« The nVidia plan: To shatter coffee breaks due to ray tracing | Main | foto of the sunday: the rather red corner store »

Jul 23, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John H. Dunten, Houston, TX, USA

Ralph,

The "computer" model that has Tropical Storm Bonnie moving into Victoria, Canada is the extrapolation model, listed as XTRP, with the black triangle line is the projected path of the storm if and only if nothing changes about the for the prediction period.

VIctor

Is very hard to predict details in chaotic systems with computer models, but they are much better in predicting the "large picture". So i would not invest in properties near the ocean where the models are predicting a rise of the sea level :-)...

John

This is a case of knowing what we don't know. We don't know how to do atmospheric modeling well over a period of several days. On the other hand, note that the early parts of the simulation all pretty much indicate the same track. Also note that a lot of the divergence starts when the storm hits land and the entire "engine" behind the storm changes. This is really not all that surprising.

Mook

Excellent point about the lack of precision in atmospheric modeling. I've worked with engineers trying to match test results with fluid flow analytical models for limited well-defined applications such as modeling flow out of nozzles on a vessel, with simulation models commonly missing the mark by 300% or more even though fluid properties are well established. Even in narrowly defined flow simulation models, there are often huge errors.

Given this reality, there is no way in hell anyone can take something as large as the earth's atmosphere with so many countless unknowns and variables, and then "conclude" with any degree of certainty the isolated cause and effects of a specific component such as CO2. Most of the "scientists" making these wild assertions are not engineers, they have degrees in math or statistics or biology, many/most working for government, and virtually all of them are far out of their depth regarding complexities involved in any such atmospheric modeling. Any scientist claiming he "knows" how CO2 itself is affecting earth temperatures is a charlatan perpetrating fraud.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Advertisements


Search This Blog


  •  

Translate

Thank you for visiting!