MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

PKFFW · 12-03-2009, 05:01 PM

Something interesting to consider.....

I will preface by saying(as I have before) I don't know much about the science of climate change. However, it has been mentioned time and again in this thread that "all the models show" or "computer models indicate" etc etc. Not sure how much is computer modelling and how much is other stuff but anyway.

My brother went to Princeton Uni and studied aerospace engineering, worked for NASA for a while, then onto Texas Uni for his PhD and now works in Germany. He is published and considered a leader in his field. Not real sure about what he does but it has to do with fluid and gas dynamics in rockets. I mention all that only to show that he sort of knows his field.

So..........

He was recently published because some very expensive, physical experiments he did dis-proved the current theory that had been accepted "fact" for over 40 years. The accepted "fact" just sort of made sense and fit what they knew of the data at the time. No one saw the point in doing physical experiments because they were very expensive and time consuming and they already "knew" how this particular thing worked or whatever because the accepted "fact" fit. For over 40 years they had been running simulations and computer modelling and "experiments" and building rockets and such on the data reported back from these models. Now he has shown the models were all wrong.

So my point(yes I do have one).........

A computer basically does what you tell it to. In other words, the computer will work within the programming set for it. What that programming is, is based on your knowledge and assumptions at the time you program it. If those assumptions are wrong, then the model will be wrong. There is no getting around that.

So whilst these models can be very informative and helpful they really can't be seen as empirical evidence and used as "proof" of AGW. Any proof that is discussed should be confined to empirical data and not computer models in my humble opinion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

12-03-2009, 05:01 PM	#238
PKFFW Wizard Posts: 3,791 Karma: 33500000 Join Date: Dec 2008 Device: BeBook, Sony PRS-T1, Kobo H2O	Something interesting to consider..... I will preface by saying(as I have before) I don't know much about the science of climate change. However, it has been mentioned time and again in this thread that "all the models show" or "computer models indicate" etc etc. Not sure how much is computer modelling and how much is other stuff but anyway. My brother went to Princeton Uni and studied aerospace engineering, worked for NASA for a while, then onto Texas Uni for his PhD and now works in Germany. He is published and considered a leader in his field. Not real sure about what he does but it has to do with fluid and gas dynamics in rockets. I mention all that only to show that he sort of knows his field. So.......... He was recently published because some very expensive, physical experiments he did dis-proved the current theory that had been accepted "fact" for over 40 years. The accepted "fact" just sort of made sense and fit what they knew of the data at the time. No one saw the point in doing physical experiments because they were very expensive and time consuming and they already "knew" how this particular thing worked or whatever because the accepted "fact" fit. For over 40 years they had been running simulations and computer modelling and "experiments" and building rockets and such on the data reported back from these models. Now he has shown the models were all wrong. So my point(yes I do have one)......... A computer basically does what you tell it to. In other words, the computer will work within the programming set for it. What that programming is, is based on your knowledge and assumptions at the time you program it. If those assumptions are wrong, then the model will be wrong. There is no getting around that. So whilst these models can be very informative and helpful they really can't be seen as empirical evidence and used as "proof" of AGW. Any proof that is discussed should be confined to empirical data and not computer models in my humble opinion. Cheers, PKFFW