Yes, climatology and astrophysics are close cousins, as I already pointed out ;-)
They also have in common a close dependence on models: the astrophysical stellar models (for which the reported study is useful input) are very good (and were already in the 1970s when I studied this): they reproduce in detail the colour-magnitude diagrams of star clusters of different ages and "populations" (basically, the "metal enrichment degree of the galactic medium from which they formed).
Unfortunately, while astrophysics has many thousands of different objects of study, climatology only has a handful: besides the current Earth, we have Mars, Venus, Titan, and we might count also some prehistoric Earth states as different.
Well we're all one big happy family as we use a lot of models in health physics (how radioactive contaminants move in environmental media, in the body, etc.).
Yes, climatology and astrophysics are close cousins, as I already pointed out ;-)
ReplyDeleteThey also have in common a close dependence on models: the astrophysical stellar models (for which the reported study is useful input) are very good (and were already in the 1970s when I studied this): they reproduce in detail the colour-magnitude diagrams of star clusters of different ages and "populations" (basically, the "metal enrichment degree of the galactic medium from which they formed).
Unfortunately, while astrophysics has many thousands of different objects of study, climatology only has a handful: besides the current Earth, we have Mars, Venus, Titan, and we might count also some prehistoric Earth states as different.
Well we're all one big happy family as we use a lot of models in health physics (how radioactive contaminants move in environmental media, in the body, etc.).
DeleteKate Upton may be my favorite model, though!
Yep, that model looks great, but the correspondence with reality...?!
ReplyDelete