[Enchante]

Quite a man, may he R.I.P.

One thing I have wondered (without possessing the mathematical or technical knowledge to answer this):

If a change of something like 0.0001 can produce dramatic effects somewhere down the line (some of idea of the “butterfly effect” I hope) then there would seem to be enormous indeterminacies in trying to assess anything as vast and complex as the earth’s climate.

i.e., can any of the current “climate change models” come ever remotely close to representing all of the complexities of earth’s actual climate?

[Gondring]

Climate isn't the same thing as weather. While it would be impossible to determine the weather 10 years from now, the climate is a different matter...much like trying to determine the outcome of a die roll--even if you knew the physical parameters of the die and how it was falling (e.g., weight, friction, density, angle, air density, air currents, etc.), you would be unable to calculate what it would end up showing when it stopped...whereas you could quite easily predict that it would be 1:6 likely to land with a single pip face on top.

That's not to say that chaos theory (or its descendant, complexity theory) isn't relevant--it definitely is! It means that we have to develop our models with these characteristics in mind.

In any case, RIP, Dr. Lorenz.