presumably all this science is incorporated into their climate models

I still see Bryce Johnson being absolutely correct in his formulation about why CO2 can't possibly raise temps by more than 0.5C in a "doubling" situation.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/2...

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/201...

Models fail because everything is not incorporated into them. No model is ever perfect. For example, what was not included in many models of global temperature were things such as the PDO and it's causes and other effects. I have stated in here before that energy does not just disappear. If it enters the system and does not exit it then it still exists within the system. If ocean currents actively take the water to greater depths and bring colder water to the surface, via the PDO, then that warmer water won't be there to warm the atmosphere. This does not mean the energy has miraculously disappeared. It just means it has been redistributed and climate models need to incorporate this into them to get realistic temperature predictions. Some of the past do not as we have only been aware of the PDO for a few decades. Some models do incorporate the PDO into them however. These models have a more realistic temperature trend since the PDO went negative.

Once the PDO becomes positive again for a longer period than a few months is when we will be able to get a clearer picture of what is going on. Basing your statements on models that do not incorporate the PDO into them is foolish as that energy is still within the system and when that oscillatory cycle comes full circle is when that energy rises to the surface.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections...

In my opinion, their models are not failing because they do not have enough information in them, but because they have too much. They are failing to keep with the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle.

If you give me enough variables, I can nearly perfectly model the past. You give me a few more, and not only can I models the past, but I can make the future look any way I want it to look.

And I am not talking about giving variables that should help in prediction. I am talking about variables like the price of rice in china to find the future amount of warming. The missing heat is not hiding in chinese rice, but I can model that it does. This does not mean that my model will work for future predictions. This is why, the true test of a model is its ability to predict. No model is correct, some models are useful. Their usefulness is determined by their ability to predict. Therefore no one shoudl claim a model is correct prior to testing its predictive ability.

And back to the overparameterization problem. If I can very accurately model the past with only a few variables, then I have MUCH more confidence in my model, then if I have many variables. This is not just true of me, but every statistician I have ever met.

Theoretically, their ideology is sound. You account for all forms of energy and you should be able to balance the enrgy equation and predict changes. Unfortunately, in practice they are nowhere near even knowing all of the sources of energy in their energy equations, let alone being able to measure them with the required certainty. So if you have +-1% on this variable, and +-2% on this variable and you place these into a model all of the sudden your uncertainty becomes huge. Not to mention the uncertianty for the possible variables you left out.

Their theoretical ideology of simply adding variables until you can fully model the future is incorrect or at least not possible now. At the very least, you need to be able to have very accurate measures for each variable to keep the uncertainty down.

This is why, I only needed to look at the error bounds they placed on their predictions to know they were wrong.

This is just a con game meant to scare the average Joe Blow. These do nothing accomplish nothing scientists get a degree and know nothing so they go into climate change because that is where the money is for incompetent scientists.

Quote by Nobel Prize Winner For Chemistry, Kary Mullis: “Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple.

Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”

Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”

So the 'significant science' that you see today is completely different than the science of yesteryear. Previously, scientists took pride in accomplishing or perfecting something that benefitted mankind. Today the 'significant science' undoes that. It takes the achievement of the Ottocycle and turns into a bane for society. It produces nothing but negative emotions. In my younger years we called that psychology, a totally different branch of science. Facts and data mean nothing to this new generation of scientists. It is more like, "What can we scare the masses with thoday?"

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

These modern day scientists apparently don't know long established and real productive scientific procedures. Today they take a conclusion and work back from there. Real scientists don't come to a conclusion until all known facts are in and even then there is a doubt.

It is mostly about a bunch of people who desperately want to show they know more than they do and all they end up doing is demonstrating their true ignorance. The reason they are desperate to show they know more is to continue funding research and some use it for political purposes and the really stupid ones actually believe their own snake oil sales pitch.

no

models aren't needed at all