We can agree on a couple of things.
1. Climate 'modellers' are probably the least useful scientists in the room on
this issue.
2. All theories should be subject to proof-disproof - on both sides (both faith
and disbelief are equally suspect).
But still...it moves.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher: The SLR Compendium - http://www.blurb.com/books/3732813
On 23/02/2013, at 12:25 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I suppose I was long ago conditioned to be leery of modelers since I
> myself was heavily involved in a simulation model of one of IBM's
> smallest manufacturing plants in the early 70s. The intent was to try
> to predict the actual output of the plant. In a nutshell, the model
> kept growing more and more complex. It finally met its end when the
> complexity of the model caused the runtime to exceed real time. The
> net: You would need more than a month to predict the month's output.
> Unfortunately, even today's far faster computers wouldn't have helped
> because the answer would still be very wrong anyhow.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|