Relaxing on the porch watching water rainbows emanating from the sprinkler system. The sun coming in from over my left shoulder catches the spray and illuminates pinnacles of colored shards that twinkle through every color in the spectrum. The lawn is pleased to be a recipient of the shower - the biodiversity of the weed constituents is quite amazing.
What does it mean when a scientist describes a model system for some natural phenomena? Generally, a good model of natural process should be able to go backwards to duplicate the historical record, before it can be used forwards in a predictive manner. The major variables are identified and trends correlated with actual conditions. Models attempt to take into account all things relevant to the whole.
One of the major problems with most models is blindness to changing conditions. In order to be simple conceptually, they weigh factors that have more quantity (mass) more heavily than items that are light and effervescent. Detection limits to measurement ensure that we can only go down to certain scales with carefully constructed detailed measurement. In chemistry - X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance and infrared spectroscopy allow chemists to look out at the atomic level. We take for granted that the materials that are here now are in the form that they have always been - that is not a valid assumption!
The climate change models are all over the place. Atmospheric chemistry is affected by water vapor more than any other component, yet most climate models have trouble recognizing that fact. Carbon Dioxide is a good indicator of climate warming, yet it is not the cause that makes the effect. If we sequester the carbon dioxide (as plants do), then the warming will still exist. However as other factors change, people will learn to adapt to the new climate conditions. Always have, always will.
One of the missing concepts in current climate models has to do with the point of nucleation of a new phenomena. All change has a specific trigger point - an action that altered the reality of a situation and led to a behavior that is different from prior actions. Essentially, every so often an old dog learns a new trick. Somebody identifies a new factor that hasn't been there prior to the observation. Isn't it funny how that works, when a new novel happening takes hold an changes the projection angle. It's like watching rainbows dart on falling water.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
lenny, what do you think of the crop circles?
Dr. Lenny,
"...are in the form that they have always been..."
Interesting observation, one that I have always wondered about.
Here are stupid questions about climate change: if the polar caps melted, would the higher atmospheric temperatures result in a higher [absolute] humidity, with sea level not rising as much as feared because much of the extra water would evaporate? Also, if the caps melt, should I invest in beach front property in Antarctica?
The first question is much more serious. :)
Crop circles have a mathematical legitimacy that leads me to believe that there is a very sane explanation. I do not know, they seem like impressions from a different dimension. Perhaps they are a 2-D projection of a 3-D energy form.
The ice that is on land will add considerable water to the ocean and the atmosphere. The ice in water has already displaced the volume. Water vapor reaches a saturation in air - humidity has an upper limit of 100%. It would be a good flush for the planet to have excess warm rains during the time that the caps were barren of ice. There is also a magnetic pole shift that is about 10,000 years past due.
Ever wonder how they managed to produce an accurate topo map of Antartica in the 15th century?
Yes, I have wondered that, as a matter of fact. A pole shift could be an awesome plot for a sci-fi disaster flick.
Post a Comment