Why Chaos Supercomputer global warming models are not accurate yet precise

 Amazingly I posted the below response to some dude who refuses to incorporate any nonlinear predictions into his personal global warming analysis. Instead he is just waiting for next years temperature levels. haha. And so after I posted the below I then searched the topic I was writing on - supercomputers chaos global warming. I got this lecture by https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/tim-palmer-climate-change-chaos-and-inexact-computing an Oxford physics professor.

Amazingly he says the SAME thing that I was talking about - even focusing on the difference between accuracy and precision, as I stated.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang3 hours ago

You have a skeptic "off the shelf" reproductive technology approach to science that is based on what I call "Mall Science" where the boy is at the mall whining to his mom to get him the latest sweatshop produce slave wage fancy item that is standardized and flashy. It's not the temperature trend but rather it is the rate of the temperature trend that is the issue. I just posted how the prediction of the albedo effect of tropical storms shifting to the poles as a force multiplier is based on chaos supercomputer iterations. 

That means, to refer to chaos mathematician Steve Strogatz, that the science is no longer based on deductive reasoning. Rather the supercomputers actually create the deductive modeling due to the inherent unpredictable results of the iterations. So at this point with the supercomputer chaos models being in charge of the science - that means the only issue is precision and not accuracy. Accuracy in science was wrong from the start (meaning since Plato, Archytas and Eudoxus) due to the wrong math. Chaos math, as number theory demonstrates, simply means that as irrational numbers have their right-hand side digits revealed in the decimal iterations over time then the results resonate with nonlinear feedback that is inherently unpredictable. 

That's why it's impossible to forecast the weather over 10 days out. So the problem is that public policy has to be based on predicting the future in order to - as a hyperbole - change the present. It's just like turning a car wheel - you have to turn the opposite direction to the extreme - in order to straight the car out back from the opposite extreme that it is sliding. And so basically Western civilization as a whole - due to the wrong logarithmic, exponential math, has being sliding into the crevasse of Hell. Some people will freak out if you try to turn the car wheel to the opposite direction. They will go out - to no end - screaming bloody murder that you're going to kill everyone if you turn that car wheel in the opposite direction. When in fact the problem is that the car is sliding off in the other direction and the person is just freaking out in general, thereby stopping anyone from fixing the problem. It's mass insanity. So you are whining about scientists making dire predictions that are not based on real time results that you see in present data reports. 

But that is the whole point - by the time the present data results are in - then the effects due to nonlinear feedback will already be too late. And even worse - chaos science is still based on logistic symmetric math equations - despite the math being irrational and inherently authoritarian. And even though these chaos predictions can be made - since the supercomputers are in control - then humans don't care since we live under the illusion of left-brain linear time analysis as supposed "real time" present accuracy. It's not accurate and it never has been. As Slavoj Zizek said, the ecological crisis is causing the "collapse of the Big Other." That's just fancy Lacanian psychology - even he doesn't realize the implications of the crisis. 

The solution is noncommutative phase geometry - as macroquantum resonance. This is the realm of quantum biology - but that is an ontological solution as it can not be reproduced as "off the shelf" standardized technology. Quantum physics is the foundation of reality as science now - and in fact, as quantum biology shows - it is macroquantum resonance that is key. Not chaos resonance.


...............................................................

If what you say if true than obviously the Perimeter Institute lecture is wrong, since I predicted exactly what the man said in that lecture. To be honest I was shocked. I watched the lecture and amazingly he says the same thing I said to you. The only book I read that discussed supercomputers and global warming was "The Environmental Endgame" by professor Robert Nadeau - and that was ten years ago - 2006. But I have studied chaos math a lot - from Steve Strogatz. I've even corresponded with him once. Tim Palmer | University of Oxford Department of Physicshttps://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/palmerTim Palmer. Royal Society Research Professor. Tim.Palmer@physics.ox.ac.uk. I am a Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, and interested in the predictability and dynamics of weather and climate. For further information please see the Predictability Group pages. I'm sorry what's your qualifications again?

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang1 second ago

To quote Tim Palmer at 34 minutes - "those thunderstorms carrying heat from the tropics" are "too small" to be modeled by supercomputer. "Nevertheless because they play such an important role in the climate system we have to do something." We can't solve the equation "accurately" to represent all that is going on in the climate. See that is EXACTLY what I'm saying - the supercomputers are not even accurate. They are precise. But supercomputers don't care whether human civilization survives or not.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang1 second ago

"the fate of humanity depends on how clouds will respond to our CO2 emissions. It is kind of frustrating that we don't know the answer." 43 mn.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang1 second ago

So his answer is to use randomness or stochastic indeterminacy at the scale that he wants to be accurate. He says this is "slightly oxymoronic" - "if you reduce the precision you can increase the accuracy" into the "cloud scales that are so important." But can we really? will stochastic indeterminacy really be able to predict what is going on at the "cloud scale."? He calls it "nondeterminism" - as Steve Strogatz states - the computers are in control and it's inherently authoritarian.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang1 second ago

So then Tim Palmer claims that human consciousness is ALSO based on random indeterminacy!! No - he's wrong. That's still a classical logistic model. Human consciousness and the foundation of reality is quantum coherence - not randomness. Tim Palmer obviously has not read "Life on the Edge" the new quantum biology book by professor JOhnJoe McFadden. So Tim Palmer is justifying his model by saying since we humans are random computers therefore we need random computers to solve global warming. Hilarious.

voidisyinyang voidisyinyang1 second ago

He says maybe our human consciousness is even "quantum decoherence" - but again that assumes the Poisson Bracket as a classical symmetric math conversion of Schrodinger's equation. Schrodinger got his wave function from de Broglie who realized the true foundation of reality. But the relativistic equation of de Broglie was ignored after Schrodinger expanded the wave function - and so the noncommutative math was covered up. In fact de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony is the accurate model of reality - not some "quantum decoherence" of the non-relativistic wave function based on symmetric math.