That is true, the complex nature of an entire planetary system is certainly not something that can be modeled successfully, to the degree that it can accurately preedict long range changes. I think that is part of the issue, there is a huge reliance on "models suggest" and "models predict" and when one model or another does what they want they cheer, and trumpet, if not, they bury it. Part of my skepticism

Re: AlphaGo won 4 games to 1 for Lee Sedol.

Only experimental data can lead toward proof. But for an individual's life, most of the time there is no need for some absolute proof. Math can only give a description of reality because mental objects are not reifiable. Linear models can be good at prediction but they still depend on the accuracy of the input data and whether the output corresponds to nature. Weather models which require differential equations would require a very small grid size for very precise data too since they would need something close to continuity of the data grid. A giant assumption on output for all that sparse data in the models. Perhaps only mathematics has some provable stuff with almost all not decidable. Nature's laws will most likely never be completely provable.

Most mathematical models seem to have an inherent need for data, data and more data. Using a set of algorithms that are predictive engines designed to reflect real life events. I think there is a sufficient skew in both data and models to allow for a result that what is desired. When I spoke of the weather models I was specifically directing at something engineered and re-engineered in the face of hard results. My issue with climate models is that is not possible with the long term nature of the problem, so I can't buy into either idea at this point, and I do not see how anyone can use them as conclusive proof of a condition one way or another. It goes back to GIGO and they have no idea, really, if they have good garbage or bad. That is my data driven side coming out...I would never be able to get a process whitepaper through on what they want to change our lives with... Thanks for the reply.

Sorry I got to this a little late. I have been going through the go games where AlphaGo, an AI program, beat the world champion Lee Sedol in a five game match. AlphaGo won 4 games to one tie game. So AI programs are at the tops of chess, go, checkers, and several other games. this AI is now going to take on StarCraft II.

Interesting life you have had. I have been a drop out, except personally, from chemistry and mathematics since the mid 1970s due to life long social anxiety causing me to get pissed at the NSF and ACS registration programs, though I did apply to NASA's Ames Research center and would have started as a GS7 in materials science and interviewed at Argonne National Labs near Chicago and offered a $3.50 an hour job working with plutonium. I have four months a year off from my one man business to do more work on my own science and math projects but have not discovered anything to brag about. I do find it interesting how so many scientists allow others to taint there own beliefs to the point of doing anything to belong and get that next paycheck.

It seems to have been forgotten that a mathematical model is no more than a hypothesis whose results must be proved with respect to objective reality. Since climate is not causative, those who believe it causes some conditions are just plain wrong. I get angry when measurements, principles, hypotheses and theories, and other relational concepts are said to be causes in nature. Any ability to cause by such concepts is that human minds are sometimes swayed by such thoughts.

I was a CPO in the navy in Submarine Sonar, I have worked for 20 more years at one of the hugest chip makers as an Engineering technician. I am Lean Six Sigma Green Belt certified. All of those require facts, clear, basic, unadulterated. When you are changing a process that makes chips that bring in 3-4 billion a quarter, no one will allow you to do anything until you prove with concrete data that A=A. No shortcuts, no "using historical data", you do your own work and show your data. 90% of the experts in climate change on both sides, impress me as people who piggyback on someone elses work, and have no idea if it is right or what it really means. Your statement is a good summation of where I see it at, and also the state of the "models". The use of "models" has become the holy grail of all science today, and, as you say, they depend entirely on what data is used, and how accurate it is. A dynamic model will be essentially a guessing game in just a short progression because of that fact. Then lets commit the ultimate crime and select our data point so they reflect the worst of the group, so it skews that much more. Pretty soon the earth melts down in 25 years unless we all die, and the shouting, lawmaking, fine imposing starts. All of it based on flawed models using flawed data, selectively loaded. So, to defend against it, the other side rolls out their models also skewed, and on and on we go. The lack of civil discussion I believe, is partially based on the education system they have corrupted, that now depends on "how you feel" instead of "what you think". With the abolution of critical thinking skills and intuitive thinking, and now using "what does this make you feel like" as a decision making tool, we end up with nothing but an emotional shouting match, to see who can overcome the other. Not only does that describe our climate crap, it describes our politics.

May I ask what your background in physical science and math are? What kind of proof are you looking for? Basically you have it figured out in that climate is always changing and that politics has just about destroyed the climate science. The rest lies in the math that is supposed to describe climate with models. That math, unless exact initial data to unlimited precision for every point on earth is fed into the models, will begin to diverge from any usable results due to the system being chaotic and unpredictable as time is incremented in the models. Those who are pushing harmful warming and other bad stuff are thus left with speculation under the belief that in the long run they will die before any data against their guesses can occur. I do not see anyway at present to get to a civil discussion between the many sides to the climate question.
It is really difficult to decide who is correct without really critical thought and a very extensive knowledge base and a willingness to keep at it for years. If your brother is well educated in general chemistry, with physical chemistry, and physics and math, I would try to figure a way to remove politics and emotion out of the discussion so that there can be no way for the subject to be for us or against us in our lives. My youngest brother and I seem to get into shouting matches when we try to discuss science and politics and end up just being quiet.

Sorry sir, but I have had this same discussion with my brother, who is a very good chem engineer, and who sent me off to learn how CO@ reacts in the atmosphere, and for every one of his sites that conclusively explain why it does this and that, there are one or more with just the opposite. Go digging and you find NASA claimes we will adie, then others who say NASA is manipulating data, then others who say "it's not CO2 but CFC" then others who say "it's the smoke" then...on and on and on. Denier, proponent, all have played with data, numbers, models etc. There is not one "dispassionate observer" I have found who can conclusively prove one way or another, what is happening, except that things are changing. OK, things are changing. I can go with that. Just don't come to me and demand I eat peas, because it's good for the environment (and we got a huge donation from pea growers) or any other BS, political crap imposing their will and agenda on me in the name, or defense of "climate change" until I have some clear, unadulterated proof it is real, and it's impact. Then I will decide on the peas thing...You just cannot trust anyone anymore with the truth and facts, when they get this "must win at all costs" and "it's ok to lie and cheat" social standard. The Beast is proof of that crap...

Enough of that "deniers" shit. Climate skeptics have more knowledge about the subject than those of you who seem completely ignorant about science. Try wattsupwiththat.com and scroll down to the lists of various skeptic sights where all sides of the climate issue are represented except one site has been banned for reasons given. Both skeptical and human caused climate change are represented. The "denier" thing was used by the some of the warmers to compare skeptics to the Holocaust deniers. It is too bad that it seems to have stuck with too many people.

And that is what allows them to continue, any aberration, is justified as "see?". Same is true on both sides, hence, I do not subscribe to either model, as the deniers manipulate as much as the proclaimers. Same basic model is used in almost all issue discussions today, no facts, just emotional hype. The most insane one is "Black Lives Matter" as if no others do, or denying all lives matter. Yet when a right wing group tries "babies lives matter" they are roundly dismissed and abused. It pervades all society today, no logic, no facts, just threats on one end or the other.

There you go -- being rational.

Just remember that averages do not exist in reality, they only exist in the minds of some humans and can not be reified into something that exists in reality. They are just patterns of chemically produced relations withing the brain material. So when someone says that the models when averaged together give output which will be closer to reality in the future, just make your own guess at it. Usually the weather in a climate season will continue somewhat as it is for a few days as it did the year before. One weather/climate-believer wants us to believe that the average of the dozens of climate models is accurate because they have boundary values in them. All that says is that the boundary values are guesses or constraints on the calculations in the models. They get all excited as they do lately where there are many all time high temperatures which are outside the bounds.

I see your point. Indeed, the adventure of Hurricane Matthew did show that if you look at all the plots they used, it looked like spilled spaghetti, but their average, or consensus, was pretty close to actual. Most people do not realize a forecast that says 80% chance of rain does not mean it will rain for 80% of the time, but that there is an 80% chance of rain over the forecast area at any one time. Thus they say they are nimrods when they have no rain at all. That's why I try to look at the Radar, as well as satellite data if I need an real time estimate of what is happening...

There you go. I try to use 20 years of submarine service and 20 years in manufacturing chips, to guide me on what I know, or don't. That is why I try to respect all views and offer debate as best I can within my limited knowledge...:)

I admit when it comes to science, I learned just enough to pass the course. I have since learned physics on my own, but never would I ever present myself as an authority as the many lefty proclaimers do.

It has been known that weather systems are chaotic in that they are extremely sensitive to initial conditions. Just tiny errors in initial conditions entered in the differential equations (usually on the order of a half a degree per measurement) quickly make the calculations diverge from anything that may occur. That is why any local forecast must only be approximate, even for the short term. Even if the data were to a large number of digits, the calculations would still diverge because of the of the lack of the real exact temperatures and other measurements all of which are very sparsely taken over the surface of the Earth and then introduced into equations that require continuous data for future calculations or in analytic equations where a few points can predict the whole system.
In science, stuff like "the track was pretty good" is not science. In an approximate science like weather and climate forecasting, it is OK to do approximate calculations where pretty good shows that there is some correspondence to the real world and may save a life here and there in the short run. Other than that, the results of calculations do not correspond to what the real world is, only a guess at it. Very good guesses when the system is perfectly linear and very poor, very quickly, when the system is chaotic. Chaotic does not mean that weather is non-deterministic, but only that it will not be calculable with any data available at a certain time due to the calculations giving a future which comes from bad data to start with so that the calculations diverge to an unreal future.

Not a required class anymore, deleted from most schools curriculum, probably replaced with "Safe Spaces and You" classes....

I would say there is a bit more to weather science than chaos and a few days. Some models are pretty good, the tracking of Matthew proved that. It wasn't spot on, but they called for a storm from a couple days out in the Atlantic, and then the track was pretty good. Overall advanced weather forecasting is not so great, because the models seem to have a dependency on past data and there are variations. The real issue is that climate is a much longer term proposition than 200 years, so yes, that is pure BS when looking at long term prediction. Add to that the fact data is manipulated, hidden agendas added and mixed in, and the outright lies told, and you get Obama Care.

Cows now. Humans next...

Haha! Very good.

New Zealand is famous for its 3 million methane producing sheep, more sheep than people even

Don't people emit co2 too? More people= more co2

But what are the eco-freaks doing about cow farts?
Seriously, though, they know about as much about chemistry as they know about climate change which is nothing at all.

My BW and I are both 82. She is as spry as the Energizer bunny, while I am a decrepit wreck. There's no justice.

Some who believe themselves to scientists are really just political science practitioners.
Humanity needs more CO2 if it is to support about 9 billion people. Almost all that one reads about climate is pure speculation. There is absolutely no possibility of predicting future climate. Weather is known to be a chaotic system which is predictable only for a few days and since climate is a measurement of weather patterns over, say, 30 year periods, one can look at climate as the little lady did at the burger joint and just say where's the weather.