4 ms·
I didn’t have time to read the article in depth or listen to the cast, but is Peterson saying anything controversial at all? Isn’t this pretty much what Edward
by Tabular-Iceberg 5y ago
I didn’t have time to read the article in depth or listen to the cast, but is Peterson saying anything controversial at all? Isn’t this pretty much what Edward Lorenz figured out back in the 60s?
- dekhn 5y agoIt is not generally believed that sensitivity to initial conditions (and all the other properties that make perfectly simulating a system challenging) prevent climate modelling from producing useful information. Peterson is making this argument in bad faith, rather than being somebody who has "figured out that climate modelling is impossible and therefore a scam".
- Tabular-Iceberg 5y agoI don't think there's any model for anything that's immune to over-extrapolation. A weather prediction model is going to hold for a few days and probably break by the end of the week. If Peterson thinks this is the kind of model that they actually use to model the climate over several centuries, he is either mistaken, or attacking a straw man. But I'm intrigued enough to actually listen to the podcast in case there's some missing context. If I can find the time and it hasn't been deleted by Spotify yet.
- dekhn 5y agoAs you said, weather prediction and climate modelling are two entirely different fields.
- vanusa 5y agoBasically what Jordan was saying was an extremely obvious misinterpretation of what Lorenz was actually saying. In other words: nonsense, not even qualifying as "controversial".