Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I haven't met him in person, but I've read a paper of his and a couple of things he's written elsewhere. And the most polite thing I can say about them is that they are underwhelming.

That doesn't prevent him from being a nice guy otherwise, or even competent in his own branch of physics, but in any discussion of global warming, he's a major red flag.

I don't have any thoughts about stochastic vs. deterministic models in the current context, because I haven't read up sufficiently on precisely how those terms are used in the context of climate modelling. But assuming that they mean roughly what they usually mean in statistical physics, I would suspect that any model of geoclimate would have elements that could be called deterministic and elements that could be called stochastic (and elements that could be called deterministic but chaotic).

Some parts of GCM can be constructed ab initio from elements that I would call deterministic (such as the zeroth-order effect of a solar and GHG forcing), some parts will use approximations that can be either deterministic or what I would call stochastic (cloud formation and precipitation will probably fall into the latter category), parts will be mainly empirical (some feedback mechanisms) and parts will be WAGs.

Overall, the current models are deterministic and what I would call quasichaotic. And the results they produce are pretty convincing.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jul 31st, 2008 at 10:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series