On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:38:28 -0700, -rick- wrote:

Black Dog wrote:

It bothers me that people who are refered to as "scientists" (I don't
know if they call themselves that) treat the results of modelling
experiments like they were real data.

That's not at all accurate in my experience. Having spent
most of a career designing circuits by simulation I can
assure you it is obvious that simulations are only as good
as the associated models. Models are developed and
qualified by comparing their behavior to actual
measurements. There is even an old saying that serves as a
warning "simulation is a lot like masturbation, if you do it
enough it starts to feel like the real thing."

-rick-

If by "circuits" you mean electronic circuits, that's a whole
different kettle of fish. Electronic circuit simulators are a
well-developed, fairly mature technology. Even RF circuits can be
modeled fairly accurately. These simulators have the advantage that
you point out... "Models are developed and qualified by comparing
their behavior to actual measurements."

Simulating and modeling climate change 94 years in the future does not
have that advantage. Scientist have no test climate that they can
introduce variables into, and no time machine to travel 94 years into
the future to measure the results. Therefore, unlike your circuit
simulator, there is no way to check the output of their climate
simulator against real-world results to verify its accuracy.

As previously discussed, weather models can't tell us with any decent
accuracy what it will be like in 5 days. Are you really telling me
that you believe a climate model for 94 years into the future?

Jack