AH, rooster, Why are people still sceptical about climate change? .. speck of ..
Social scientists have started building up a picture of the sort of people who are likely to be climate sceptics. People who are sceptical about climate change are likely to be older, male and politically conservative (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). The fact that more than half of the incoming Republican politicians in the 2010 US mid-term elections dispute climate change .. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/18/inglis-gop-global-warming/ .. illustrates this perfectly. These people were not driven by their rejection of climate change science to become Republicans – their conservative views have coloured their interpretation of the science, which they see as threatening to their ideology.
One on your problem with climate models, you may be surprised climate scientists are more honest and knowledgeable about them than you are able to be ..
...both the 'direction and magnitude of change' to rainfall patterns across the Top End [of Australia] remained unclear.
"Some models suggest an increase in rainfall, some models suggest a decrease," Mr Hennessy said.
"We have low confidence in northern Australian rainfall change, because some of the models still grapple with some of the important rainfall-forming processes."
This one may help younger people than you, rooster, i mean younger people who are still struggling to understand.
How reliable are climate models?
What the science says... Select a level... * Basic *Intermediate
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Climate Myth... Models are unreliable "[Models] are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere." (Freeman Dyson)
Climate models are mathematical representations of the interactions between the atmosphere, oceans, land surface, ice – and the sun. This is clearly a very complex task, so models are built to estimate trends rather than events. For example, a climate model can tell you it will be cold in winter, but it can’t tell you what the temperature will be on a specific day – that’s weather forecasting. Climate trends are weather, averaged out over time - usually 30 years. Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.
Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.
So all models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened unless the extra CO2 was added to the model. All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years. CO2 does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.
Where models have been running for sufficient time, they have also been proved to make accurate predictions. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo allowed modellers to test the accuracy of models by feeding in the data about the eruption. The models successfully predicted the climatic response after the eruption. Models also correctly predicted other effects subsequently confirmed by observation, including greater warming in the Arctic and over land, greater warming at night, and stratospheric cooling.
The climate models, far from being melodramatic, may be conservative in the predictions they produce. For example, here’s a graph of sea level rise:
Observed sea level rise since 1970 from tide gauge data (red) and satellite measurements (blue) compared to model projections for 1990-2010 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (grey band). (Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009) .. http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/
Here, the models have understated the problem. In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections. There are other examples of models being too conservative .. http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=35, rather than alarmist as some portray them. All models have limits - uncertainties - for they are modelling complex systems. However, all models improve over time, and with increasing sources of real-world information such as satellites, the output of climate models can be constantly refined to increase their power and usefulness.
Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
