|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 23, 2011 21:44:26 GMT
steve writes "5SD. How idiotic."
I said 5 SD, I meant 5 SD.
Just imagine you are the senior professional engineer looking after the building the replacement to the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York. A model has been used to estimate the windloading of the new structure. If the output of the model is wrong, and wind does damage to the building, you can be sued for heaven knows how much. If I were that PE, I am not sure that I would be happy with 5 SD; I think I might demand 15 SD.
Now the cost of trying to guard against CAGW, if CAGW is a load of garbage, is many times the cost of the replacement to the twin towers.
I said 5 SD. I meant 5 SD.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 2:00:47 GMT
Forum members,
Last time I posted there was a question about climate models. I can see there has been a lot of debate.
I wanted to reiterate a couple of points. "Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics."
Regarding uncertainty, "Scientific understanding is intrinsically incomplete and subject to revision. This is the basic nature of all of science."
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 24, 2011 2:34:18 GMT
Forum members, Last time I posted there was a question about climate models. I can see there has been a lot of debate. I wanted to reiterate a couple of points. "Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics."   |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 2:47:31 GMT
Forum members, Last time I posted there was a question about climate models. I can see there has been a lot of debate. I wanted to reiterate a couple of points. "Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics." spcg02 do you have a substantive comment to make? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 2:51:40 GMT
To reiterate,
"Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics."
Regarding uncertainty, "Scientific understanding is intrinsically incomplete and subject to revision. This is the basic nature of all of science."
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 24, 2011 3:28:19 GMT
To reiterate, "Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics." Regarding uncertainty, "Scientific understanding is intrinsically incomplete and subject to revision. This is the basic nature of all of science." Actually, they are numerical expressions of the programmer's assumptions about the climate system. There is very little pure physics in them. You are like a Barbie doll.....just pull the string and the same predictable thing comes out again and again. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 3:34:15 GMT
To reiterate, "Climate models are physical descriptions of the climate system presented in the language of Physics, mathematics." Regarding uncertainty, "Scientific understanding is intrinsically incomplete and subject to revision. This is the basic nature of all of science." Actually, they are numerical expressions of the programmer's assumptions about the climate system. There is very little pure physics in them. You are like a Barbie doll.....just pull the string and the same predictable thing comes out again and again. Magellan, That is a unique objection to understanding the physics of the atmosphere, I must admit. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 24, 2011 3:43:46 GMT
Actually, they are numerical expressions of the programmer's assumptions about the climate system. There is very little pure physics in them. You are like a Barbie doll.....just pull the string and the same predictable thing comes out again and again. Magellan, That is a unique objection to understanding the physics of the atmosphere, I must admit. Physics only involves the atmosphere? Who'd have known! Most people aren't impressed by slogans tstat. All you need to do is present evidence to support your claim. We all know you didn't come up with the slogan on your own, but at the very least a few references for how well climate models simulate the climate system would help. I think I have about 20 or 30 that might burst your bubble. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 3:48:54 GMT
Magellan, That is a unique objection to understanding the physics of the atmosphere, I must admit. Physics only involves the atmosphere? Who'd have known! Most people aren't impressed by slogans tstat. All you need to do is present evidence to support your claim. We all know you didn't come up with the slogan on your own, but at the very least a few references for how well climate models simulate the climate system would help. I think I have about 20 or 30 that might burst your bubble. Magellan, You're wound pretty tight tonight, bro! Atmospheric Physics is a reasonable place to start. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 24, 2011 4:21:09 GMT
spcg02 do you have a substantive comment to make? A picture is worth a thousand words. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 24, 2011 4:22:51 GMT
Physics only involves the atmosphere? Who'd have known! Most people aren't impressed by slogans tstat. All you need to do is present evidence to support your claim. We all know you didn't come up with the slogan on your own, but at the very least a few references for how well climate models simulate the climate system would help. I think I have about 20 or 30 that might burst your bubble. Magellan, You're wound pretty tight tonight, bro! Atmospheric Physics is a reasonable place to start. Yep, wound up tight dealing with bone heads in forums who think one sentence sums up the entirety of a subject. Just post one reference to a peer reviewed paper showing climate models being correctly representative of the climate system. Just one, and we'll go from there. Do you understand how models work? It doesn't need to be a climate model, just any model. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 4:31:28 GMT
spcg02 do you have a substantive comment to make? A picture is worth a thousand words. spcg02, sorry, I still don't get it. Regarding atmospheric physics, do you have some substantive comment? |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jun 24, 2011 4:34:10 GMT
Magellan, You're wound pretty tight tonight, bro! Atmospheric Physics is a reasonable place to start. Yep, wound up tight dealing with bone heads in forums who think one sentence sums up the entirety of a subject. Just post one reference to a peer reviewed paper showing climate models being correctly representative of the climate system. Just one, and we'll go from there. Do you understand how models work? It doesn't need to be a climate model, just any model. Magellan, Yes, I deal with scientific models in my work, I have some basis to understand them. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 24, 2011 4:36:39 GMT
Thermostat:
Atmospheric physics is short on the tooth as of yet.
We have two widely diverging groups of scientists.
On the one hand, we have the astro physisists.......
And on the other hand we have the.....mmmm.....AGW? physisists?
I, personally, suspect the truth is in the middle. The sun provides more drive to the climate than the AGW folks want to admit. Co2 plays a factor also that the Astro folks don't want to admit.
Now.....if we could just get the two of them together......which will happen....prob within 10 years.....we will have models that are actually useful.
At this point, the failure rate of the models as presented is nearly 100%. This is intolerable.
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 24, 2011 4:37:31 GMT
A picture is worth a thousand words. spcg02, sorry, I still don't get it. Regarding atmospheric physics, do you have some substantive comment? I know you don't get it. That's ok, others will. |
|
