Modeling climate with rigid bodies

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of creating a simplified climate model for an Earth-like planet using a pre-existing 2D physics engine. The user seeks to incorporate various parameters like axis tilt, distance from the star, and atmospheric composition into an animated weather simulation. There is skepticism about the feasibility of using the current physics engine for climate modeling, given the complexity and the need for high computational power typically associated with accurate climate simulations. The conversation highlights the difficulty of achieving reliable predictive capabilities in climate modeling, especially for someone without a physics background. Ultimately, the user is contemplating whether to continue pursuing this project or reconsider their approach.
dwnielsen
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Okay, please don't ask me why I would want to do the following; I'll try to explain..

I am writing a program and already have a module for computing 2D rigid-body and spring-mass (with only 32-bit integers, no less) which I've modified from Box2DLite.

Now, for my application, I would like to be able to generate an approximate climate on a somewhat Earthlike planet based on various parameters such as axis tilt, distance from star, minor/major radius of planet, terrain map, amount of water, composition of atmosphere, etc. In fact, it would be very nice if I could run this as an animated system, watching the weather change across a globe. This doesn't need to be accurate - just needs to look believable.

Would the physics engine I have be of good use somehow, or would I be much better off starting with another model? I'd much prefer to use my present program components to the best of their ability rather than add mass too my program. I'm no physicist - needing some direction. Should I just throw in the towel before I run too far down this rabbit hole?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not physicist either, but from what I hear, climate modeling remains very difficult to use in order to have guaranteed predictive capabilities. Also, I know supercomputers tend to be involved in climate modeling, and considering all the factors you're trying to work with, I would guess a lot of horsepower would be involved.
As for whether your program would be of use, I have to express doubt, considering how many professionals are currently working on such things, and considering (I would guess) that there are a hundred more factors missing from your model. I hope everything ends well.
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...

Similar threads

Back
Top