You seem to be confused by the mathematical concept that some equations can be solved in closed form and others cannot. Just because we can't solve a problem in closed form does NOT mean that it can't be solved with arbitrary accuracy by numerical means. For the pendulum example, small angles are typically used so that we can treat the problem as a simple harmonic oscillator and write the general solution in terms of sines and cosines, for larger angles it would be soluble in terms of elliptic functions, which most people are less familiar with, but not problem to handle numerically.
The world is filled with problems that are accurately solved numerically, including pendula. I'm with gcnp58, you really need to get a grip on what you're saying. Do you really think through the implications before you write things?
Great retort, Mike. I see that you chose to ignore all the science, good job.
Ever seen Principia (big Foucault's Pendulum in Portland, Oregon)? Works pretty consistently, you can even "model" it to the level they use it as a clock with high accuracy (meaning they knew how it would work to the degree when they built it they knew it would tell time). So, in the end, your analogy is stupid. Call the home office, tell them to give you material that doesn't make you look like a doofus.
Of course, the skeptics love this stuff of yours. So as long as you are content to have morons and lunatics as your supporters, maybe that's enough.
Feynman gave a great illustration in one of his videotaped freshman physics lectures. He used a bowling ball suspended from the ceiling by a wire, pulled it up to his nose, then stood there as the ball swung through its arc and came back.
He understood the size of the uncertainties in the system in question. You're waving your hands to say they can be unknowably large.
Please allow me to add a level of complexity:
THeir models are highly dubious. The only rules they have for wind is that it blows and sometimes it blows hard. While that's not a good thing, it represents the actual code I have seen for their computer models, I have asked again and again to see the code for their climate models, but its like asking to see their raw data, they refuse to release it.
Here is a start for one model. You'll have to read to evaluate how complete the physics are.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/page/CCSM4/C...
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/...
It will keep you busy.
A climate model is a mathematical representation of a natural system, the Earth's climate. There are many different climate models for different systems like precipitation or sea ice extent. But let's just focus on what many would consider the main ones, global surface temperatures. After all, these are the models that tell us adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause future warming (at different rates under different scenarios).
When the accuracy of models is brought up (i.e. questioning how certain we are about the various future projections), we are told that the physics is pretty well known (e.g. CO2 IR absorption, thermodynamics, etc.). Yes, various uncertainties are acknowledged like cloud processes and other feedbacks but assumptions are made and models are run generally using 3C as the median climate sensitivity which also generally leads to warming under all scenarios of increased CO2 emissions (and that's why we are here discussing this issue).
It seems to me that some people are really quickly accept (or loath to question) that the models are "pretty good" and climate sensitivity is probably pretty close to 3C and most CO2 scenarios are going to be a problem that needs immediate addressing. But let's take a look at another model of a natural system and see if that confidence remains.
I'm going to talk about a pendulum. I think we can all agree that we know all about the physics of a pendulum swinging. There are known equations to calculate things like the period of a pendulum given the mass of the bob, the length of the string, the gravity of Earth, etc. But can we actually derive an equation which perfectly describes a pendulum? I.e. can we model a pendulum's motion? No, we cannot. And here is a list of reasons why not:
- it is assumed that the rod or cord holding the bob is mass-less, is inflexible and is always taut
- it is assumed there is no air resistance on the bob or the rod or cord
- it is assumed that the bob is point of mass
- it is assumed that there is no friction at the fulcrum
- it is assumed that the swing is in a very small arc
You might think that the above could be incorporated by slightly more complicated math and physics. Actually, the motion of a real pendulum is far too complicated to be represented by math and physics. It can only be approximated. Thus, a real pendulum can never be modeled completely accurately.
In the end, we have a simple physical system where all the math and physics are known, yet it cannot be modeled as its natural motions are too complex. So I'll ask again, how confident are you in the attempts to model the Earth's climate keeping in mind we don't even know all of the physics involved?
