Flooding in the Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale areas is nothing new.
Edward Lorenz, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is the official discoverer of chaos theory. He first observed the phenomenon as early as 1961 and, as a matter of irony, he discovered by chance what would be called later the chaos theory, in 1963,18 while making calculations with uncontrolled approximations aiming at predicting the weather. The anecdote is of interest: making the same calculation rounding with 3-digit rather than 6-digit numbers did not provide the same solutions; indeed, in nonlinear systems, multiplications during iterative processes amplify differences in an exponential manner. By the way, this occurs when using computers, due to the limitation of these machines which truncate numbers, and therefore the accuracy of calculations.
Lorenz considered, as did many mathematicians of his time, that a small variation at the start of a calculation would Induce a small difference In the result, of the order of magnitude of the initial variation. This was obviously not the case, and all scientists are now familiar with this fact. In order to explain how important sensitivity the to initial conditions was, Philip Merilees, the meteorologist who organized the 1972 conference session where Lorenz presented his result, chose himself the title of Lorenz's talk, a title that became famous: “Predictability: does the flap of a butterfly's wing in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?” 19 This title has been cited and modified in many articles, as humorously reviewed by Nicolas Witkowski.20 Lorenz had rediscovered the chaotic behavior of a nonlinear system, that of the weather, but the term chaos theory was only later given to the phenomenon by the mathematician James A. Yorke, in 1975.21 Lorenz also gave a graphic description of his findings using his computer. The figure that appeared was his second discovery: the attractors.
Climate is not a chaotic system,
1961? You gotta be kidding! FYI, this is 2015.
As I stated true believers need to be believers.
OK, Now I'm really confused. Are we actually talking about faith-based science??? That could be a lot of fun or a hell on earth.
You mean "in spite of overwhelming evidence", i suppose.
Instead of argument about methodological shortcoming, blanket statements are made regarding the infeasability of studying the subject at hand (or other equally invalid positions). The discussants are attacked, personally. Entire fields of study have rocks thrown at them by people whose only expertise in the field is having read about the field for a few hours on the web, and then pretend to be expert, themselves. Don't you agree?
you believe something, and we believe something else. Stop the obfuscation already.
The title of this thread does not in fact had the word climate change or climate theories or computer modeling of climate in the title it instant just have the title "Assault on Science"
That's not "doom", it's just a climate becoming progressively more hostile to humans.