[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.
[/ QUOTE ]
Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.
[/ QUOTE ]
No it doesn't, that's just plain wrong. As others have pointed out the models better fit past data. That doesn't say a thing about their predictive value.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well in the past they knew the exact date and time that certain volcanoes exploded. And as I explained before deviations in the predictions can be attributed to short term noise like Pinatubo, a strong El Nino, etc. This noise was accounted for but obviously there are time differences. Knowing exactly when and where the short term noise hits will ALWAYS make the past reconstructions more accurate than the future predictions. This would be true even if God himself came down and endorsed the models as being 100% correct.
Your statement of: "doesn't say a thing about their predictive value" is rather strong. I would understand your statement if the model was statistical but it's not. I would understand if you said it was "incomplete" but you didn't.