Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Many models work, but no models work perfectly for every scenario. It's simply unrealistic to expect that we can model such a chaotic system with 100% accuracy.
That said, here's a good read on climate models and why they are efficient and useful.
Global Warming : Feature Articles |
Oh, my God. The NASA Goddard people are really off base.
As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf
THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT
These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer.
In addition, even though the report I linked above was published in July 2008, all the charts shown end in 2000. That was the year all the IPCC and NASA climate models stopped working, even with the IPCC's exaggerated data.
How can no one have ever actually looked at these models outside of Goddard, and pointed out the problems which make the results totally invalid?
