What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
No new computer this year? No problem... view!
howlifeworks.com - How to make your old PC as fast as the day you first got it
1 Comments
- chosenone1, on 01/04/2009, -2/+5Greenfyre probably doesn't understand how the computer models works in climate change. I've finally found some information on how they derive a formula into an algorithm to transform an equation that outputs what they want.
Due to many different variations they only include repeating, "constant" variables. Due to time constraints on the computational data they could not adequate the formula to link the warming to man until they created a mask to the "inconstant" variation of the data and directly and fully integrating this data all to co2's effects. This is a disservice to science. When I refer to "inconstant" I am referring to UNEXPLAINED variations or confounding variables that are too complex to integrate. They need a climate model that will predict future trends that of which will not be able to be done threw shortcuts . Not many scientists agree with this methodology. It was only recently that Stephen Wolfram has gained popularity in taking shortcuts in science mathematics, only because it would help their current attempts to pin climate change on humans. He cries out to simplify and "liquidate" confounding variable. The book's name is "A New Kind of Science". First publish in 1996. Many scientists did not like his shortcuts. And if that common sense has transitive properties then many scientists would disagree with AGW.
Its like taking a step away from the science table and sitting on the floor between the "science" table and the "religion" table.
