3 ms·
I have a feeling that "imprecise models and simulations" is exactly how actual science is done much of the time these days. The trick is to answer those questi
by davidjohnstone 13y ago
I have a feeling that "imprecise models and simulations" is exactly how actual science is done much of the time these days.
The trick is to answer those questions of what data is used and how things are weighted etc. well, and that's exactly what the scientists who work on these models do.
- gd1 13y agoDifference is, most models can be validated against reality. I might model a car crash impact in LS-DYNA, then I eventually crash the real thing and compare. Unless you have a spare Earth lying around and a few centuries, then climate modellers can't do that. Instead they have maybe 80 years of reliable temperature data at best (which is just one variable), on a planet 4 billion years old. The radiative physics can tell us a lot about basic climate sensitivity, but modelling the feedbacks inherent in such a complex system must be near impossible. Saying that climate change is "simple radiative physics" is very misleading, it is a little bit like saying that if I kick a ball it will accelerate away from me and that is "basic Newtonian physics". Well yes, but I may be standing at the bottom of a steep valley, in which case the larger system exerts a negative feedback, and the ball rolls back to my feet.