Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Trending News

Promoted
Paul's Alias 2
Lv 4
Paul's Alias 2 asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 8 years ago

Do internet climate scientists know what computers are?

I have been having a discussion with an "internet" climate scientist who denies that differential equations have use in understanding the behavior of dynamical systems like climate.

His latest bit of wisdom was : "Why would I have wasted so much time doing something the long winded way when I have a computer to do it all for me?". He was saying that rather than writing out diffwerential equations he would ask his computer what the answer was.

Are not internet climate scientists aware that the way to have a computer solve it would be to set up the differential equationas and then give the differential equations to the compter to be solved. At the very leasdt, if the problem qwas close enough to other treated problems there might be a program to do it, but the program was designed by someone who set up differential equations for the computer.

Do you need any sort of science training to become an internet climate scientist? Or can you become one by just repeating "According to peer review..."

Update:

"don't think there is such an animal as an internet climate scientist."

Internet climate scientists are people who hanf around on the internet and who act scholarly and blabber about "peer review"... but have no clue about actual scientific concepts like differential equations. I'm actually arguing with someone who insists differential equations are not relevant for climate science.

Update 2:

So Malcolm with the "PHD" [sic], if you want a computer to determine the behavior of a dynamical system like climate, differential equations are irrelevant? BTW, I doubt there are any real PhDs who think the "h" is capitalized.

Update 3:

Hey Dook "Trevor is a real scientist. 5 minutes of perusal through past Qs and As would make that clear to anyone with a good basic layman's understanding of science. As a non-scientist I was spared differential equations."

Yeah, it is "obvious" to you who is not a scientist that Trevor is a scientist. But it is obvious to me who actually IS a scientist that he is not.

Update 4:

Hey Dook "but it also seems clear to me that by crunching gazillions of numbers per micro second, computers can figure out math solutions by trial and error that would otherwise have only been possible by applying mathematical techniques such as differential equations.

"

What is clear to you is wrong. The way computers predict the behavior of dynamic systems is by numerically integrating differential equations. Why are you discussing things you do not understand?

Update 5:

Internet Climate Scientist: "Given that I have explained what the calculation was for and how I did it could you please show me how you would apply differential equations."

OK, here is the jist of it.

The incoming power from the Sun is R(t) f(w(t)) where R is the solar power output, and w(t) is the concentration of water vapor--the water vapor leads to cloud cover. The fubction f is not trivial. No doubt I am oversinmplifying. The outgoing energy is g( c1(t), c2(t) ...i(t)) T^4 where c1(t) etc are the concentrations various greenhouse gassesand i(t) is the degree of ice cover and T is the temperrature. The various c(t) functions are functions of the unnnatural output by Man as well as feedback effects such as ocean water warming leading to it holding less CO2. A differential equation needs to be written out for them, and it is not trivial. Likwise a non-trivial differentuial equation needs to be written for i(t). The net energy added to the Eartyh is the icoming mi

Update 6:

Pegminer: "Some people are more mathematically oriented than others, and climate scientists come in large varieties"

I am not discounting the possibility that he holds some title with the words "climate scientist". I am saying that he lacks scientific aptitude and knowledge. And while some branches of climatology might not require much involvement with differential equations, anyone with an undergraduate science degree should understand that climatology is solely governed by those types of equations.

7 Answers

Relevance
  • Koshka
    Lv 5
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Just because you are diplomatically challenged and quite arrogant does not mean that you are wrong about that.

    I read that your differential equations are several kilometres long and are resistant to phosphates, too...*cough-sough/spit-hairball*

    Source(s): Yahoo! Get Real Answers From Cartoon Characters =)
  • pegminer
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Some people are more mathematically oriented than others, and climate scientists come in large varieties. In the program I was in, I took a class in asymptotic methods for differential equations, and previously I'd taken a course in numerical weather prediction. Either way differential equations were high on the agenda, but that certainly wasn't true for everyone in the climate science program. Not everyone in climate science knows about the dynamical equations, maybe they work on the geologic record, or chemical oceanography or something else that is not terribly mathematical. It would surprise me if he really didn't understand that discretized differential equations were at the heart of climate models, but I don't doubt that he's actually a climate scientist. It's such broad field that it's difficult to encompass it all.

    Now if he were a climate dynamicist and didn't think differential equations were used that much, then that would be a problem.

  • Hey Dook
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    Trevor is a real scientist. 5 minutes of perusal through past Qs and As would make that clear to anyone with a good basic layman's understanding of science. As a non-scientist I was spared differential equations. I don't doubt that they are important in certain scientific calculations, even if Archimedes didn't use them, or submit his writings to formal peer review. I agree that T's answer to your prior question was slightly odd, as a few of his large number are from time to time, but it also seems clear to me that by crunching gazillions of numbers per micro second, computers can figure out math solutions by trial and error that would otherwise have only been possible by applying mathematical techniques such as differential equations.

    I suggest you try asking a real question about climate science, instead of trying to pick an argument with the one guy here probably knows more about climate science than almost anyone else.

  • Trevor
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    You’re making up more stuff. Show me where I denied “that differential equations have use in understanding the behavior of dynamical systems like climate.” If you fail to do so then please justify why you are lying.

    You asked “Trevor, I have a sinking feeling that you do not know what a differential equation is. Do you?”

    To which I responded “I do know what a differential equation is. I don’t particularly like them and tend to avoid using them – just as I have in this question; therefore I fail to see why your comment has any relevance. You asked how I did the calculation, I told you how I did it, if you would have done it differently then that’s perfectly OK.”

    Given that I have explained what the calculation was for and how I did it could you please show me how you would apply differential equations.

    To keep it simple you can use these data (the values are arbitrary), ignore all the other GHG’s and variables.

    CO2: GWP is fixed at 1.000. ARP = 100 years,

    CH4: GWP at 25 years is 20, at 50 years is 100 at 100 years is 50, at 200 years is 10. ARP = 20 years.

    N2O: GWP at 25 years is 10m, at 50 years is 50m at 100 years is 20m at 200 years is 10. ARP = 250 years.

    1980 atmospheric composition = 300ppmv CO2, 300ppbv CH4, 100 ppbv N2O. AGT = 14.000°C.

    2103 atmospheric composition = 400ppmv CO2, 350ppbv CH4, 105 ppbv N2O. AGT = 15.000°C.

    GHG emissions from this point on = zero.

    What will the AGT be in 10 years and in the year 2100?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I don't think there is such an animal as an internet climate scientist. There are climatologists who are degreed in climate science at the university and self proclaimed climate scientists who have degrees in other fields or no degree at all (mostly DA deniers)

    A published peer reviewed real climate scientist is one who ha published in a peer review journal. Not a news article or paper submitted to an online site.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    We don't give differential equations to the computer. We give them to the elves who live inside the computer.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Probably.

    Source(s): PHD
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.