Reply #15: No, I read it.

[OKIsItJustMe]

Remember that paper you dismissed because it was from 2008?
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm

The scientific viewpoints expressed still hold.

Here's another bit from 2008:
http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

…

Models help illuminate the many dimensions of climate change.

Climate models are important tools for understanding how different components of the climate system operate today, how they may have functioned differently in the past, and how the climate might evolve in the future in response to forcings from both natural processes and human activities. Climate models use mathematical equations to represent the climate system, first modeling each system component separately and then linking them together to simulate the full Earth system. These models are run on advanced supercomputers.

Since the late 1960s, when climate models were pioneered, their accuracy has increased as computing power and our understanding of the climate system have improved. Improving Effectiveness of U.S. Climate Modeling (2001) offered several recommendations for strengthening climate modeling capabilities in the United States. The report identified a shortfall in computing facilities and highly skilled technical workers devoted to climate modeling as two important problems. Several of the report’s recommendations have been adopted since it was published, but concerns remain about whether the United States is training enough people to work on climate change issues.

…

I think what you’re having trouble with is that you expect these climate models to be 100% accurate in the short term. That’s actually a pretty tall order. Believe it or not, the longer term is easier to predict.

For example, let‘s play with a pair of dice. I tell you, the odds are best you will roll a seven. You roll the dice, and they come up five. “Hah!” you say, “shows how much you know…” OK, so roll them 100 times, and let’s see what your results are.


You point to the models and say, “in the last few years, they went the wrong way! (shows how much those scientists know!)” Then, you wave your hand and dismiss all models, because these models aren’t as accurate as you would like in the short term.

So, tell me, how would you suggest we predict the future climate? Should we use chicken bones or some other form of divination? Or should we just wait a century and see what happens?