CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[TimG]

My repeated citing of the prevailing formal Mann et al, 08/09 text/reference from PNAS is not an argument from authority - it's simply an acknowledgment to the formalized accounts of record.

So what? I have gone back to the orignal paper and demonstrated that Mann and co are full of crap. So whatever they put into the "record" is quite irrelevant.

In any case, I fairly certain that any science minded reader that looks at the data will come to the same conclusion I did. I never expected to convince an alarmist fan boy like you to look at the evidence. All you care about is peddling propoganda to suit your political agenda.

[waldo]

well yes... you puffed up and declared the proxy author's paper as the authoritative source - ergo, your argument from authority. My repeated citing of the prevailing formal Mann et al, 08/09 text/reference from PNAS is not an argument from authority - it's simply an acknowledgment to the formalized accounts of record. That your hero McIntyre hasn't formally risen to the challenge certainly also speaks to your argument in absentia!

clearly, you also rely upon an argument from the school of TV weatherman Anthony Watts... who needs data/processing/analysis when you have pictures to rely upon!!! ("damnit... can't you just look at the picture!", shrieks TimG. )

I am heartened to recognize you now appear to have at least backed off your egregious error concerning "sign change ala McIntyre upsidedownyness" (re: Multivariate regression methods are insensitive to the sign of predictors). ... which, of course, couples directly with you also recognizing your other most egregious error concerning a mystical "flipping of temperature correlation". I believe we have some progress to report, after all!

So what? I have gone back to the orignal paper and demonstrated that Mann and co are full of crap. So whatever they put into the "record" is quite irrelevant.

In any case, I fairly certain that any science minded reader that looks at the data will come to the same conclusion I did. I never expected to convince an alarmist fan boy like you to look at the evidence. All you care about is peddling propoganda to suit your political agenda.

yes, quite! "Damnit... can't you just look at the picture!", shrieks TimG. As I said, your argument from the school of TV weatherman Anthony Watts', "picture, picture, I've got a picture, look at my picture"... is simply paralleled by you continuing to meekly weasel back to your puffed up and self-proclaimed argument by authority, which is only matched by your bravado in thrusting forward in the presence of your argument in absentia! Notwithstanding your most fundamental argument by parrot!

you have nothing to offer but bluster-bus! As before, as always, speaking of those prevailing formalized accounts of record... the formalized accounts of record that keeps your boy McIntyre playing in his private enclave, isolated to and trapped within the confines of his bizzaro-world ClimateFraudit blogDom - forever feeding chum to the likes of you and your fellow acolytes, lappers, minions, idgits, malcontents, etc.:

you have provided no formalized counter to the Mann08/09 reconstructions... a formalized counter that presents an alternate reconstruction, one that uses all of the fully and transparently available Mann08/09 methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided no formalized counter to the Mann 08/09 reconstructions... one that uses any other alternate methodology/code/materials/etc. You have provided neither of these possible avenues to have countered the Mann08/09 reconstruction results... you have provided nothing... but bluster!

you speak of a, "religious faith" - clearly, in the absence of you having provided anything... anything... that formally counters the Mann08/09 reconstructions, yours is quite assuredly a testimony to the church of McIntyre's never-ending blogfest audit. You clearly are a disciple of the never-ending auditor... the guy who, after a decade+, just can't seem to pull any of it together... just can't seem to get started!

these are the prevailing items of note: neither of which you have... or can... provide a formal counter against.

=> the prevailing journal comment:

MannBradleyHughes: Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

=> the prevailing reconstruction results statement of account:

Update 22 Aug 2010

: Additional significance tests that we have performed indicate that the NH land+ocean Had reconstruction with all tree-ring data and 7 potential "problem" proxies removed (see original Supp Info where this reconstruction is shown) yields a reconstruction that passes RE at just below the 95% level (approximately 94% level) back to AD 1300 and the 90% level back to AD 1100 (they pass CE at similar respective levels). So if one were to set the significant threshold just a bit lower than our rather stringent 95% significant requirement, the reconstruction stands back to AD 1100 with these data withheld. Recent work by Saltzer et al [ Salzer et al, Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 2009] suggests there is little reason to withhold tree-ring data however.

=> alternatively, in the face of failing to provide formal countering position/statement, the prevailing TimG contribution: bluster bus! Notwithstanding, The Debunking of TimG's Nonsense - The TimG Parroting of McIntyre - Exposed!

[Pliny]

as for climate change versus global warming... abandonment? Each term is spoken of as appropriate, in context. When this reeediculous canard is dragged out by denier types, like you, I'm always keen to highlight a few choice tidbits, say like:

- or like a more recent point of departure in relation to another time on MLW where this climate change versus global warming distinction was brought forward:

[/indent]

You mean politicians are guiding this and not scientists? I've been telling you that all along, waldo!

[waldo]

I know that abandoning the term "global warming" and replacing it with "climate change" means that we can now talk about the weather. Like hurricanes and record heatwaves in Texas - it's an "It wasn't this hot yesterday...oh my god...the clmate changed" - type of scenario.

as for climate change versus global warming... abandonment? Each term is spoken of as appropriate, in context. When this reeediculous canard is dragged out by denier types, like you, I'm always keen to highlight a few choice tidbits, say like:

- what does the 'CC' in IPCC stand for, hey Pliny? You know, your oft target of derision, the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

...

formed in 1988

!

- or like a more recent point of departure in relation to another time on MLW where this climate change versus global warming distinction was brought forward:

How about another reminder on

the confidential 2003 GOP strategy memo (re: Frank Luntz) to use 'climate change' over 'global warming'.

Really, c'mon... you mean Republicans would purposely, on a strategic basis, intend to downplay the actual impacts in favour of a massaged 'more controlled, less emotional' language - I'm shocked, I tells ya... shocked!

You mean politicians are guiding this and not scientists? I've been telling you that all along, waldo!

what? Nothing to comment on about the "CC" in IPCC, circa 1988? That's pretty dated, hey Pliny? Kind of puts a damper in your false abandonment premise, hey Pliny? As for my mentioning the more recent Bush admin strategist fronting use of the term climate change over global warming, I'll defer to you to describe the political motivations involved there. You could provide that, right?

as well, let's not forget that you still need to "bring it"... your data concerning Greenland ice-sheet melt - still waiting, Pliny, still waiting.

[Pliny]

[/indent]

what? Nothing to comment on about the "CC" in IPCC, circa 1988? That's pretty dated, hey Pliny? Kind of puts a damper in your false abandonment premise, hey Pliny? As for my mentioning the more recent Bush admin strategist fronting use of the term climate change over global warming, I'll defer to you to describe the political motivations involved there. You could provide that, right?

You know as well as I do that "global warming" was the preferred term until about two years ago when it shifted to the politically preferred "climate change". Climate change has always been what the scientific community has been modelling and "global warming" seemed to be the primary concern and was the political football that was kicked around starting in the nineties up until it became basically ineffectual in creating enough alarm. After all, a 0.8 degree centigrade shift over 150 years seems like it is a fairly stable temperature. That would equivalent to the more alarmist sounding 1.5 degree farhenheit change that politicians used but still didn't quite scare enough people.

as well, let's not forget that you still need to "bring it"... your data concerning Greenland ice-sheet melt - still waiting, Pliny, still waiting.

What is it you would like, waldo? Harper Collins didn't consult with the scientific community when it published the 15% figure for loss of Greenland ice sheet melt. Turns out the correct figure is 0.1%

Looks like, if it isn't the scientific community calling out incorrect data which they should be doing but haven't been willing to do for some reason and for too long, people are informed enough to ask questions when something seems out of place. Of course, what does it mean to the cult of alarmist global climate change followers? They can't put out the fires fast enough. Don't you find yourself getting progressively overworked, waldo?

[Pliny]

I have a game. We could try and guess what the next global alarmist climate term will be. It was in the sixties, the coming ice age, where North America would be covered in glaciers, there was the acid rain thingee after that, where all forms of wildlife would die, then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet - we got rid of aerosols to fix that, but I have a suspicion that if we used aerosols again it wouldn't make too much difference, then there was global warming but a .8 degree difference in temperature over a century seems pretty stable, and now we have "climate change". Any guesses as to what that will morph into???

How about..."space junk atmospheric distortion". No doubt the don't touch my junk denier crowd will crawl out of the woodwork - that is, if we survive climate change and there is any wood.

[Wild Bill]

I have a game. We could try and guess what the next global alarmist climate term will be. It was in the sixties, the coming ice age, where North America would be covered in glaciers, there was the acid rain thingee after that, where all forms of wildlife would die, then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet - we got rid of aerosols to fix that, but I have a suspicion that if we used aerosols again it wouldn't make too much difference, then there was global warming but a .8 degree difference in temperature over a century seems pretty stable, and now we have "climate change". Any guesses as to what that will morph into???

How about..."space junk atmospheric distortion". No doubt the don't touch my junk denier crowd will crawl out of the woodwork - that is, if we survive climate change and there is any wood.

No doubt you already knew Pliny that just ONE volcano puts more CFC's and related stuff into the air than a "bazillion bazillion" cans of aerosol paint or deodorant? I don't remember the exact figure but I do recall that the difference was once again "mice nuts", as I love to say! I don't believe that man-made aerosols amounted to even 1% of a volcano's figure.

This fact was well known at the time of the scare but of course, no one cared! These things take on a life of their own.

As Carl Sagan used to say "Tell people that there are a billion billion billion stars in the sky and they will believe you without question. Yet hang a "Wet Paint" sign on a park bench and people just HAVE to touch it!"

[lukin]

No doubt you already knew Pliny that just ONE volcano puts more CFC's and related stuff into the air than a "bazillion bazillion" cans of aerosol paint or deodorant? I don't remember the exact figure but I do recall that the difference was once again "mice nuts", as I love to say! I don't believe that man-made aerosols amounted to even 1% of a volcano's figure.

This fact was well known at the time of the scare but of course, no one cared! These things take on a life of their own.

As Carl Sagan used to say "Tell people that there are a billion billion billion stars in the sky and they will believe you without question. Yet hang a "Wet Paint" sign on a park bench and people just HAVE to touch it!"

It's amazing how many fall into line to believe this man-made global warming crap. It amazes me how common people have lost the ability to think, and will believe anything they here that seems to come from an intelligent person. They just fall for it without researching. Pliny's post is dead on. What will be the next big "scare".

The sad thing is that I don't see things getting any better. Public schools across the land are teaching more environmental activism than math, English, and most importantly, critical thinking.

[TimG]

It amazes me how common people have lost the ability to think, and will believe anything they here that seems to come from an intelligent person.

What are they supposed to do when so called 'prominent scientists' lie through their teeth and spew pseudo-scientific psychobabble to hide their duplicity. Edited September 25, 2011 by TimG

[jbg]

How I have a game. We could try and guess what the next global alarmist climate term will be. It was in the sixties, the coming ice age, where North America would be covered in glaciers, there was the acid rain thingee after that, where all forms of wildlife would die, then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet -**** then there was global warming but a .8 degree difference in temperature over a century seems pretty stable, and now we have "climate change". Any guesses as to what that will morph into???

Pliny's post is dead on. What will be the next big "scare".

As I left synagogue on Saturday morning (in the U.S. unlike Canada we have many Jewish houses of worship) one of my fellow congregants hypothesized that earthquakes and volcano eruptions were caused by human activity. Maybe with the feverish way the net feeds panics that's the next big one.

The sad thing is that I don't see things getting any better. Public schools across the land are teaching more environmental activism than math, English, and most importantly, critical thinking.

When I was a kid in the 1960's it was the risk of nuclear war. In hindsight the teachers were trying to de-fang the ability of the West to respond to aggression. "Better Red than dead" was the thought process. We were told that if there was an "air raid" that the school would shelter us, but we may not have a chance to say goodbye to our parents.

Scary stuff for a fourth grader.

Edited September 26, 2011 by jbg

[Pliny]

When I was a kid in the 1960's it was the risk of nuclear war. In hindsight the teachers were trying to de-fang the ability of the West to respond to aggression. "Better Red than dead" was the thought process. We were told that if there was an "air raid" that the school would shelter us, but we may not have a chance to say goodbye to our parents.

Scary stuff for a fourth grader.

When children are made aware of these political scare tactics they are indeed frightened. It's almost child abuse. It is certainly an abuse of power being a psychological control tactic.

Maybe, just maybe, waldo, believed it all and has no inkling of the nature of his education.

So maybe it is anthropogenic geographic upheavals - volcanoes and earthquakes. Anything about "locusts"?

[waldo]

You know as well as I do that "global warming" was the preferred term until about two years ago when it shifted to the politically preferred "climate change". Climate change has always been what the scientific community has been modelling and "global warming" seemed to be the primary concern and was the political football that was kicked around starting in the nineties up until it became basically ineffectual in creating enough alarm.

nonsense - GW and CC refer to different physical phenomena... CC has a long standing decades+ presence within the scientific community. As I said, each term, in context, is spoken of as appropriate. If your claim were correct (which it isn't), that a usage shift is politically preferred, other than my curt snarc reference to a U.S. Republican Bush political strategist who advocated a policy shift towards use of CC over GW... how did such a "monumental shift" occur, particularly in the shortest of time frame you mention (2 years). Just how did this presumed change come about and who/what orchestrated it? C'mon Pliny, step up and support your nonsense.

What is it you would like, waldo?

in your Pliny chucklehead "brought data" way, you thought a cartographers mistake was something you could leverage to question the degree of Greenland ice melt...

In God we Trust....all others must bring data.

so... if you're truly questioning the degree of Greenland ice melt, I expect you should be willing to... bring your data to support your questioning the degree of Greenland ice melt. Bring it, Pliny. Bring it!

Gosh, I was reading that the loss of permanent ice in Greenland was 15% but today I see there is a correction....only 0.1% percent has melted...whew...and... I think half of that is floating past Nfld. right now!!!

I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would include mass balance loss trending... oh, say from the 70's to current day (you know, that Gt/year thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would also include trending relative to ice mass anomaly (you know, that deviation from the average ice mass thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data', would include standardized melting index anomaly... oh, say from the 70's to current day (you know, that deviation from the average ice melt thingee). I expect your, as you say, 'brought data' would also include distinction between... oh, say mass loss from coastal versus interior regions (you know, that below versus above 2000 metres thingee)... and in that same regard, that your, as you say, 'brought data' would also speak to inland region buildup in terms of increased snowfall (you know, that global warming thingee that causes interior snow increases). I also trust that, in keeping with your anecdotal spirit reference to Nfld, you might similarly have your, as you say, 'brought data', translate so-called melting equivalencies into melt-area region sizes (you know, something like a land-size extent equivalency... say... something like 'x country' melting per year/decade... something catchy, for the kids and short-attention spanners).

so, ya... bring it - bring your data! (just make sure to check your one-sided skepticism at the door, hey?)

[waldo]

- It was in the sixties, the coming ice age[waldo: outside of select mainstream media outlets, no substantive scientific foundation to this recycled denier meme]

- there was the acid rain thingee [waldo: real world human and ecosystem impacts... Pliny, are you questioning the impacts and/or degree of acid deposition? Are you pro-pollution, Pliny?]

- then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet - we got rid of aerosols to fix that, but I have a suspicion that if we used aerosols again it wouldn't make too much difference [waldo: so you acknowledge this one... a "fixed one", as you say. Don't hesitate to provide support for your stated "suspicion"]

- then there was global warming but a .8 degree difference in temperature over a century seems pretty stable, and now we have "climate change". [waldo: unsubstantiated Pliny meme]

[waldo]

No doubt you already knew Pliny that just ONE volcano puts more CFC's and related stuff into the air than a "bazillion bazillion" cans of aerosol paint or deodorant? I don't remember the exact figure but I do recall that the difference was once again "mice nuts", as I love to say! I don't believe that man-made aerosols amounted to even 1% of a volcano's figure.

This fact was well known at the time of the scare but of course, no one cared! These things take on a life of their own.

As Carl Sagan used to say "Tell people that there are a billion billion billion stars in the sky and they will believe you without question. Yet hang a "Wet Paint" sign on a park bench and people just HAVE to touch it!"

Myth: Volcanoes and the Oceans are Causing Ozone Depletion

Volcanic eruptions are powerful events, and they are capable of injecting hydrogen chloride (HCl) high into the atmosphere. Similarly, oceans produce large volumes of sea salt, which contains chlorine, on a daily basis. If these compounds accumulated in large quantities in the stratosphere, they might produce ozone depletion. However, for several reasons, we know that CFCs and other substances used in human activities are the primary sources of chlorine in the stratosphere.

First, the vast majority of volcanic eruptions are too weak to reach the stratosphere, around 10 km above the surface. Thus, any HCl emitted in the eruption begins in the troposphere. Sea salt from the oceans is also released very low in the atmosphere. These compounds would have to remain airborne for 2-5 years to be carried to the stratosphere. However, both sea salt and HCl are extremely soluble in water, as opposed to CFCs which do not dissolve in water. Rain effectively scrubs the troposphere, removing both of these forms of chlorine. Steam in volcanic plumes can act the same way, removing HCl long before it reaches the ozone layer. Measurements have shown that concentrations of these substances vanish very rapidly as altitude increases. Neither sea salt from the oceans nor tropospheric-level volcanic eruptions (like Mt. Erebus in Antarctica) contribute significantly to stratospheric chlorine levels. Some sea life does produce methyl chloride, a more stable form of chlorine than sea salt, but its contribution is small, as explained below. The following graphic shows that natural sources only contribute 15% of methyl chloride to stratospheric chlorine levels, and natural sources of HCl contribute only 3%. The remaining sources of stratospheric chlorine are entirely human-made.

CFCs, on the other hand, do not dissolve in rain. In addition, no chemical processes have been found that aggressively remove them from the troposphere. In fact, one of the advantages of the CFCs was their stability. However, it is this very stability that poses a threat to the ozone layer.

Second, there is no historical record that shows significant increases in stratospheric chlorine following even the most major volcanic eruptions. Although El Chichon, in 1982, did increase concentrations of HCl in the stratosphere by 10%, that extra chlorine disappeared in about a year. When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, measurements found no increase in stratospheric chlorine. The dramatic increase in chlorine concentrations simply cannot be explained by a concurrent increase in volcanic activity.

[waldo]

What are they supposed to do when so called 'prominent scientists' lie through their teeth and spew pseudo-scientific psychobabble to hide their duplicity.

what? No TimG selective "group think" mantra?... no TimG targeted "cargo cult science"?... no TimG "conspiratorial demagoguery"?... no TimG "Climate Mafia" speak?... no TimG "The TEAM" bleat?

[waldo]

When children are made aware of these political scare tactics they are indeed frightened. It's almost child abuse. It is certainly an abuse of power being a psychological control tactic.

Pliny,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjTUp-moZWM

is your friend!

[GostHacked]

So waldo, which one should we be worried about Global Warming , or Climate Change? And why should they be treated/approached different?

[waldo]

As I said, each term, in context, is spoken of as appropriate. If your claim were correct (which it isn't), that a usage shift is politically preferred, other than my curt snarc reference to a U.S. Republican Bush political strategist who advocated a policy shift towards use of CC over GW... how did such a "monumental shift" occur, particularly in the shortest of time frame you mention (2 years). Just how did this presumed change come about and who/what orchestrated it? C'mon Pliny, step up and support your nonsense.

So waldo, which one should we be worried about Global Warming , or Climate Change? And why should they be treated/approached different?

text book definitions are your friend here:

Global Warming: as attributed to rising levels of GHG gases, the increase in Earth's average surface temperature

Climate Change: long-term change in Earth’s or regional climates... certainly, Climate Change encompasses far more than surface temperature change

so... your first question, to yourself, should be whether you accept either/both are occurring. Only the fringe of the fringe deny Global Warming has/is occurring, enhanced and accelerated, in the relatively recent time frame. Only the fringe of the fringe deny Climate Change is occurring. Your second question, to yourself, should be whether you believe you live in an isolated enclave unaffected by the global community/environs; that your atmosphere is solely your atmosphere, that your oceans are solely your oceans, etc.. Your third question, to yourself, should be who/what do you believe is presenting you an accurate current and projected assessment of either/both; you know, expert scientific knowledge practitioners/policy wonks or wing-nut, mad-barking, ideological driven charlatans. Your fourth question, to yourself, should be what do you principally, and proportionally, attribute Climate Change to... what natural and/or anthropogenic forcing mechanisms. Your fifth question, to yourself, should be how can one mitigate/adapt/prevent either/both - and what are the impartial, unbiased experts advising/advocating. Depending on the answers you give yourself to the aforementioned questions, your sixth question, to yourself, might be are you, partially or wholly, within the fringe of the fringe - and why - and consequently, of course, your seventh question, to yourself, should be, since you appear preoccupied with worry, as you say, 'are you worried'... if so, why?... if not, why?

[Pliny]

- It was in the sixties, the coming ice age[waldo: outside of select mainstream media outlets, no substantive scientific foundation to this recycled denier meme]

- there was the acid rain thingee [waldo: real world human and ecosystem impacts... Pliny, are you questioning the impacts and/or degree of acid deposition? Are you pro-pollution, Pliny?]

- then there was the ozone hole, that would have irradiated all of life on the planet - we got rid of aerosols to fix that, but I have a suspicion that if we used aerosols again it wouldn't make too much difference [waldo: so you acknowledge this one... a "fixed one", as you say. Don't hesitate to provide support for your stated "suspicion"]

- then there was global warming but a .8 degree difference in temperature over a century seems pretty stable, and now we have "climate change". [waldo: unsubstantiated Pliny meme]

circa 2020:

Pliny: Then after climate change there was anthropogenic space junk catastrophic atmospheric distortion.(waldo: the wonder of science is it is never finished in it's analyses and always correcting itself)

Pliny: Then after caatastrophic space junk atmospheric distortion there was anthropogenic volcanic and earthquake activity (with acknowledgement to jbg) What's next? (waldo: The usual denier attitude. Show that science is always making and improving it's knowledge and denying it can ever be conclusive or form a consensus.{url: scienceinterpretedjustforyou.gov} check this out, Pliny and get back to me with the data.)

[waldo]

Pliny, you don't need to fabricate Pliny shyte to show your fevered fright of science... clearly, your track record speaks for itself. Usually one has to cut through your fake and puffed-up Mr. Libertarian Pliny's rambling, distraught, anti-science diatribe... doubly so, when you dare to unleash Mr. Wizard Pliny! Where has the Pliny Wizard been lately, anyway?

[lukin]

It's good to see more prominent scientists realize that the whole climate change fiasco is near an end. Thank goodness we have skeptics.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

[waldo]

It's good to see more prominent scientists realize that the whole climate change fiasco is near an end. Thank goodness we have skeptics.

and that you have the hopelessly failed Morano denier web-site too, hey!

so, again, another old geezer raises his hand... this time, the long retired octogenarian, a non-practicing emeritus, Giaever, an avowed denialist... cause, apparently, he didn't like the American Physical Society's official National Policy on Climate Change - that reads:

...the actual APS National Policy on Climate Change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases

[Oleg Bach]

Looks like Al Gore's world is flooding.

Please poopoo CERN scientists latest publication on their CLOUD experiment, waldo. We need a proper perspective here.

Climate models are silly - you can attempt to reproduce natural patterns that are mostly random...and even if you get close to a good model - suddenly there is a sun flare and all is thrown off..."Did you think that you would live forever? Rule the world and control the weather?"

[waldo]

Climate models are silly

no - in the absence of a 'spare Earth hanging around' for experimentation, climate models are a necessary means to, with qualified uncertainty, quantitatively simulate atmospheric, oceanic, land, etc., interactions... to study the dynamics of the climate system to project future climate.

[jbg]

and that you have the hopelessly failed Morano denier web-site too, hey!

so, again, another old geezer raises his hand... this time, the long retired octogenarian, a non-practicing emeritus, Giaever, an avowed denialist... cause, apparently, he didn't like the American Physical Society's official National Policy on Climate Change - that reads:

I guess name-calling is your bag. At least the other "Waldo" I knew didn't do that.