Simulation Code for Earth's Historical Temperature Record

[optotinker]

Weather is an initial value problem, climate is a boundary value problem (so essentially a very complex energy balance)

This means that you cannot compare weather predictions with climate predictions. It is a common misunderstanding. Weather is influenced by chaos, climate much less so. This however in no way means that climate predictions are less complex, just differently complex...

The coupling between weather and climate is in the influence of the former on the absorption and reflection of sunlight, and on the outbound radiation from the earth. All are time and location dependent, but generally in a steady state and a crude spatial grid might be suffice.

 

[Arjan82]

Anyway, I am asking for a tool. Does such a thing exist in the public domain?

Maybe start here:
https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm
https://scied.ucar.edu/activity/very-simple-climate-model-activity

Here are some of the open source models, but I give you zero chance of actually being able to run them:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/about-models/

For (really) simple models you can also check books on climate or meteorology. They usually show some analytical models mainly to show how the most important interactions work, then refine and refine until the models become more and more representative. They'll never reach the level of the actually used climate models, since that knowledge is distributed over many scientific papers and probably a lot of hands on knowledge only available in the heads of the actual scientists at work.

 

[optotinker]

I think the simple model here is too simple even for me :)
https://scied.ucar.edu/activity/very-simple-climate-model-activity
Earth's temperature is determined by the sun. We don't get summer and winter because of some CO2, lol. Summer temperatures are significantly higher than the winter temperature, by about 50 degrees. This just shows how much a little bit of change w/r/t the sun can do to the climate.

 

[Arjan82]

But real discoveries are often made by people with a fresh point of view and an original way of thinking, not by the 9-5 employees with degrees.

There is something else that is really annoying me about this remark. It kind of suggest that some layman looking form the side line has a 'fresh mind' and an 'original way of thinking'. This is not how I see it however. Someone gave me this analogy once:

Say that you are walking in a forest for pretty much the first time, being some city-bound person, what do you see and discover? I think not all that much, you see trees, bushes, some bugs, some more bushes and so on. Now you are maybe a botanist, or maybe a forester, what do you pick up from the walk? Much, much more. You don't see just trees, you notice the kind of tree, whether it is in good shape, its relation to the location of bushes, the kind of insects and weather there are some larger animals in the neighborhood, etc. etc. The more you know of a particular field, the more you notice about it and thus the better the change that you notice something odd, something improvable.

So, what I'm trying to say is that insights and originality do not arise from a vacuum. Original music is written by people listening and studying huge amounts of music, how else would they know what they do is original?!? Knowledge of the field you are trying to innovate in is essential, crucial really. Any idea that any layman can come up with has already been thought of decades ago by the first scientists of the field.

So you first need to know the rules of the game before you can break them. The times when a laymen can ignorantly find a weakness in any scientific field are long gone.

 

[hutchphd]

We don't get summer and winter because of some CO2, lol.

My friends on Venus would beg to differ.
And nobody is laughing. I would echo @Arjan82 sentiments. There is no need for more detail about arrogance. Good Luck

 

[optotinker]

My friends on Venus would beg to differ.
And nobody is laughing. I would echo @Arjan82 sentiments. There is no need for more detail about arrogance. Good Luck

And there is also day and night, now is that CO2 again?

 

[fresh_42]

Anyway, I am asking for a tool. Does such a thing exist in the public domain?

If you want to seriously examine the subject, then start to look for serious information. The Keeling curve is one such measure and the homepages above two serious institutes. If you find on the internet what you are looking for, then take it as a toy, not a serious simulation.

You have been given several links (post #2,5,31,37) to serious sources. You really should start there instead of looking for toys.

 

[optotinker]

There is something else that is really annoying me about this remark. It kind of suggest that some layman looking form the side line has a 'fresh mind' and an 'original way of thinking'. This is not how I see it however. Someone gave me this analogy once:

Say that you are walking in a forest for pretty much the first time, being some city-bound person, what do you see and discover? I think not all that much, you see trees, bushes, some bugs, some more bushes and so on. Now you are maybe a botanist, or maybe a forester, what do you pick up from the walk? Much, much more. You don't see just trees, you notice the kind of tree, whether it is in good shape, its relation to the location of bushes, the kind of insects and weather there are some larger animals in the neighborhood, etc. etc. The more you know of a particular field, the more you notice about it and thus the better the change that you notice something odd, something improvable.

So, what I'm trying to say is that insights and originality do not arise from a vacuum. Original music is written by people listening and studying huge amounts of music, how else would they know what they do is original?!? Knowledge of the field you are trying to innovate in is essential, crucial really. Any idea that any layman can come up with has already been thought of decades ago by the first scientists of the field.

So you first need to know the rules of the game before you can break them. The times when a laymen can ignorantly find a weakness in any scientific field are long gone.

Science is a process, not a set of rules, not a bunch of degrees. Scientists are those who follow this process, and not just some degreed people. We can't rule out the possibility of a layman who follows an impeccable scientific process and arrives at the right solution despite being unaware of a lot of rules, now broken by him, without even knowing their existence.

 

[fresh_42]

Science is a process, not a set of rules, not a bunch of degrees.

The degrees are the obvious sign that someone knows what's in the box because

To think outside the box you will first have to know what's already in the box!

 

[Vanadium 50]

Science is a process

Which you are not doing.

You made a claim in #27. You were asked for evidence in #28. You neither provided any nor retracted your claim. That's not doing science.

 

[optotinker]

Really? Name five. In the last fifty years.

Google it. This is not the subject of what I originally asked for. Maybe you can start a different thread on that.

 

[fresh_42]

Google it.

This is not how science works. Those who make claims have to provide evidence, not the other way round.

You have been
a) advised that the tool you are asking for would have no scientific value at all
b) that you need enormous computing power to join the game
c) given several links to serious institutes that work on the subject, where you
d) should start your research before you can make any contributions to the subject.

This thread is closed.