Then decided to comment. Notice the accusations against me from an amature scientist. This is why they will forever lose the argument
.
-
DJ FergalR • an hour ago
Models are used for several things. One is to help us understand and challenge observations. It's true in bridge engineering, disease epidemiology, soil hydrology and - would you believe it - in climate science. If it's crap explain why.
The difference in the aforementioned models such as Bridge building and hydrology models are repeatable and testable, climate change models are not. For example TR-55 Hydrology modeling has been tested with repeatable results, climate change models have not.
DJ Equus Pallidus • an hour ago
Actually, no. Numerical soil hydrological models tend to be based on semi-empirical models using transfer functions. In other words they are statistical with an underpinning in theory - like aggregate climate models.
Equus Pallidus DJ • an hour ago
Actually yes, TR-55 was based on scientific experiments involving soil type, vegetation, channel length, drainage area, slope/ground contour. Tested and retested with measurable accurate results with +/- margins of error, climate models have not because of the time/experiment factor. They are not comparable and to say that they are either shows you don't know what you are talking about are you are fudging.
DJ Equus Pallidus • an hour ago
No Equus. But your Googling is impressive.
Equus Pallidus DJ • 40 minutes ago
No, it was my professional experience (24 years) of the engineering and design of waterways, dams, diversions and soil conservation. What are your credentials?
foxoles Equus Pallidus • an hour ago
Or, judging by his other replies, probably both.
Why don't you put my replies in google and search where I copied and pasted anything. It is you who has been exposed. You ran across the wrong guy today. So continue with your lies about me
DJ Equus Pallidus • 30 minutes ago
Shot the wrong guy - Google skills rather better than your aim.
Equus Pallidus DJ • 26 minutes ago
Take up my challenge, and put my replies in Google, you won't find them. Now again what are your credentials? I told you mine.
DJ Equus Pallidus • 16 minutes ago
You seem to be arguing from authority. I thought that was taboo? Or is it the expertise of climate scientists (you know - the people who passed exams and stuff) which can be so casually dismiss?
Equus Pallidus DJ • 11 minutes ago
In other words you have no credentials or experience or fail to show them. I am arguing from experience as in engineering, running Hydrology models. There is no argument among scientists that hydrology modeling works because it has been tested, there is much arguing on the accuracy of climate modeling among scientist.
DJ • 3 minutes ago
Yes, you are right. I have no credentials or experience or I fail to show them.
I repeat - Numerical soil hydrological models tend to be based on semi-empirical models using transfer functions. In other words they are statistical with an underpinning in theory - like aggregate climate models.
The difference between debates about soil hydrological models and climate models is not so great. In both cases certain approaches have adherents but the general intention to model more accurately (within the limits of computing power) is the same across the disciplines and improvements are adopted.
Hydrology modeling is not based on semi-empirical models. It is based on actual experiment and observation.
