Quote:
Originally Posted by Occasionally6
Not so. One of the ways in which models are validated is to run them from an earlier point in time, with the inputs and real world outcomes known, and see if the model results match those in the real world.
No you haven't. I know that because there is no way you have the resources to do so. I know that because you acting alone are not capable of matching the collaborative efforts of thousands of scientists combined over decades.
Neither of those statements is correct. Scientific endeavour is aimed at determining the objective truth of how the physical world operates. The closer to the objective truth, the greater the consensus.
|
I have done a climate model myself, with the results posted in this thread, with nothing more than Open Office from 1000 AD to present. I started by getting as close to a match with 1000 to 1900. One of the things I learned in the process of building it is that the sun has way more influence than the climate scientists give it credit for. That being said human caused through increasing CO2 is still a significant contributor to global warming. However on many of the other climate models your lucky if it goes prior to 1880, and only once did I see one that gave any form of accuracy calculation other than mine. I have posted my graphs and sum error squared calculations on this thread, all you have to do is look for them.
Your second statement is true, but what it appears to me is with Global Warming many start with the conclusion they want, and are trying to get the data to fit the conclusion. That is true for both sides of the debate.