[Zeno]

Good points Adios.

[ QUOTE ]
Errors can accumulate rapidly. Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):


[/ QUOTE ]


First some of the parameters listed are well known and/or constants (earth's wobble, solar flux, gravitational constant). Second there are reasonable estimates for many of the other parameters listed.

That said I made a post years ago when first debating about human influence on global climate change and I was skeptical on some of the model-based predictions and still am. I have used models myself for prediction and know full well the problems and complexities that are encountered. The numerous state parameters for each system can be complicated and errors that can creep in and then be multiplied by iterations can be problematical, but that is well known by all and adjustments can compensate for some of this. But if you look at most peer-reviewed published reports or papers error bars are included, limits circumscribed, assumptions presented, and plus or minus temperatures given etc. If you read the raw papers without the intermediary of the press, which is notorious bad for science reporting, or government agencies or institutions that synthesize badly, or the numerous political agenda organizations; you will get a much better picture of what is really going on as far as research and data figures.

But allowing for all the above, predictive models using computers are not just extremely useful, they are reasonably accurate to a degree that most still misunderstand or misinterpret.

In addition, much data gathering and the conclusions reached that turns out to be good evidence for human influence on climate is not model based.

Skepicism is good but too much skepicism on which others are expert can prove unwise. Sometimes you have to rely on the experts, however uncomforable that personnally makes you feel.

-Zeno