Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #710549 > unrolled thread

Analysis of climate models

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:22 -0700
    UsedCar salesman cite facts. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-10-31 12:37 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:49 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:00 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:32 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 06:32 +0100
        Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 02:06 -0400
          Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 07:33 +0100
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:08 -0400
              Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:33 +0100
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:22 -0700
                Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-14 00:28 -0500
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 10:16 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:16 -0700
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:02 -0700
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-02 20:19 -0500
        Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:56 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:39 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:45 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:07 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:34 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:09 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 09:50 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 19:17 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:16 -0800
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 21:23 +0000
    Re: Analysis of climate models Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-02 05:21 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:04 -0800
    Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-02 08:31 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:15 -0400
        Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:40 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:13 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 17:22 -0600
              Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 17:48 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 05:05 +0100
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 22:46 -0600
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:59 +0100
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 07:42 -0800
                    Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:58 -0800
                      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:17 -0500
                    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:22 -0500
                      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 21:02 -0600
              Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 11:01 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:58 -0800
                  Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:10 -0800
                    Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:04 -0500
                      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 22:02 -0600
        Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:00 -0500
          Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:00 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-20 21:28 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 10:38 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-25 00:53 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:21 -0800
    Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:08 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:23 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:00 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:04 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:51 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:59 -0600
    Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:27 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:06 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 11:59 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#711676

On 11/5/2018 11:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:56:29 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 4:02:08 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 6:32:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote:
>>> []
>>>>
>>>> As a Nobel prize winner asserted that he was told if the continued
>>>> talking about climate truth, he'd never publish anything in Nature
>>>> again! He replied Nature doesn't publish his stuff anyway.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXxHfb66ZgM
>>>
>>> He is making some interesting points. But there are some inconsistencies
>>> in his arguments. I'll make a few comments on each point, but I'll reserve
>>> conclusions for the end.
>>>
>>> 1 He begins with the claim that measuring global temperature
>>>    is "difficult".
>>> true statement.
>>>
>>> 2 Global warming is not happening, that the temperature is
>>>    "amazingly stable" (0.3%change).
>>> Plausible argument.
>>>
>>> 3 That CO2 causes the rise shown in the hockey stick graph
>>>    is the Emperor's new clothes.
>>> claimed without support.
>>>
>>> 4 Population growth and related deforestation and paving
>>>    may be the cause.
>>> Plausible statement.
>>>
>>> 5 that the APS is making a religious statement when it says
>>>    evidence is "incontrovertible" that global warming is happening.
>>> he goes off on a religious tangent.
>>>
>>> 6 That APS is wrong to say disruptions may happen with consequences in many
>>>    areas (specific example human health), because "everything is better".
>>> Everything is not better world wide.
>>>
>>> 7 Year to year comparisons by Oxfam "trying to convince people"
>>> valid point.
>>>
>>> This is just about one third of the way through this video.
>>> I'll try to cover more tomorrow. But here are my deeper comments so far:
>>>
>>>
>>> Point 1 is about the difficulty of measuring global average temperature,
>>> but just because it is hard does not make it impossible. It is true but
>>> not really relevant.
>>>
>>> In point 2 he claims that global warming is not happening, but then
>>> in points 3 & 4 his claims alternate causes. Anything can be the cause
>>> of something not happening. He cannot have both no change and change.
>>>
>>> On point 5 his argument is a counterexample that the APS does not claim
>>> that the mass of the proton is incontrovertible. That is true, the mass
>>> can be measured more precisely. However, I would expect that the APS
>>> would agree that it is incontrovertible that the mass of the hydrogen
>>> atom is dominated by the mass of the proton (as an example). Or that
>>> it is incontrovertible that massive objects attract. (IOW, that
>>> gravity is "incontrovertible". So his argument is only about the
>>> language used, that it is a religious statement. He follows that
>>> with a claim that the Catholic Church says the earth is not round.
>>> That is totally false and has been false for hundreds of years.
>>>   
>>> In point 6 he claims "everything is better", but this is a conclusion
>>> reached from a sheltered society. Counterexample is farming is not
>>> better in many Equatorial African countries. Droughts have increased
>>> in frequency and severity over that same 150 year period.
>>>
>>> A review of droughts on the African continent:
>>> a geospatial and long-term perspective
>>> I. Masih, S. Maskey, F. E. F. Mussá, and P. Trambauer
>>>
>>> https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/18/3635/2014/hess-18-3635-2014.pdf
>>> "A number of inferences are drawn from the analysis of
>>> the available data and scientific evidence reviewed in this paper
>>> (Tables 2 and 3). The frequency, intensity and geospatial
>>> coverage of droughts have significantly increased across
>>> the entire African continent during the second half of the
>>> 1900–2013 period."
>>>
>>> Point 7 is valid but not relevant. Oxfam is not a scientific organization.
>>> Most people know how to sort advertising hype from regular news. But it
>>> is a valid point when news organizations begin to exaggerate. This has
>>> happened on both sides of the issue. So lets call it a wash.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have to admit, he is convinced of something, but I don't know what yet.
>>> He says it isn't happening, but offers alternative causes.
>>>
>>> I'm open but still concerned.
>>>    Ed
>>
> James, please learn to wrap your text properly. Google (which I use also)
> does not automatically wrap text. You need to include returns for the end
> of each line

Typical Lefty change of subject to deflect debate into backwaters.

>> Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.

As do you. Mostly you just preach it.

> Please leave the personal comments out of this discussion.

You mean like complaining about lines wrapping properly. Cripes using 
Google is a HUGE personal statement about you and it ain't good, lefty.
Bet you'd censor McFly if you had the power!


>>   Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof.
> 
> 
> that's possible. As I said, I have not even viewed the entire video.

If you find it possible then perhaps you should examine it?

>> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the public's attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming.
> 
> Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
> Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
> What do we do about it?

Obviously given the VAST errors that actual weather has demonstrated in 
virtually all models that all show exaggerated warming it's clear that 
they are not reasonably reliable as if the failure of weather 
predictions didn't already demonstrate the futility of climate models.


>>
>> Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.
> 
> Again, leave the politics and personal comments out of this thread,
> please.

Politics? YOU are the one doing politics here. You take global warming 
as your religion while all data shows fabrications McFly points out how 
science rather than religion and politics treats such an issue and then 
(as is so typical of lefty hypocrites) accused HIM of doing what you 
clearly are doing.

>> International non-Skeptics Society
>> goo.gl/[off topic link deleted]
>>
>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
> have a good day.
>    Ed

Have a nice and profitable day, Ed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712680

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 2:45:14 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 11/5/2018 11:39 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 3:56:29 PM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> > James, please learn to wrap your text properly. Google (which I use also)
> > does not automatically wrap text. You need to include returns for the end
> > of each line
> 
> Typical Lefty change of subject to deflect debate into backwaters.

I am trying to discuss, not debate. Please calm down.

> 
> >> Ed, with this post you demonstrate that you are really out of your element in any kind of scientific discussion.
> 
> As do you. Mostly you just preach it.
> 
> > Please leave the personal comments out of this discussion.
> 
> You mean like complaining about lines wrapping properly. Cripes using 
> Google is a HUGE personal statement about you and it ain't good, lefty.
> Bet you'd censor McFly if you had the power!
> 
Nah, censorship is not good for learning.
> 
> >>   Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof.
> > 
> > 
> > that's possible. As I said, I have not even viewed the entire video.
> 
> If you find it possible then perhaps you should examine it?

When I can, I am very busy currently. (Note the delayed reply.)
> 
> >> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the public's attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming.

yes, where possible reproducible experimental evidence is
the gold standard. That is not possible in all areas, for
example, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology (medicine)
evolutionary biology, and in this discussion, planetary
climatology. Such areas require as much experimental evidence
as possible, but also have to analyse systems based on
past data. It is kind of difficult to run controlled
experiments on systems as large as a planet.


> > 
> > Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
> > Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
> > What do we do about it?
> 
> Obviously given the VAST errors that actual weather has demonstrated in 
> virtually all models that all show exaggerated warming it's clear that 
> they are not reasonably reliable as if the failure of weather 
> predictions didn't already demonstrate the futility of climate models.
> 
Thanks for the comment benj. I don't think that conclusion has been
reached in this discussion yet.
> 
> >>
> >> Stick with engineering.  You are a church lady.  You believe.  Scientist only allow themselves to believe when the burden of proof is met.
> > 
> > Again, leave the politics and personal comments out of this thread,
> > please.
> 
> Politics? YOU are the one doing politics here. You take global warming 
> as your religion while all data shows fabrications McFly points out how 
> science rather than religion and politics treats such an issue and then 
> (as is so typical of lefty hypocrites) accused HIM of doing what you 
> clearly are doing.

You may be right. My question should be:
Do the global climate models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
> 
> >> International non-Skeptics Society
> >> goo.gl/[off topic link deleted]
> >>
> >> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> > 
> > have a good day.
> >    Ed
> 
> Have a nice and profitable day, Ed.
How kind of you, benj.


Obviously my available time for usenet is greatly reduced.
I am trying to learn some new programming tools.
Too many things to do and not enough time to do them.

Enjoy
  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711688

JMcG:
Prof Giaever is not presenting a refutation of the AGW premise. He's trying to demonstrate to the public how a real scientist examines a premise. He is just pointing out that the AGW proponents haven't even come close to meeting the burden of proof. 

In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence. Global warming is about distracting the publics attention from the fact that there is zero reproducible experimental evidence linking CO2 or any other human factor to this imaginary warming. 

Dumb Ed:
Please note: my focus for this thread is basically,
Do the global warming models provide reasonably reliable predictions?
What do we do about it?

JMcG:
You are reinforcing how dumb and gullible you have already demonstrated yourself to be.  Any idiot can make a prediction and even be more or less right.  That doesn't mean they actually understand it.  

Take note of the self-righteous dimwittedness  of "International Skeptics"

International non-Skeptics Society 
goo.gl/8Lr7ax 

James McGinn /Solving Tornadoes
200 views a day!
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712681

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-5, Claudius Denk wrote:
[]
> James McGinn /Solving Tornadoes
> 200 views a day!
> https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

Thanks for your comments, James!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712963

On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 1:09:06 PM UTC-8, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 3:34:06 PM UTC-5, Claudius Denk wrote:
> []
> > James McGinn /Solving Tornadoes
> > 200 views a day!
> > https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
> 
> Thanks for your comments, James!

Go to hell, you impudent ass.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Science itself is the religion that is the obstacle
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17188

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711801

On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence.

Exactly, Jim, you've hit the nail on the head!

So, where is your reproducible evidence showing that cold air is denser than warm air? You see, Jim, science follows specific rules, which you refuse to follow. As a friend of yours once said...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711828

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 7:17:58 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 12:56:29 PM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> 
> > In a nutshell, real science involve reproducible experimental evidence.
> 
> Exactly, Jim, you've hit the nail on the head!
> 
> So, where is your reproducible evidence showing that cold air is denser than warm air? You see, Jim, science follows specific rules, which you refuse to follow. As a friend of yours once said...
> 
> "The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally

You got nothing.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710857 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, textbook for ages 5 to 25, by Archimedes Plutonium, 2018

>(1) preface //TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for ages 5 to 25, by Archimedes Plutonium 2018

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to trach your 
children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710982

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak
<edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:

>In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>
>So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>
>This link has some references maybe for a start
>https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>
>I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>subscription or school access to any journals.)
>
>Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>please post a link in this thread.
>
>Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>publications.
>
>Lets see who is serious about this.
>   Ed

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/31/rebuttal-ipcc-sr15-climate-change-report-is-based-on-faulty-premises/
-- 
Boris

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711635

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 5:18:20 AM UTC-4, Boris Mohar wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak
> <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
> >talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
> >
> >So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
> >
> >This link has some references maybe for a start
> >https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
> >
> >I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
> >subscription or school access to any journals.)
> >
> >Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
> >please post a link in this thread.
> >
> >Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
> >publications.
> >
> >Lets see who is serious about this.
> >   Ed
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/31/rebuttal-ipcc-sr15-climate-change-report-is-based-on-faulty-premises/
> -- 
> Boris

Sorry, but I've been off line for a few days.

Thanks Boris. As I said, I'd prefer we stick to journal publications,
but I will review the article. (It might include references to some
published articles from my quick scan.)

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710986

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 10:22:13 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:

>In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.

Climate models are applied computer science to mash together a
selection of partially understood principles from physics.

You might have picked a better subject in a spearhead attempt to get
momentum for your "goal of trying to talk about physics in this group"

Just sayin'.

BTW: notice the absence of kensi in this thread with the stated goal
and is linked to the climate science she seems to worship.


>So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.

Though the context there was (so-called by sloppy thinkers or
propagandists) "modeling experiments," from one of my posts in
alt.global-warming:
Subject: Re: Climate change provided high octane fuel for Hurricane
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:25:50 -0400
Message-ID: <7563tdhb91ph8g8derr8mi9nu4ipm52kui@4ax.com>

A modeling "experiment" observes a computer program. Said computer
program embodies an approximation of an incomplete understanding of a
limited number of the relevant interacting natural processes, to a
finite number of decimal places that can't track even one chaotic
process very far before the program's output will diverge wildly from
how Nature actually behaves.


>This link has some references maybe for a start
>https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>
>I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>subscription or school access to any journals.)
>
>Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>please post a link in this thread.
>
>Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>publications.
>
>Lets see who is serious about this.
>   Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711103

Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> writes:
> A modeling "experiment" observes a computer program. Said computer
> program embodies an approximation of an incomplete understanding of a
> limited number of the relevant interacting natural processes, to a
> finite number of decimal places that can't track even one chaotic
> process very far before the program's output will diverge wildly from
> how Nature actually behaves.

This is basically the "we can't model the weather for more than a few
days, how can we expect to model the climate" argument.  One answer is
that modeling the weather is an initial value problem, while modeling
the climate is a boundary value problem.  Well posed boundary value
models don't diverge wildly.

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#711689

On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:15:51 PM UTC-7, Dan Riley wrote:
> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> writes:
> > A modeling "experiment" observes a computer program. Said computer
> > program embodies an approximation of an incomplete understanding of a
> > limited number of the relevant interacting natural processes, to a
> > finite number of decimal places that can't track even one chaotic
> > process very far before the program's output will diverge wildly from
> > how Nature actually behaves.
> 
> This is basically the "we can't model the weather for more than a few
> days, how can we expect to model the climate" argument.  One answer is
> that modeling the weather is an initial value problem, while modeling
> the climate is a boundary value problem.  Well posed boundary value
> models don't diverge wildly.
> 
> -dan

This is an absurdly stupid comment.  A "boundary value problem" is just a more vaguely defined, "initial value problem." Climate scientists are experts in this kind of evasive, meaningless rhetoric.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#712682

On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 3:40:19 PM UTC-5, Claudius Denk (aka james McGinn) wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:15:51 PM UTC-7, Dan Riley wrote:
> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> writes:
> > > A modeling "experiment" observes a computer program. Said computer
> > > program embodies an approximation of an incomplete understanding of a
> > > limited number of the relevant interacting natural processes, to a
> > > finite number of decimal places that can't track even one chaotic
> > > process very far before the program's output will diverge wildly from
> > > how Nature actually behaves.
> > 
> > This is basically the "we can't model the weather for more than a few
> > days, how can we expect to model the climate" argument.  One answer is
> > that modeling the weather is an initial value problem, while modeling
> > the climate is a boundary value problem.  Well posed boundary value
> > models don't diverge wildly.
> > 
> > -dan
> 
> This is an absurdly stupid comment.  A "boundary value problem" is just a more vaguely defined, "initial value problem." Climate scientists are experts in this kind of evasive, meaningless rhetoric.

Now James, be polite.
Please.

  ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713291

On 11/13/2018 3:13 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 at 3:40:19 PM UTC-5, Claudius Denk (aka james McGinn) wrote:
>> On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:15:51 PM UTC-7, Dan Riley wrote:
>>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> writes:
>>>> A modeling "experiment" observes a computer program. Said computer
>>>> program embodies an approximation of an incomplete understanding of a
>>>> limited number of the relevant interacting natural processes, to a
>>>> finite number of decimal places that can't track even one chaotic
>>>> process very far before the program's output will diverge wildly from
>>>> how Nature actually behaves.
>>>
>>> This is basically the "we can't model the weather for more than a few
>>> days, how can we expect to model the climate" argument.  One answer is
>>> that modeling the weather is an initial value problem, while modeling
>>> the climate is a boundary value problem.  Well posed boundary value
>>> models don't diverge wildly.
>>>
>>> -dan
>>
>> This is an absurdly stupid comment.  A "boundary value problem" is just a more vaguely defined, "initial value problem." Climate scientists are experts in this kind of evasive, meaningless rhetoric.
> 
> Now James, be polite.
> Please.
> 
>   ed
> 

prediction using models;

it is obvious that weather or climate is not an initial value problem,
nor is it a boundary value problem.  That implies that the Model is
accurate.

however, both weather and climate involve turbulent processes, and we
can only grossly model them with resulting poor accuracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713303

Meaningless gibberish. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713309

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> Wrote in message:


> prediction using models;

> it is obvious that weather or climate is not an initial value problem, nor is it a boundary value problem.  That implies that the Model is accurate.

It is wrong conclusion.

Inaccurate Initial and boundary values have so big impact, that it
 does not matter much if the model is accurate or not.
 Completeness and accuracy of data have is much more
 important.

Even if models were perfect, the dynamic instability nature of the
 modelled system progressively amplifies data input errors to
 chaotic results.

It has nice analogy in putting a small ball on top of a big ball
 and predicting the direction and distance where it will stop.
 

You can use as much accurate model as you want, all stands and
 falls on accuracy of the initial ball position.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713310

On 11/18/2018 10:05 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> 
> 
>> prediction using models;
> 
>> it is obvious that weather or climate is not an initial value problem, nor is it a boundary value problem.  That implies that the Model is accurate.
> 
> It is wrong conclusion.
> 
> Inaccurate Initial and boundary values have so big impact, that it
>  does not matter much if the model is accurate or not.
>  Completeness and accuracy of data have is much more
>  important.
> 
> Even if models were perfect, the dynamic instability nature of the
>  modelled system progressively amplifies data input errors to
>  chaotic results.
> 
> It has nice analogy in putting a small ball on top of a big ball
>  and predicting the direction and distance where it will stop.
>  
> 
> You can use as much accurate model as you want, all stands and
>  falls on accuracy of the initial ball position.
> 
> 

agree,

Balancing a pencil gets into Plancks constant, HUP, others. No matter
how clever you are, and no matter how much money you spend
on the newest, cutting-edge pencil-balancing equipment, you can never
get a pencil to balance for more than about four seconds.

 problem
https://www.physics.harvard.edu/uploads/files/undergrad/probweek/prob3.pdf


solution

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/uploads/files/undergrad/probweek/sol3.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713312

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> Wrote in message:
> On 11/18/2018 10:05 PM, Libor Striz wrote:> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> Wrote in message:> > >> prediction using models;> >> it is obvious that weather or climate is not an initial value problem, nor is it a boundary value problem.  That implies that the Model is accurate.> > It is wrong conclusion.> > Inaccurate Initial and boundary values have so big impact, that it>  does not matter much if the model is accurate or not.>  Completeness and accuracy of data have is much more>  important.> > Even if models were perfect, the dynamic instability nature of the>  modelled system progressively amplifies data input errors to>  chaotic results.> > It has nice analogy in putting a small ball on top of a big ball>  and predicting the direction and distance where it will stop.>  > > You can use as much accurate model as you want, all stands and>  falls on accuracy of the initial ball position.> > agree,Balancing a pencil gets into Plancks constant, HUP, others. No matterhow clever you are, and no matter how much money you spendon the newest, cutting-edge pencil-balancing equipment, you can neverget a pencil to balance for more than about four seconds.
 
But the big advantage of climate models over weather model is,
this dynamic instability in not in time scale, what is nature of
 initial boundary conditions of dynamically unstable
 system.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#713495

On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 11:46:45 PM UTC-5, Sergio wrote:
> On 11/18/2018 10:05 PM, Libor Striz wrote:
[]
> > 
> > Inaccurate Initial and boundary values have so big impact, that it
> >  does not matter much if the model is accurate or not.
> >  Completeness and accuracy of data have is much more
> >  important.
> > 
> > Even if models were perfect, the dynamic instability nature of the
> >  modelled system progressively amplifies data input errors to
> >  chaotic results.
> > 
> > It has nice analogy in putting a small ball on top of a big ball
> >  and predicting the direction and distance where it will stop.
> >  
> > 
> > You can use as much accurate model as you want, all stands and
> >  falls on accuracy of the initial ball position.
> > 
> > 
> 
> agree,
> 
> Balancing a pencil gets into Plancks constant, HUP, others. No matter
> how clever you are, and no matter how much money you spend
> on the newest, cutting-edge pencil-balancing equipment, you can never
> get a pencil to balance for more than about four seconds.
> 
>  problem
> https://www.physics.harvard.edu/uploads/files/undergrad/probweek/prob3.pdf
> 
> 
> solution
> 
> https://www.physics.harvard.edu/uploads/files/undergrad/probweek/sol3.pdf

This is an interesting problem, but I would not call this the
balancing a pencil problem.  This is more clearly the problem
of statically balancing a pencil.  IOW, once the pencil is stood up,
you are not allowed to change its motion.

A closer analog to climate is dynamically balancing a pencil
on a movable platform (say your finger). Such a system includes
feedback cycles and perturbations. So you can achieve a stable
state given even irregular perturbations from light gusts of
wind. But if a sudden strong gust pushes the pencil past a
certain point, then it will fall.

So the climate question in analogy is:
Has there been a global change that will push global climate
to a new region?

Note that I think several of us agree that in the feedback
processes, the pencil has basically one, moving the base.
But climate has CO2 levels, CH4 levels, H2O levels, moderating
sources like polar ice and open oceans. This is not a simple
problem of one kind of perturbation and one feedback loop.

So thanks Sergio for the pencil balance example. You were
making the different point that even with the best data,
we cannot know 100% what will happen.

I would say this: that we can be pretty certain global climate
is changing. But is the current change something outside the
normal patterns? I don't know yet. I don't think anyone in the
discussion so far has the knowledge to answer the question
one way or the other.

Thanks for all the contributions, folks. I will try to keep up,
but I have a lot of other things happening.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!
   Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web