Gobsmack.  Sadly, I think you actually believe that.

I did, that was the one with that mathematician right? While the principles that he uses were right, he exagerrated them to a tremendous degree.

Models are never perfect. They don't have to be, as long as you get useful results from them.

He just says, they're not perfect, therefore they're useless.

You know... if models were really as useless like that, we wouldn't know anything. Analysis of aerodynamics wouldn't be possible. Analysis of structural integrity of buildings wouldn't be possible. None of those are perfect, but despite their limitations, they are very useful, even in everyday applications.

It's not a matter of belief... there are several observation about it.

Instead it's you who believes: you ignore the observations and just make a statement out of thin air.

Those observations go as far to say that we were actually already slowly on our way into the next ice age...

The articles I've read were based on observations, not models.

You ignore those.

I think the problem is that you mistrust other people that you don't know ... but if you don't know them, how can you be sure that they are not to be trusted ...

No, they are done with mathematics...there's a whole 'industry' called 'Civil Engineering'.

If you ever see a 'model' it's to look pretty to investors and/or the public for Planning acceptance...

Modeling == mathematics, a simplifiction of reality. Whether you calculate something by hand or by computer, it's always an estimate.

What people here are so upset about, are pretty much peanuts. They're upset that there's a 0.1 degree slowdown in global warming. However, if you're interested in changes of the order of 5 degrees, the 0.1 degree uncertainty is not significant for the bigger picture.

And that's exactly what people here think ... they think that a mistake of 0.1 degree due to a short-lived event in the Pacific, will invalidate predictions for a much larger and longer scale change in temperatures due to CO2, which is a completely different physical process.

The equations that you use have (small) error margins.

The strength of a beam of iron is only known with a (small) margin of error.

The strength of concrete, is also based on (lab)experiments and equations that are deduced (in labs).

My point is: equations and models are very useful in everyday practice.

What is so different about GW equations/ models ... so what if their error margins are higher. As long as you have a grip on the reliability of the models, then the results can still be useful.

You cannot simply say "there's is 0.1 degree celcius error therefore the results are crap"

That's like saying "there's a 1% (just a guess mind you) uncertainty in the calculation of strength of a wall... so let's not build a house"

And before you say that this comparison is BS too, then consider this: the warming by CO2 alone can reach about 2 degrees celcius for a doubling of CO2. The hiatus in warming we witness is about 0.1 degree celcius. The "error" that the El Nino mechanism introduces on top of the "insulation" mechanism, is about 5%. That's not much. If we're talking about a quadrupling and a temperature rise of about 5 degrees celcius, the El Nino mechanism will still be 0.1 degree celcius, for such a prediction the error is about 2%.

And the unpredictability also has an everyday equivalent: if you travel by train, or bus, you never know how long a trip will last. You only know how much it'll last "on average". It's a chaotic process, it depends on weather, traffic, breakdowns. Still, it's useful. And you can also make statements like the following:

"If there are no traffic lights, then the trip will last 2 hours at a steady pace of 30 mph"

That's similar to saying: "If there is no El Nino or El Nina", then the global warming will increase steadily by 0.1 degree/ decade. Or something like that.

Are you really going to ban me for this?

Ok... you're talking about Math as a stand-alone tool. Yes that's perfect by itself.

When you apply it to real-world problems, it's not perfect anymore because you've to work with uncertainties and approximations... while the mathetmatics itself is self-contained and "perfect", the results have a small margin of error when it comes to comparing the mathematical outcome with reality.

I'm not talking about statistics.

Whatever... let's just be friends.

I don't use it as an excuse... I'm just trying to show that the 0.1 degree celcius error that people are so hysterical about nowadays isn't very significant when you compare it to the 2 to 5 degree warming that's predicted for a doubling and quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It's like smashing a mosquito and tell everybody the problem is gone, while you're ignoring the big elephant that's hiding in plain sight in the corner of the room.

That's some good advice.

This article investigated the way clouds are modeled, and states that the current models underestimate the global warming because they incorporate a negative feedback from upper clouds only, instead of a positive feedback from lower clouds...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131231094442.htm

They state that therefore, temperatures are likely to rise by 3 to 5 degrees celcius per doubling of CO2 ...

Yes... GW is very similar. Despite extensive research over many decades, involving thousands of researchers, from a varied field of disciplines (from modeling to biology to geology to space observations) there are still people who think that nothing is happening.

What comes after the sharks?