So what can we do with climate prediction models? What’s the role in the scientific methed. We observe phenomena, formulate an hypothesis to explain it, quantify the solution with math and models and predict future developments. Now if the prediction matches the outcome there is a change that it was correct, until it does not match a further outcome anymore.
The state of the art of weather models is known already. They are so accurate that I know exactly whether or not to carry an umbrella next week Friday.
The main problem with models is GIGO of course and the problem is what is garbage and what not. Barring any progress in proof for AGW the parameters are established on the perceived guts feeling of global warming. However, the major disputes about climate in the last millennium during the Holocene, during the Pleistocene, etc are as strong as ever before, enough to tell us that we don’t know a thing. So as long as little if any is explained via a sound scientific method cycle like this:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103384
http://ams.allenpress.com/pdfserv/10.1175%2FBAMS-86-10-1437
http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=25003&start=1
there is no way to understand and model climate.
Furthermore I wonder, for instance if the Solar cycles and the barycentric cycles of the sun have been put in correctly
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspots.html
or the Siberian Mammoths, defeating all paleoclimatic models.
With all that complications, climate models serve a sole purpose, a pseudo scientific scaremongering tool, worse than statistics because it gives the impression of sophistication, surety and solid knowledge. But when there is something fundamentally wrong with perception of reality don’t expect anything of it’s model.
A very accurate vision on models:
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html