Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 9 Jan 2010 20:33 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 9, 8:01�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Jan 9, 1:16�am, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, >> >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required >> >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. >> >> >> > Thanks for the entertainment. >> >> >> > -- >> >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen >> >> >> Yes, �as a matter of fact... >> >> >> my experience simulating �"simple" electronic systems �gives me enough >> >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the >> >> global climate cannot �be trusted with sufficient �confidence �that >> >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. >> >> >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of >> >Spice in simulating electronic circuits. >> >> When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually >> building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives >> some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust >> simulation. > >Which works for you in your area of expertise. > >> Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that >> their simulations are practically useless over observable time >> frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims >> are accurate over non-observable time frames. > >And your evidence for this claim is? Climatologists in fact claim that >their simulations model the gross behaviour of the atmosphere pretty >accurately. Cell sizes are pretty large - around 100km a side - which >makes fine detail impossible. > >http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/climate_modeling.html If cell sizes were 1 cubic meter the weather models wouldn't be much better, ie, still useless over two weeks. Nor would the climate models. John
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 20:49 On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:33:35 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:14:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Jan 9, 8:01�pm, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 17:58:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >>> >On Jan 9, 1:16�am, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> > And you are sufficiently ill-informed to think that simulating simple, >>> >> > isolated dynamic systems gives you the background knowledge required >>> >> > to judge climate simulations. This is funny enough to amuse even me. >>> >>> >> > Thanks for the entertainment. >>> >>> >> > -- >>> >> >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen >>> >>> >> Yes, �as a matter of fact... >>> >>> >> my experience simulating �"simple" electronic systems �gives me enough >>> >> knowledge to know that a simulation of a system as complex as the >>> >> global climate cannot �be trusted with sufficient �confidence �that >>> >> the results could be used as the basis for major policy decisions. >>> >>> >Right. And you'd take a climatologist's word on the effectiveness of >>> >Spice in simulating electronic circuits. >>> >>> When engineers simulate circuits, they usually follow up by actually >>> building them and making them work. A few years of doing this gives >>> some serious loop-closing to our judgement of how far to trust >>> simulation. >> >>Which works for you in your area of expertise. >> >>> Climatologists can't do this; all they can say is that >>> their simulations are practically useless over observable time >>> frames... which somehow gives some of them confidence that their sims >>> are accurate over non-observable time frames. >> >>And your evidence for this claim is? Climatologists in fact claim that >>their simulations model the gross behaviour of the atmosphere pretty >>accurately. Cell sizes are pretty large - around 100km a side - which >>makes fine detail impossible. >> >>http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/climate_modeling.html > > >If cell sizes were 1 cubic meter the weather models wouldn't be much >better, ie, still useless over two weeks. > >Nor would the climate models. > >John > -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: who where on 9 Jan 2010 20:49 On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:02:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: (more of the usual) I'll leave you talking to yourself. That way you can be ensured of having the last word, as is always your want.
From: invalid on 9 Jan 2010 20:52 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 09:49:58 +0800, who where <noone(a)home.net> wrote: >On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:02:23 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >(more of the usual) > >I'll leave you talking to yourself. That way you can be ensured of >having the last word, as is always your want. -- THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS WHERE ARE THE THOUGHT POLICE WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
From: Bill Sloman on 9 Jan 2010 22:07
On Jan 10, 2:49 am, who where <no...(a)home.net> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 17:02:23 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > (more of the usual) > > I'll leave you talking to yourself. That way you can be ensured of > having the last word, as is always your want. Actually, it is "always your wont" where "wont" is a low frequency word meaning much the same as "habit". Since you can't defend your point of view, your retreat is entirely sensible. It would have been even more sensible to learn something about the subject before posting you ill-founded opinion. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |