Garbage In, Garbage Out

Whenever a new environmental "study" comes out, like this one here from the NOAA, I always read very carefully where the source information is.

Because if the "scientist" is basing their findings on computer models, then the study is basically trash. Garbage in, garbage out.

Why do I say that? Because no computer simulation of Earth's climate has ever correctly replicated a historic weather pattern. What do I mean? Well, we know fairly precisely what the global climate was say in the 1980s. If the computer model programs were accurate, then all a "scientist" would have to do is put in the known data collected from the 1980s and the computer simulation would duplicate it.

But no computer simulation or model has ever even achieved this basic task because the scientists still don't fully understand how clouds function in the atmosphere, let alone how the ocean (70%+ of the earth's surface) impacts climate.

And they know they don't know it too - if you look at the article I linked to above, it only mentions "models" buried at the very end of the article. At the beginning, the article uses words like "scientific study", "pioneering study" and "findings" to cover up for the fact that since this article is discussing the climate's future, it must run computer simulations (aka computer models). While much data can be real and factual, a computer simulation is not scientific proof.

Don't believe me? Ask yourself this, if the accuracy of weather predictions breaks down 10 days out, why should you believe that "scientists" can predict what the global climate will be 100 years from now - or even 1,000 years as this study claims?