Jack Goff wrote:

Of course not. But those records are woefully incomplete to enable an
accurate model to be constructed. How many weather satellites did we
have 100 years ago?

You seem to be thinking that climate is like an NPN transistor. It's
not. Think of a black box with 200 inputs and 10 outputs. We know
what the ouputs are, and can measure them. We know what most of the
inputs are, and are pretty sure about the rest. It's reasonable to
assume that there's a few that we don't know about, and may never
know. Of the inputs we understand, we've just recently identified and
have been able to measure many of them (in the climate timeline scheme
of things). We've seen that there is a huge time lag inside of this
box, sometimes years, sometimes decades. Finally, we have virtually
no control of any of the inputs, so we can't change just one and
observe the outputs. Most of the inputs are totally out of our
control, and are constantly changing. So once again, unlike your
simple circuit on the bench, the climate computer model can not be
verified against the real world.

So answer this, Rick. 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's prediction
for 94 years into the future?

Jack

While historical data is admittedly incomplete that doesn't
make it useless nor is accurate 94 year extrapolation
necessary for model utility. Obviously the methodology
differs from fields where controlled experiments are
practical, a limitation not unique to climatology.

Where I live the five day forecasts are pretty good these
days, much better than they were a decade ago.

"All models are wrong, some are useful".

-rick-