Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
A model (Read 1714 times)
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #15 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 5:56pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 5:23pm:
You are the one slinging off about models. Sneering.

Yet, it is clear, you had no idea what you were talking about.



And yet you haven't shown that the model was anything other than dumb luck.

And you don't know what went into the model.

At item 2b of the paper -

"Standard distribution of atmospheric absorbers

In this section, the vertical distribution of water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, and cloud, which are used for the computations of thermal equilibrium, and those of heat balance in the following section, are described. They are adopted unless specified otherwise."

So parametrised.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #16 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 6:04pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 5:56pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 5:23pm:
You are the one slinging off about models. Sneering.

Yet, it is clear, you had no idea what you were talking about.



And yet you haven't shown that the model was anything other than dumb luck.

And you don't know what went into the model.

At item 2b of the paper -

"Standard distribution of atmospheric absorbers

In this section, the vertical distribution of water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, and cloud, which are used for the computations of thermal equilibrium, and those of heat balance in the following section, are described. They are adopted unless specified otherwise."

So parametrised.


My brain does not compute science or mathematics, but Lee seems to be saying that 'modelling' is basically bullshit.  Do I have that right, Lee?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #17 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 6:04pm
 
Is it a parameter? I think they knew the distribution they were describing. One of the reasons this model is so good.
Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #18 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 6:41pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 6:04pm:
Is it a parameter? I think they knew the distribution they were describing. One of the reasons this model is so good.



If you haven't got the physics you have nothing.

Even the new improved models parametrise clouds, water. So you think the older model was better than the newer models. Interesting.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #19 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:16pm
 
Lees talking about physics {quintillion emoticons}

They had the physics—climatology is physics.

The model, the first of its kind, performed well—it predicted temperatures very well. It would have built on stuff learned on research projects for the USN and USAF.

Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #20 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:29pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:16pm:
Lees talking about physics {quintillion emoticons}

They had the physics—climatology is physics.

The model, the first of its kind, performed well—it predicted temperatures very well. It would have built on stuff learned on research projects for the USN and USAF.



Climate models use assumptions (parametrisations) of the interaction between elements. No physics there.

Climate models are computer games dressed up as "fact".
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #21 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:33pm
 
Nope. The physics is known.

The model correctly predicted the course of temperature over the fifty years from 1968 to now.

Give it up, Lees, the globe is warming and the extra 46% CO2 that is doing it.
Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #22 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 8:44pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:33pm:
Nope. The physics is known.



Some of the physics is known. if all of the physics was known they wouldn't need to parametrise.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:33pm:
The model correctly predicted the course of temperature over the fifty years from 1968 to now.



Oh. i thought you said it was close.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:33pm:
Give it up, Lees, the globe is warming and the extra 46% CO2 that is doing it.


Well the globe may be warming, who knows? NOAA claimed 1997 temperature was 62.45ºF and yet the hottest year "evah" was 58.69ºF.  Bizarre eh. So if NOAA don't know how can you tell what the extra CO2 has done. Apart of course we don't really know the historical CO2 levels. The ice cores are so unreliable. Even stomata data it has been higher than the ice core "data". Those damned error bars again. CO2 in firn etc.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Johnnie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #23 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 8:59pm
 
I was thinking a catwalk model
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #24 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:04pm
 
Elle McPherson has been mentioned.
Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #25 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:08pm
 
lee wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 8:44pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 7:33pm:
Nope. The physics is known.



Some of the physics is known. if all of the physics was known they wouldn't need to parametrise.


You are the only one babbling about parameters.

They used to need lots of parameters, assumptions. Partly because the computers were just too slow and limited to run the models. But they learned and tried new things and now we have models that accurately predict climate.

Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
Johnnie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 12485
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #26 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:17pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:04pm:
Elle McPherson has been mentioned.

Yes she was one, and I was a big fan, she did it well, I think it was the face that did it for me and the long legs and her persona most of all.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Online


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 43284
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #27 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:19pm
 
And the “busty substances?” (to quote Dud’n’Pete}
Back to top
 

Get the vaxx! 💉💉

If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings.
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #28 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 10:28pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 9:08pm:
ou are the only one babbling about parameters.

They used to need lots of parameters, assumptions. Partly because the computers were just too slow and limited to run the models. But they learned and tried new things and now we have models that accurately predict climate.


And they STILL use assumptions (parameters).

From AR5WG1_Chapter06_final.pdf -

"A challenge is that limitations of the satellite sensors demand various assumptions in order to convert a satellite measurement into a ‘model equivalent’ climate variable"

"An alternative approach is to calculate ‘observation-equivalents’ from models using radiative transfer calculations to simulate what the satellite would provide if the satellite system were ‘observing’ the model. This approach is usually referred to as an instrument simulator’. Microphysical assumptions (which differ from model to model)
can be included in the simulators, avoiding inconsistencies"

"In addition to mesoscale eddies, there has been a growing awareness of the role that sub-mesoscale eddies and fronts play in restratifying the mixed layer (Boccaletti et al., 2007; Fox-Kemper et al., 2008; Klein and Lapeyre, 2009), and the parameterization of Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) is now used in some CMIP5 models."

So we have a mixture of assumptions, simulations and parameterization. None of which exist in the real world.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16345
Gender: male
Re: A model
Reply #29 - Aug 11th, 2018 at 10:32pm
 
Aussie wrote on Aug 11th, 2018 at 6:04pm:
[quote author=leeforward link=1533963393/15#15 date=1533974166]My brain does not compute science or mathematics, but Lee seems to be saying that 'modelling' is basically bullshit.  Do I have that right, Lee?


Some models have utility. Climate models have not been verified, validated or calibrated.

I leave the decision up to you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print