Technical milestone reached: global earth system simulations with 1.2 km resoln

Pointing out that your thinking exhibits a distinct lack of understanding what you are talking about is not an ad hominem, it's a relevant statement of fact.

And your second paragraph is amply demonstrating this. I pointed out the physical implications of encoding your femtometer cubes at atomic scale. Nothing more. Encoding the Library of Congress has nothing to do with that. You are proposing to simulate at subatomic scale so obviously encoding it into atoms will make the simulation larger than the object similated.

To engage with your argument directly: You have none. All you repeat is that the past has seen technological breakthroughs, therefore the specific fantasy you propose makes sense. Non sequitur. That some breakthroughs have happened doesn't mean that any random breakthrough will happen. And your ideas are pushing hard against the limits of physics.

> Pointing out that your thinking exhibits

Incorrect. Any statement concerning the arguer and ignoring their argument is ad hominem and fallacious argument.

> And your second paragraph is amply demonstrating this.

Incorrect and a tu quoque argument. I did not address you, personally, but only your argument, and if my use of "you" is confusing, it is the royal you, "you all," and I may as well have used "we."

> I pointed out the physical implications of encoding your femtometer cubes at atomic scale.

Using current understanding of how it would have to be done and in denial that it might ever possibly be done more efficiently in the future.

> Nothing more.

>>> I think Maursault has thoroughly demonstrated their lack of serious thought

other than this ad hominem.

> You are proposing to simulate at subatomic scale so obviously encoding it into atoms will make the simulation larger than the object similated.

and this straw man

> To engage with your argument directly: You have none.

but wait while you prove yourself wrong,

> All you repeat is that the past has seen technological breakthroughs,

Yes, my argument is that technology advances, and since it has always done so, my crazy idea is that it will keep on doing so. Though it is possible technology has stopped advancing, I think it is unlikely.

> therefore the specific fantasy you propose makes sense. Non sequitur.

The specific fantasy is your straw man, and I drew no conclusions, those are yours. Frankly, my first comment was a joke and not meant to be taken literally, and I only intended to argue against someone else's idea that increasing simulation resolution is not the future of weather modeling, and you're not the only one that got tripped up by my use of femtometer. Regardless, I still see it as possible territory, and anyone else not being able to conceive of how does not mean it is impossible, only that we can't conceive it, just like Bill Gates, not a stupid man, was unable to conceive of anyone needing more than 64KB of RAM, so you also are unable to conceive of how something that would require incredible, inconceivable advances in technology to achieve, and yet, within the next 5 years modern medicine will advance further than it has in all the years before, that's just how it is, and students of the history of technology know this the same way you know how many femtometers there are in silicon's lattice spacing. What you seem to be unable to do is understand there are things we don't understand, and in physics, a good example of this is dark matter, which for some reason we haven't figured out a way to detect it, and it is so similar to the luminiferous ether in this regard, that only students of the history of science suspect that it might be bullshit, while every scientific mind is convinced it exists, just like the luminiferous ether in 1886.

> That some breakthroughs have happened doesn't mean that any random breakthrough will happen. And your ideas are pushing hard against the limits of physics.

As far as you or anyone else knows, today. But we don't know the future, and we never have. This is not my proof that this will occur, only that we don't know.

Most of what they do in the Climate simulation arena uses fortran, this case not being an exception, reason being other language would be less efficient --- and thus more climate endangering emissions would be produced. Plotting and data wrangling is another story.

Are numbers not objects? Is scientific notation not a way of expressing numbers that are too large or too small to be conceived or expressed in decimal form? Does a large database keep every object and every bit of data stored in it in RAM? How is it possible a fractal can be rendered in parts of the whole? Even older computers ordinarily can operate on 2^140 objects.

      user@decadeoldcomputer:~$ echo 2^140 |bc
      1393796574908163946345982392040522594123776

Maybe try to ignore who is saying what, and focus only on what was said.

How do you know they would lose a significant margin with Julia?