4 ms·
I hate the attack on the models. We don't use simulators for most liquid flow calculations, we have models that approximate liquid flows. Only a few years ago
by undersuit 10y ago
I hate the attack on the models.
We don't use simulators for most liquid flow calculations, we have models that approximate liquid flows. Only a few years ago have computers been able to fully simulate a single atom, if Moore's Law were to hold it will still be... a very long time before we could simulate the approximately 1.e+49 atoms on Earth and all the energy flowing into our system.
So of course a model is going to have issues. Models are tuned to reproduce a close approximation, they aren't perfect simulations. The attack at models is a diversion. I doubt even a perfect simulation of our planet experiencing anthropological climate change would convince the majority of deniers.
- jamez1 10y agoPerhaps you've never studied chaos theory? Complex systems are notoriously hard to model despite the underlying process being deterministic. Why do you think we keep having recessions? We know where every dollar is at every point in time, the equivalence would be your atoms in liquid flow. It's also interesting you point to liquid flow, that is a counter-example of what you're trying to say, as the navier stokes fluid dynamics equations that we use to model liquid flows are chaotic..
- undersuit 10y agoI have not studied Chaos Theory, but I think you might be misunderstanding something in my post. I'm unhappy with people rejecting the accuracy of the models, when the models are going to be inaccurate regardless of the knowledge of the starting conditions. A model is not a simulation. Modelling the Earth is not the same as simulating the Earth.