Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Under advisement, I have enabled the ignore member function to stop the hostility creeping into my replys.
Coming back to an earlier area of objection I raised, there is the matter of modeling complex systems in general. A feature of these complex systems is their sensitivity to initial conditions, that is to say that where one ends up depends on where one starts. So too with the climatology models, and the farther back in time one wants to start the model, the less information and therefore the more error, we have in the initial conditions used to start a run.
There is then of course that other sensitivity to conditions issue of complex systems referred to as the butterfly effect, which says essentially that small changes in an operating complex system can have large & unexpected effects. If one of the minimalized forcings happens to have some role in the climate operations akin to the butterfly's wings, then the model is at risk of inherent flaws.
That's awrap.  |
I suppose putting me on to the ignore list is one way to avoid seeing the rebuttals to your claims.
For all those who do not have me on ignore, I've already thoroughly countered the challenge to the process of modelling itself, and have also shown how this is a classic denialist tactic which has been debunked.
If anyone (Turtle included) would like to challenge a specific model, then that WOULD be a very meaningful discussion to have. If anyone would like to discuss the models themselves, that would be useful as well.
Right now, this broad sweeping claim about models themselves being false because they are complex or difficult is a waste of most people's time. (On a personal note, it's also extremely surprising that such a criticism would come from our fair friend the Turtler since he's such a math whiz...)
More to the point of a science thread, though, either show specifically which model(s) is/are wrong and why, or move on.
