The model data as I understand it is input in to what is essentially a weather forecasting engine, since it solves the same equations. The area involved is much greater and the resolution more coarse. The current state of weather forecasting I have heard is that it is generally believe to be impossible to forecast more than two weeks ahead. This is because the weather is a chaotic (non-linear) system. That means that the assumptions, that is the parameters in the model pretty much guarantee a particular outcome. The reality is that there is no set of parameters which I have ever heard of that can correctly predict what has happened in the past on a basis that continues to work past the point for which the parameters were set.
That is not my understanding. You are correct that it's very hard to predict the weather on a particular date far in advance because the weather is chaotic and can vary so much from day-to-day. However, predicting the climate is more akin to predicting the
average weather - and that is a very different - and arguably much simpler problem. And will certainly not involve all the same equations. It's a bit like: You may be able to predict that the average temperature in February in a certain location will be between 1C and 5C, even though you can't predict what the weather will be at 4pm on 16th February at that location.
In essence, that says to me, that the models do not actually work.
The trouble is, when you say that, what you're essentially saying is that climate scientists don't know how to do their jobs. And that's a pretty huge statement to make (Imagine if I came on railforums and, as a non-train-driver, I accused most train drivers of not being able to do their jobs. Can you imagine what the reaction would be! But that's the equivalent of what you're doing).
I myself worked in physics research for some time (so not a climate science specialist, though I did have some contact with climate scientists) so I have some first-hand knowledge of how science works. And a key thing is that, in academic science, there is a huge kudos associated with being able to find a flaw in existing theories or in someone else's published work - precisely because that's one of the main ways that science advances. So you have thousands of scientists, all of whom have some personal interest in being able to spot flaws in established climate science. You can be pretty certain that, in that situation, if there was a problem with the models not working, it would get noticed and acted on pretty quickly. The fact that the overwhelming consensus amongst climate scientists remains that the models are good therefore amounts to
extremely good evidence that the models are in fact pretty good.
There is still the basic Physics that tells us of warming by greenhouse gases but there is much dispute about the sensitivity to that concentration by scientists that are not cranks, although they may be inconvenient - such as Judith Curry.
Yes those people exist, but they remain in a tiny minority. I would say that, really, unless you are a climate scientist and therefore are in a position to independently evaluate what each individual is saying, the responsible position to take is to assume that the majority opinion is probably correct.
The main IPCC reports are written by civil servants who summarise what scientists have said to meet political objectives. So you need to read the detail of the science reports, which are encyclopaedic and often conflicting between the groups, and not the headlines.
That report that said that 97% of Scientists believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change has been demonstrated to be an engineered result that should be disregarded. The evidence is out there to be found, but if your confirmation bias troubles you don't bother looking - or berating me about it either.
Well, firstly, I'm well aware of the problem of politicians or civil servants who don't understand science writing reports. That's why I take my information about climate science from well respected scientific institutions - such as the Royal Society. As far as I can tell, IPCC etc. reports, do not significantly conflict with what scientific bodies are saying. Secondly, I have looked atr climate sceptic sites - in response to previous discussions. I have yet to find any climate-sceptic site that shows understanding of science or of how science works. To some extent this comes from looking at those sites with my background as an ex-physics researcher, and it is somewhat hard to explain this... but whenever I've looked at those sites, it's very obvious to me that they are making basic scientific errors and often using conspiracy theory or emotive language in a way that is not scientific and would not be done by trained scientists - but in a way that most laymen would probably not be able to spot. Based on all that experience, I simply do not believe you that the evidence is to be found: Simply because all my experience is that sites that claim this evidence is there are invariably sites that distort or misrepresent science.
