Comments Al Tekhasski has made

if you look at those particles over a long period

Excellent point! If you DO NOT look long enough at the smoke from a candle, it will surprise you. So, the real question is: for how long do you need to "look" at the smoke, or better, make measurements of its position, distribution, density, and temperature (remember, we are talking about a model with about 1% accuracy, about 3K over 288K)? An obvious answer is that you need to look at it until the smoke passes through most of its statistically possible shapes. Therefore, for the problem at hand, climate change, you need to "look" at it at least for a couple of glaciations and deglaciations, and have all measurements (including historical data about cloud cover with 1% accuracy). When you will have all these data handy, then we can talk about fitting them into a model of average weather, and predict averages for the next turn of global climate change. Until then, sorry. On 'Chaotic systems are not predictable'--Sure, but who says climate is chaotic? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses