Flying Tadpole wrote:

Martin Baxter wrote:

Well things do change, Galileo was eventually proved correct (more or
less):

"The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global
cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus
that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the
tools scientists have at their disposal now—vastly more data,
incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated
mathematical models—render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the
predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph
of communism."
Cheers
Marty


Which is a longer-winded way of saying "of course we have lotsa big
computers now, so that's all right, and the
predictions must therefore be much more reliable and accurate." To
which I add "GIGO" because, quite simply, the modelling is a multiple
generation extrapolation (model based on model output based on model
output) using a simply inadequate data base. Too short a time scale
with reliable data.

Agree that the predictive models are not at all reliable. It's what's
called a "stiff" problem - small changes in input values produce large
changes in output. Weather is that way, and will probably always be
that way.

It's like trying to predict the exact path of a superball bouncing down
a ten story stairwell. Sorry, but the biggest computers in the world
and all the sophisticated models won't produce much in the way of
predictive accuracy. Anybody who tries to tell you that they can
exactly predict the path is putting you on.

That said, you can bet your sweet ass that if you give the ball a little
shove it's going to go down, not stay where it is.

The earth's getting warmer. There is no real debate about that. You can
argue "why", if you like, but the data are in. And I think we both
agree that predicting exactly what is going to happen as a result of the
elevated temperatures is tenuous at best.

//Walt