Hey you're back! ya'know while you were gone some people thought I was your alt
I'm glad the margin of error is high and I'm less worried now than I was 2 years ago.
The study I read said that if we see a 2 or 3 degrees C increase THEN certain sun reflecting clouds won't form like they do now. If those clouds don't form then we get cooked up to 10 degree C. So small increases can cause a chain reaction
The problem is that they just don't know what they are talking about. Clouds are still a part of science where dragons still roam. We have yet to build a model that can -predict- what will happen. We have gotten better at what I like to call "bash analysis" - which is where you simply analyze trends in measured records - but the problem is that these are fundamentally limited.
Consider flight simulators. Many flight simulators use a set of differential equations within a matrix that corresponds to different parameters regarding flight. These are often based off of real-world data collected from those aircraft that the tables exist to describe (and different equations are necessary to keep the simulation accurate at radically different altitudes, airspeeds, etc). These are not 'complicated' from a computer's standpoint. These are just used to calculate the movement of the aircraft and a few other things. They are very accurate and are used for a lot of FAA approved flight simulators.
However, when you begin to push outside of where real-world data exists... the data set is no longer accurate and you can get erratic performance.
Which is where "flight dynamics models" come into play. While they may be computationally intensive, a flight dynamics model attempts to perform a physical simulation of the various lift and drag surfaces of the aircraft. This is much more useful for aircraft for which there is limited real-world data, and tests have shown that the method is effective at simulating overall behavior (it may not be able to predict various departure phenomena that has plagued some designs in the decades before, but it can be used to model how a plane would behave while landing in complex cross-winds, for example).
Since we can program a simulation that will accurately predict the behavior of an airplane outside of a pre-existing data set - I am willing to believe that our understanding of aerodynamics is fairly sound. The limitations of the model have more to do with a limitation of processing power than it does with a failure to have an appropriate understanding.
On the other hand, we can't build a computer simulation that can accurately predict cloud formation without referencing previously available data. A flight dynamics model uses the principles of fluid dynamics to -generate- estimates of the relative forces acting upon a surface, and then further uses physical simulations to predict how that force will impact the overall mass of the aircraft. The models we use for weather and climate have no "fluid dynamics" from which to build a solid theory of how clouds form.
For example - there's a neat little ring of vapor that appears around aircraft at certain speeds:
You must be registered for see images
The theory behind why it forms, exactly, is still not able to account for all of its observed appearances. Granted - the theory is fairly sound and works - but there are a host of other factors that influence when it appears, its relative size, etc.
An interesting discussion on contrail formation can be seen, here:
You must be registered for see links
There are simply so many factors at play, even when looking at a consistent object (such as an airplane), that it is difficult to predict exactly what it will be doing in regards to 'clouds' and vapor formation, even when we can control a large number of variables.
Thus, I'm very skeptical to believe any model that suggests a certain type of cloud won't form if there's a few degrees of temperature change. Part of the 'problem' is that the atmosphere doesn't necessarily heat uniformly, or cool uniformly. Rather than a layer of air uniformly heating to such a degree as to prevent cloud formation, what is more likely to happen is that localized areas of heating will tend to 'punch' warmer air into the atmosphere, which will then 'boil' into the higher levels of the atmosphere and then vent large amounts of infra red radiation into space and even throw off a few tons of water vapor into orbit.
Which is what happens during any thunderstorm, already.
The problem is that the overall system is far too complex for anyone to build a "model" or a "simulation" of it as we would think of it. We think of flight simulators and of the impressive capabilities of physics simulations with computers.... and then think that these super computers used for making climate models (which were no more powerful than your cell phone is, today, back when these models first started coming into existence) are running some kind of elaborate simulation of a virtual earth.
You must be registered for see images
That's kind of the 'talk.'
The problem is that the climate models used to predict this type of thing are actually far more simplistic.
Even some of the most recent projects into broad-spectrum climate simulation are quite simplistic:
You must be registered for see links
CMIP5 climate models still resemble a 'simulator' on the 8-bit NES console. While the calculations going on under the hood are far more complicated - the reality is that the reason the model outputs are so varied is because they had to guess at how strong certain feedback ratios were, and also because their entire model was essentially a chimera of various smaller models used to simulate ocean currents, weather forecasts, etc.
It's a monumental effort to be sure, and one that I can appreciate from the standpoint of science/engineering - but the problem is that it has no place in a political forum, as the model's purpose was simply to evaluate how close we were to having a complete understanding.
Now, we have much better sub-models that have come out since then:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
- A note, that is a composite model of satellite-measured atmospheric temperatures with respect to altitude. It's not what is being simulated so much as it is a data set from which relationships are being "bashed" out of.
You must be registered for see images
The capabilities are improving, but at the same time, there are still fundamental questions related to the strength of relationships between these various factors that are unknown, as most of what we are doing is a "bash" of recorded data to derive relationships.
Which has this to contend with:
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Part of the 'problem' is that the climate models are a conclusion looking for an experiment. Atmospheric carbon has not increased nearly at the rate many of these models estimate. Further compounding the problem is that the relationship between CO2 and the various stratified layers, the temperature, etc is also not known.
Ok so how did they know the distance from Pluto to the earth when the world is just now learning about that from Pluto. By the way it should be interesting to note that the distance form Pluto to the earth that nasa stated matches the book. How could they have possibly known that without modern technology? Enlighten me. Same way of how did the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids. And I actually have the book. We document our own history. If you don't believe it who cares. The book was required to eh known by people that registered in the nation.
Edit: actually inside the book it says it's written in 1930. And there are people alive now that we're there at the time. And we have the original documents. It can't be found online though. But feel free to go to a local Nation of Islam mosque and ask them for proof
It's called trigonometry.
By recording the measurements of your telescope at a certain time as it is aligned with Pluto, then taking that measurement again on another day, you can estimate the distance quite accurately, as you know how far the Earth has traveled during that time, thus creating a triangle with a known base and two known angles. There is some margin of error as your imaged object is moving and you can only get so accurate with your scope's positioning data - but by comparing it to other known entities and the relative motion displayed, there, you can come up with a very accurate measurement for where the object is and even calculate its orbit using Newton's laws of gravitation.
No you're a clown because you're trying to argue with a fact
Well, it's nice to know that you'll consider me a magician.
