have to solve the Shroedinger equation's of all molecules in the atmosphere?
The climate is essentially static. A steady state system. All you have to do is analyses the effects of small changes on various subsystems by modeling such subsystems.
For ex: What percent of the ice sheet melts depending on temperature. -> 1 sub model.
What is the difference in sunlight absorption between icesheet and open sea. You don't care which areas of the ice sheet are melted, just take vast chunks of the arctic ocean as 1 unit.
Because it is aggregate, it is far easier to do. Because it is just incremental you don't have to model the entire process of how the climate works, only what changes.
What is the effect on cloud.
What is the effect on vegetation.
You just have to detail it sufficiently so it will match 50 years of actual data and refine it constantly.
Such model is essentially a quantitative description of everything we know DID happen at a physical level. .
If you think projecting this in the future is abusive, then you need to ...
umm...I'm about to give up trying to prove a point to you. The point was, the Shroedinger equation to get the zero point energy of a 200 body problem is insanely complex. But less complex than trying to model climate.
This is the problem....all these things you've described are oversimplifying a complex system by a wide margin. We do the same thing in quantum mechanical calculations for molecules or molecular dynamics simulations. And what we find is...that it invalidates the validity of the model as you make more and more assumptions. And no, you can't assume the models to be quantitative. The world's best quantum mechanics professors still have not developed a model to get quantitative results for the zero point energy for larger molecules. Their results are purely qualitative.
The fact that you think they are quantitative would mean...they just about have everything figured out. They don't. That's why the literature will predict anywhere from 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. The models are woefully invalid at this point...and the temperature data is overly noisy to draw any real conclusions at this point. But again....you seem to give the field much more credit than they've earned. Like I said...this field, and others like economics try to piggy back on the reputation of fields like Physics and Chemistry....where we actually have laws in place that are infallible.
I am left feeling less than confident in their precision
I'm not saying we can't model the future of climate.
The climate is essentially static. A steady state system
"Oxygen dropped from its highest level to its lowest level ever in only 20 million years," Huey said today.
« First « Previous Comments 163 - 202 of 240 Next » Last » Search these comments
The extreme alarmism of climate change lunatics — best personified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ insistence that humanity will be destroyed in 12 years if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels — is all based on nothing but fearmongering media propaganda and faked science. (The IPCC and NOAA both routinely fudge temperature data to try to create a warming “trend” where none exists.)
It’s all a massive, coordinated fraud, and the mainstream media deliberately lies to the public about climate change to push anti-free market schemes that would destroy the U.S. economy while transferring literally trillions of dollars into the pockets of wealthy globalists as part of a “carbon tax” scheme.
Yet carbon isn’t the problem at all. And the “war on carbon” is a stupid, senseless policy created by idiots, given that humans are carbon-based lifeforms, meaning that any “war on carbon” is a war on humanity.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html?fbclid=IwAR1YBhLRbjz72RoT9foEI4nkXq9XsDhe0dQAtuJrm2UJkPOxuCxFlKd9h1w