On 11/15/2013 2:11 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
There is a model of the earth nucleus. It is very good. Why? Because
like the real nucleus. It invert polarity every 14000 years I believe,
to fire up the wikipedia to get the real digits. That is why it is a
Just like climate models parameter values have been inferred by matching
I selected this paragraph alone
"Selected"? I thought you wrote it.
to show that you, in your obfuscation, don´t understand the difference between predicion
(or retrodiction) and tweking for predicting (or retrodict) nothing AT ALL.
I understand that to predict something with a computer program you have to provide
parameter values as well as dynamic equations. There is always uncertainty about the value
of those parameters: heat transfer coefficients, albedo, enthalpy... So when I compare my
model output to actual data (if there is any) I of course try adjusting some of the more
uncertain parameters to improve the fit because that will improve the predictive accuracy
of the model. I don't adjust them beyond the original uncertainty bounds, because then
it's just curve fitting. Curve fitting can give good predictions too, but it doesn't
given any insight into how the system works or what to modify to change it. I understand
this because I do it for a living. So I'm afraid it is you who are the amateur here.
That is why I said that it is a waste of time to discuss the apocalypse with the
There's nothing apocalyptic about global warming. Human will survive as a species. At
least so long as it doesn't trigger a nuclear war. But there will be a lot death and
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.