Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
The computer models are used to figure out what is happening in real life -- the actual data is used in the models, and they compare the results of the model to both understand what factors are influencing what, and to project "what-if" scenarios.
I think you are confused on how the process works. And I'm fairly certain that you have not got as good a grasp on the myriad of factors and what the actual data is -- as they do. I certainly do not know much about the details and data.
|
Certainly, I'm not so confused as to assume that water vapor requires the presence of carbon dioxide to function as a greenhouse gas, as you and your precious computer models have stated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
But, the conclusions are there for all to see.
You say this -- where's your evidence?
|
Oddly enough, I got it off a
"climate change skeptic debunker" website that, obviously enough, supports AGW. Here's the money quote:
Quote:
|
So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. Nothing else could account for the rise in temperatures over the last century.
|
So, you selectively pick and choose historical data (solar data calculated by Richard Alley, for instance) that shows that sunspots don't do anything, then when I show papers that state otherwise, you ignore them. When you suggest that carbon dioxide and temperatures are inextricably linked, I (and others) show you graphs that state otherwise, and you ignore them, or you get videos of other AGW zealots that supposedly prove your case, or you appeal to authority.
So, why aren't these models tested against the 19th century, Neil? You love to show historical data from before the 20th century that shows no global warming, so the data must be good enough for the model. Why not plug those numbers and events into the model, and see what it spits out? We have temperature data from that time period. We have sunspot data. We have major events that could have affected climate.
The answer - you can't do it. The AGW pushers can't do it. The model can't predict that past.