Kilaminjaro and Al Gore

Originally posted by wildgrass
If you don't agree with the first sentence of an article you are posting, then why do you post it?

I do agree with it.

Your reading comprehension is horrible!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You are the moron.

Climate models are computer models. The fact that you don't know they are the same thing says a lot about you. ....

Climate models are computer models.

Really!? So, in science, a "model" of something (such as climate etc) in science cannot refer to anything other than specifically a "computer model" i.e. one necessarily involving a computer?
Well, lets see what wiki says the word "model" might mean in science;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model
"...
Model, modeling or modelling may refer to:

Conceptual model;
a representation of a system using general rules and concepts.
...
Scientific model,
a simplified and idealized understanding of physical systems.
....
Computer model;
a simulation to reproduce behavior of a system.
...
Mathematical model;
a representation of a system using mathematical concepts and language.
..."
( very large list of other possible meanings listed there not listed here )

So, a "climate model" MAY refer to (and often does) "Computer model" of climate
but , equally, a "climate model" MAY refer to (and often does) a "Mathematical model" of climate; -can have that without a computer.
Or "climate model" MAY refer to (and often does) a "Conceptual model" of climate; -again, -can have that without a computer.
Or "climate model" MAY refer to (and often does) a "Scientific model" of climate; -again, -can have that without a computer.
-thus clearly proving your above assertion wrong.

-and you call US the morons!?

Originally posted by humy

Climate models are computer models.

Really!? So, in science, a "model" of something (such as climate etc) in science cannot refer to anything other than specifically a "computer model" i.e. one necessarily involving a computer?
Well, lets see what wiki says the word "model" might mean in science;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model
". ...[text shortened]... a computer.
-thus clearly proving your above assertion wrong.

-and you call US the morons!?

More wiki junk?

All climate models are computer models. You are a moron!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_climate_model.htm

Originally posted by Metal Brain
More wiki junk?

All climate models are computer models. You are a moron!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_climate_model.htm

your link says;

"General Circulation Models (GCMs) are a class of computer-driven models for..."

A model being "computer-driven" means just that; it doesn't mean it must be itself a computer model. As a concrete example of that i.e. that actually exists; I am currently doing cutting edge research into a statistical model of probability (called a "mav model" in this case) that is clearly "computer-driven" as, using my computer science expertise I gained from university, I use a lot of computer simulations (using computer programs I made especially for this) to explore and even discover many of its mathematical properties; but this statistical model isn't a "computer model" as it doesn't ITSELF consist of computer simulations nor computer algorithms nor software but rather just consists of equations of probability and concepts.
Nowhere in that link does it say/imply all climate models are computer models and I challenge you to show ANY quote from ANY science link that says/implies the two things equate as you claim and failure to do so shows you are wrong.
Try again.

Originally posted by humy
your link says;

"General Circulation Models (GCMs) are a class of computer-driven models for..."

A model being "computer-driven" means just that; it doesn't mean it must be itself a computer model. As a concrete example of that i.e. that actually exists; I am currently doing cutting edge research into a statistical model of probability (called a "mav mode ...[text shortened]... implies the two things equate as you claim and failure to do so shows you are wrong.
Try again.

I should add; there were climate models before computers existed and some of them predicted climate sensitivity to CO2 and long before computers existed; how can there existed climate models before computers existed if all climate models are computer models?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I do agree with it.

Your reading comprehension is horrible!

Wildgrass: "Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years"

Do you agree with that sentence? Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it.

Metal Brain: Nope.

Originally posted by wildgrass
[b]Wildgrass: "Global temperatures collected in five official databases confirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years"

Do you agree with that sentence? Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it.

Metal Brain: Nope.[/b]

" Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it."

Are they surface temps? Heat island effects are bunk data not worth looking at. We have been through this before.

Originally posted by humy
I should add; there were climate models before computers existed and some of them predicted climate sensitivity to CO2 and long before computers existed; how can there existed climate models before computers existed if all climate models are computer models?

What is your source of information?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

Science.
I have studied all of this at university.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
What is your source of information?

Science.
I have studied this at university; that is my source. Have you got a science degree? (rhetorical question)

Originally posted by Metal Brain
" Even the graph embedded in the article contradicts it."

Are they surface temps? Heat island effects are bunk data not worth looking at. We have been through this before.

You should be providing that information to the forum if you think it's important. The graph I saw had no figure legend or explanation of methodology. But this is the data you have sourced to debunk the accuracy of climate models. If your argument is that the data is bunk, how can you prove the models are bunk? Which is it?

Originally posted by wildgrass
You should be providing that information to the forum if you think it's important. The graph I saw had no figure legend or explanation of methodology. But this is the data you have sourced to debunk the accuracy of climate models. If your argument is that the data is bunk, how can you prove the models are bunk? Which is it?

This is the last link I posted on this thread.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/

I don't see any graph. If you are talking about another link you need to show me which one it is.