4 thoughts on “On Boundary Conditions And Initial Values”

  1. The problem with so many computer simulations is the gross simplifications and course resolution employed to render the problem computable. It’s very common for fluid dynamics simulations, and climate models in particular, for the model on the computer to fall far short of the understood theory.

  2. My experience in computational physics is that boundary conditions are often juggled, rightly or wrongly, to get the answer you were already looking for – meaning real world data. The subsequent results allow some introspection into the processes, but it’s not a good formalism for predictive purposes.

  3. That was a good read.

    I find literally incredible the notion that we have either the understanding of the physical interactions or the computer power to predict future climate with any useful confidence.

    When the science for AGW alarmism falls apart, which happens constantly, the ultimate response will be that science doesn’t matter because adopting these magic policies is the right thing to do anyway.

    Judith Curry is doing amazing work examining things from a rational perspective but the global warming movement has never been motivated by science or rational thought. Don’t get me wrong, some people think they are motivated by science and rational thought. Its just that they really aren’t and are not self aware enough to know.

    What we need is an cultural anthropological analysis that deconstructs the movement based on human nature and past examples of human behavior and means of organizing cultures. That would tell us more about AGW alarmists than trying to plumb the depths of nature, which is a worthy endeavor but we’ve been at it for hundreds of thousands of years and if you think we will get enough answers in our lifetime, then I would suggest an irrational belief in the divinity of man.

Comments are closed.