tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8716008857402214818..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: From the mundane to the ridiculous - varieties in denial at wattsupwiththatSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15480840517444929882014-03-25T04:33:02.419+11:002014-03-25T04:33:02.419+11:00a reflexive dislike of models....except when the m...a reflexive dislike of models....except when the models say what they want them to. (or can be twisted about to suggest that they do, natch.)lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90970822279945412422014-03-24T17:43:44.824+11:002014-03-24T17:43:44.824+11:00I prefer the term calculations. When we want to fi...I prefer the term calculations. When we want to find out how a bridge will perform when an earthquake hits (like our new Bay Bridge) we calculate it. Engineers identify the components of the bridge, estimate the stresses of the earthquake and use basic physics to calculate the incremental changes, then iterate.<br /><br />It's really just the same with the planet. Climate scientists identify the components of the climate, that is the geography, and topography, ocean and air currents, sea and land ice, land forms, tides, insolation etc, etc, etc, . Then they estimate stressors (forcings) over time and use fundamental physics to calculate the incremental changes in all components, then iterate.<br /><br />We don't mind doing the calculations for bridges and shouldn't mind doing them for the climate.<br /><br />Of course there are multiple ways to subdivide the components, different degrees of granularity (grid and levels) and different estimates of future inputs that can be made.<br /><br />The quality of the results will be vastly improved as we get more detail on the components, better spatial and temporal measures and history of air sea ice and landform elements.<br /><br />Imagine how much better models could be if we could have long-term history 24-7 for every cubic kilometer of the atmosphere (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed, composition etc) , and the same for the ocean (temperature, salinity, currents, composition) and the same for ice and landforms. <br /><br />To a large extent we are constrained by the level of detail of our knowledge of the earth's geography and by the computing power needed to run more final grained gridding. The physics is fairly well understood.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57931268184381356662014-03-24T14:51:01.440+11:002014-03-24T14:51:01.440+11:00"underdetermination" - fixed the typo in..."underdetermination" - fixed the typo in the quote, thanks Anthony.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47895804620239447702014-03-24T14:46:28.911+11:002014-03-24T14:46:28.911+11:00The WUWT crowd has a reflexive dislike of models, ...The WUWT crowd has a reflexive dislike of models, even though models are what they, and all of us, implicity or explicitly use to understand processes we cannot directly experience. For example, we cannot directly experience individual atoms, but those with a rudimentary science education can apply our model of atoms to understanding chemical processes at some approximation to reality.<br /><br />BTW, "underdetermination" is listed in the linked paper's glossary, I'm not sure what "undetermination" means in the context of modelling either.Anthony Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513872551156179165noreply@blogger.com