Replies

It needs to be mentioned here that the big computer models are very expensive to run. Little computer models aren't much use these days. Big computer models are totally non-political and also non-agenda-driven.

As much as I wish you were right, you are not. There are about a dozen big computer models that run and all of them give quite different results. They are full of way too many assumptions and they are worst case assumptions. The modellers are not modelling facts, but are modelling the assumption of global warming, and they all put too much weight on the assumption that most all warming is due to man-made CO2. We are not even close to understanding the global system to really model it, so even if everything else I said was false (which it isn't) the models would not be dependable enough to predict anything. The modellers readily admit there are gapping holes in the models are they are too many facts we really don't know. But yet 'scientist' quote these models as if they are fact and use the models to prove stuff. It is really bizzaar from a scientific standpoint.

When I used to do this, the models were relatively simple. The earth was little more than blocks representing continents and oceans, there were 7 differential equations representing the atmosphere and you could vary insolation, speed of rotation, various factors. A lot of the complexity now is the earth model itself. The continents aren't simple blocks anymore, but have mountains and other elevations, thermal absorptivity that varies from point to point, and there are a lot of points, and inputs of localized heat sources and I suppose chemicals. And then there were 200 weather stations around the world with any kind of coherent data; now weather satellites dump incomprehensible amounts of data into your model. Todays's models are nearly infinitely more detailed, and I don't believe that including CO₂ in the model is a political choice.

All the same, we shouldn't be moving from computer models to legislation so quickly. We still know next to nothing.

The modellers are not modelling facts, but are modelling the assumption of global warming, and they all put too much weight on the assumption that most all warming is due to man-made CO2.

As regards the representation of solar irradiation data into such models.

Conclusions of the Workshop on Ion--Aerosol--Cloud Interactions,
CERN, 18--20 April 2001
A.W. Wolfendale

http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2001/2001-007/p249.pdf

In the case of the current global warming, there is increasing agreement that the climate model fits to the temperature record need to amplify the solar contribution by about a factor 3. The presently-assumed solar contribution is only from the (Lean et al., 1995) direct irradiance changes. An additional, indirect, solar contribution could either decrease or increase the projections of the anthropogenic effects. (The latter possibility arises since an increased solar attribution during the last century could indicate a steeper anthropogenic rise in recent decades.)
The satellite data analysis presented at the workshop by Svensmark indicates a solar cycle correlation with low cloud cover, suggesting that the solar-climate mechanism may involve clouds. Again, at this stage both electromagnetic radiation and GCRs remain as candidates. This may provide the first clue to the long-sought amplification mechanism linking solar and climate variability. However the underlying processes may involve subtleties since the observed solar correlation is confined to low clouds, and the global correlation map of low cloud cover shows no preference for high geomagnetic latitudes - both of which appear to be counter-intuitive at first sight.
Vote: The distribution of votes on the question "Does cosmic ray ionization play a role in the climate?" was equally divided between "?" and "Yes", with zero votes for "No". This implies that there are reasonable indications that cosmic rays have the potential to affect the climate but that the question of whether they are significant is far from settled.

As I have stated before: A model can only reflect the apriori postulates of its programmers. If any physical processes are not adequately characterized in a model, all outputs are in question.