From circle model, square model, until
unpredictable model like follow the configuration of that stone.
Not exact matches
These movements are
unpredictable and hence not easily susceptible to being represented in terms of a neat rhythmic
model like the swinging of a clock pendulum.
Real climates are
like particles of dust — they move from forcing, but exact paths are inherently
unpredictable — hence
models will always be wrong.
Much of climate
modeling is more
like modeling the offsetting effects of lightbulbs and open freezer doors than it is
like modeling systems in which everything affects everything else in an
unpredictable way.
Moreover, application demonstrates that large - scale synthetic «climatic» fluctuations (
like upward or downward trends) can emerge without any specific reason and their evolution is
unpredictable, even when they are generated by this simple fully deterministic
model with only two degrees of freedom.
Until
models start predicting
unpredictables like volcano activity, forest fires, and all of those other factors that tend to put significant pressure on the temperature trend, I'm thinking it's a waste of time to play statistical hide - and - seek on them over the short run.
This allows the appropriate cost benefit analysis (maybe this is getting to far into politics) that should be significantly more useful for the main debate than these temperature predictions that we have and takes many
unpredictable factors out of the equation and if we have a full chain of logic it should be easier to find — because time as opposed to amount of carbon related
models leave you asking questions
like «what will happen to technology»
While the process of learning the truth has some overlap with Kubler - Ross this
model identifies how the process of integrating new information, with an person's belief system, can have some
unpredictable wave -
like emotionally intensities associated with it.