Climate Change models
 

I know nothing of science so won't even try to determine if man-made climate change is valid theory however...

If it is real I think we are all screwed. Kyoto was marginalized by the non-participation of several large emitters (and was ignored by countries like Canada that signed). The Copenhagen conference is already being described as DOA even before it begins. If the problem is as urgent as some say then I'm afraid we won't change behaviour quickly or seriously enough to rescue things.

From the page you mentioned:

Some climate
models, or closely related variants, have also been tested
by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts.
These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they
can represent important features of the general circulation
across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and
interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and
other important climate features increases our confidence that
they represent the essential physical processes important for
the simulation of future climate change.

No, these models are not proprietary. If you dig through the appendices or google scholar, you can probably find something.

I saw that chunk, but I was actually hoping to find something more concrete. A table listing the models they used, and some gauge of how well they matched with empirical data (maybe different figures for matching temperature, precipitation) would be what I'm looking for. I found a table that listed the models, and what country they came from, and some other stuff, but it wasn't numeric.

I find it hard to believe that there's all this interest, by all these scientists, and nobody has bothered to crunch the numbers and show which model has done the best at matching observations. You'd think this would be pretty easy to find. Frankly I'm not happy with how either side carries on the debate. The skeptics drum up specious arguments that are probably half-truths at best, while the believers are just ignoring the debate and rushing to spend hundreds of billions on hare-brained schemes. The shortage of facts bothers me, especially when it should be pretty simple to check the models.

I'm down for that. Honestly, shotguns and LSD are the only things I actually care about.

I should add that the IPCC puts out estimates that have the broadest consensus possible. Most climate modelers are less optimistic.

What's wrong with the original sentence, other than their BS use of the word "integrated"?

Did I correctly interpret it?

Did I correctly interpret it?

Yes. The reason for the "initialization" bit is that the conservation equations for a fluid are extremely sensitive to initial conditions (are "nonlinear"). When you increase the resolution by going from climate to weather, you have to be very careful when specifying the initial conditions.

Well I'm happy to know that I can parse a sentence of scientific writing.

As to why I think it's badly written, it mostly comes down to aesthetics. Short words are better than long words. Jargon is fine as long as it's necessary, but my eyes glaze over looking at page after page of big words like that. It reminded me of proofreading papers for the science majors at college. It's not exactly gibberish, but it's certainly tiring to read that sort of writing. It makes my eyes burn and my mind turn to mud.

Yeah, stick to tabs and at least your eyes won't burn.http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif