SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: combjelly who wrote (356128)10/26/2007 11:58:55 AM
From: d[-_-]b  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578297
 
A problem that the proponents of "it is all a solar cycle" have is that the solar constant has been, well, constant.

And the CO2 proponents have no explanation for past warming cycles since we didn't raise CO2 levels. I suspect it's caused by more than one item and probably different reasons at various times in history. In the end I suspect it's mostly due to natural causes.

Climate, though, is just interested in the heat balance. A lot fewer variables are needed.

I think the modelers would disagree with that statement.



To: combjelly who wrote (356128)10/27/2007 3:00:04 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1578297
 
Climate is a lot easier problem than weather. To predict weather, your model needs to have an accurate model of the world, and the finer the grid the better. Air currents, water currents, mountains, everything needs to be reflected in the model.

Despite all that, some of the models do a fairly good job. They've modeled entire months and the model and what really happened are fairly close. However, there are months that don't match. So there is still work to be done.

Climate, though, is just interested in the heat balance. A lot fewer variables are needed.


Screw the computer models........Eric just posted that the CO2 buildup is the beginning of a cooling period. How does he know? He just does. He's smarter than any computer model. Accept it.