[Phil153]

How do these models work? Do you have a quick primer? How accurately are they accounting for things like temperature induced cloud type changes? I did oceanography and meteorology for two semesters but I'm not up to date with what they use today.

Also, how much gaming is there?

[ QUOTE ]
short term noise like Pinatubo, a strong El Nino, etc. This noise was accounted for but obviously there are time differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there any "gaming" in the models to account for this? For example, if the earth was blanketed in aerosols/sun blocking particles in the 60s, how are the models accounting for this?

The other concern I have is that they may be using the data that suggested the model to verify the model. Feynman had something to say about that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

BTW I think anyone who denies the greater than 90% likelihood of human caused global warming is ignorant. I'm just interested in the response.

@ adios:
[ 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 ]
These are two different things. Short term forecasts are for the presence of local clouds/rain and local temperature. Climate change forecasts are for the temperature of the whole system given x input of sunlight and y concentration of heat trapping gas (basic physics). Because the system is effectively isolated, you can make pretty solid predictions on its state given various inputs. The only complications are the feedbacks present in the system, which may either mitigate or amplify the effects.

A simple analogy is turbulent water in a pipe. It's impossible to predict the pattern of water flow at any particular point for a reasonable length of time, but looking at whole system, you can tell where it's flowing.