tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post2521434298974670936..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: Creating Useful SimulationsFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-48670156977243046792017-06-14T16:50:11.167-04:002017-06-14T16:50:11.167-04:00Indeed, EWB. During my early years in simulation I...Indeed, EWB. During my early years in simulation I was often taken aback by the incredible complexity of natural systems -- and I'm a former physicist. Even a definitive enumeration of the inputs and outputs to a real-world system can be unexpectedly challenging. Anyone who thinks he can capture the intricacies of a multiply chaotic system such as the Earth's climate in a conventional digital simulation is either completely inexperienced at the job or has had way too much to drink.<br /><br />Probably the best way to approach the simulation of a planetary climate is to assume that it can't be done, and then study ultimately simple, non-real-world cases: e.g., a perfect, absolutely solid sphere with an absolutely uniform atmosphere, a rotational speed of zero, no axial tilt or precession, no magnetic field, and an unvarying solar input from a sun that's always the same distance away. Even that would be tough to model accurately, because of the small variations in distance and angle of impact according to latitude. I'll bet the <i>warmistas</i> haven't tried it, though.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-90811928292215162532017-06-14T16:06:50.007-04:002017-06-14T16:06:50.007-04:00There's another glaring problem with climate s...There's another glaring problem with climate simulations that people always seem to overlook, probably due to lack of understanding about how simulations re built. When building a simulation of any complex process, the first version inevitably turns out to be wrong. In order to get a working model you have to compare the prototype's output to reality, and then go back through the code and figure out what you got wrong. Then you can run it again on a different scenario, and find another problem.<br /><br />With a system of any significant complexity it always takes dozens, if not hundreds, of test runs before you reach the point where the model starts giving accurate predictions. But how would you do test runs against a system that we only have one example of, and where it takes several decades for measurable changes to happen? At that right it would take several hundred years to properly test your model.<br /><br />So the mere fact that climate models have only been around for a few decades tells us that they can't possibly be accurate. E. William Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10474901849783297203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-9258026815348053502017-06-13T21:07:32.139-04:002017-06-13T21:07:32.139-04:00Bingo! Right on target.Bingo! Right on target.Jeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18073269179350391504noreply@blogger.com