So I'm not sure
why climate modelers have such confidence; I suspect it is «comfort» rather than confidence.
In my study of the climate modelers at the UK Met Office Hadley centre, I had identified a list of potential success factors that might explain
why the climate modelers appear to be successful (i.e. to the extent that we are able to assess it, they appear to build good quality software with low defect rates, without following a standard software engineering process).
Of course, this kind of uncertainty is
why climate modelers don't presume to «predict» at all and get irritated when model scenarios are taken as predictions.
Which explains
why climate modeler Andrew Weaver thinks it's perfectly OK to be a candidate for the Green Party of British Columbia (one of Canada's provinces) at the same time that he's serving as a lead author for the IPCC.
Not exact matches
The
climate modelers can continue running simulations, refine their guesses and SWAGS, figure out how to tighten the course grain assumptions, maybe someday they will figure out how and
why, along with where and for how long the water is moving around on the planet.
AGW
climate modelers can not understand
why and where their «warming» went.
For years the
modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural
climate change... yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural
climate forces to explain
why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!
If water vapor has an amplifying effect as
climate modelers claim,
why is the daily mean temperature in a dry, desert area warmer (in spite of nighttime cooling) than a humid tropical area at the same latitude?
This is, no doubt,
why prominent
climate modeler Gavin Schmidt labels the new e-mail release «Two - year old turkey.»