Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
One for the not so swift among us-
On 29 May 2006 08:13:13 -0700, "basskisser"
wrote: Jack Goff wrote: On Sun, 28 May 2006 23:41:45 -0700, -rick- wrote: Jack Goff wrote: Therefore, unlike your circuit simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy. So we've apparently misplaced all records of the past? Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we have 100 years ago? Maybe they didn't have weather satellites then, but they had weather. They also had people quite competent in keeping data. They sure did. Unfortunately, the instruments they used were crude compared to today's, and many measurements needed weren't made because the science to allow their measurement didn't exist. You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be verified against the real world. So answer this, Rick. As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me that you believe a climate model's prediction for 94 years into the future? Flawed analogy. Very flawed. the model for recent events (5 days in your case is much more detailed and refined than the 94 year model. The more detailed and the more refined a model is, the more instances of error. Ergo, while a 5 day model might not be accurate in your eyes, if it were the same detail as the 94 year model, it would be spot on. No more flawed than the logic you just used. Weather is *simple* compared to climate. Point is that we can't predict something relatively simple for a short 5 day window, but you expect to be able to predict something extremely complex for a 100 YEAR window? I can predict our climate 5 days from now... barring a huge meteor impact, it'll be virtually the exact same as today's. The meteor points out one of the problem with climate prediction... we don't know what we don't know. No matter how you dress it up, any prediction from the experts is no better than a guess. Maybe in another hundred years, we'll get better at it. Or maybe we'll be extinct. No one knows. :-) |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | General | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | ASA | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Announcing S.A.L.T.S Pacific Swift Offshore Voyage 2007-2008 | Cruising | |||
Swift Kipawa for Sale: Ontario Canada | General |