Predicting co2 levels
Zagovor | 04.09.2013 02:42 | Climate Chaos | Education
We are told constantly by scientists that math wonderfully predicts physical events. It does not. The co2 debate is a prime example of scientists' misunderstanding of math.
There are an infinite number of possible math models. No matter what happens some math model can be found consistent with any physical event. This is nothing to shout about.
Since c02 levels have been recorded in the 1950s no math model has been found to predict a future level (whether it be one ten or 20 years later). But every model at every time accurately describes what has previously occurred (even the 2013 model). The curve of the model can very easily move about a little.
In the c02 model the parameters are changing each year. A model of the last 60 years (incredibly accurate) predicts a co2 level of about 540 ppm by 2099. Almost certainly this will be wrong. However, it is possible to accurately predict the model of 2099 (linear regression of the parameters). This model is consistent with a c02 level of about 860 ppm.
Even the inverse square laws of physics predict only a model at a future time. That physical events are consistent with the model should not lead us to believe that the model is predicting the events themselves.
Since c02 levels have been recorded in the 1950s no math model has been found to predict a future level (whether it be one ten or 20 years later). But every model at every time accurately describes what has previously occurred (even the 2013 model). The curve of the model can very easily move about a little.
In the c02 model the parameters are changing each year. A model of the last 60 years (incredibly accurate) predicts a co2 level of about 540 ppm by 2099. Almost certainly this will be wrong. However, it is possible to accurately predict the model of 2099 (linear regression of the parameters). This model is consistent with a c02 level of about 860 ppm.
Even the inverse square laws of physics predict only a model at a future time. That physical events are consistent with the model should not lead us to believe that the model is predicting the events themselves.
Zagovor