2023-04-12
There's climate models, and there's climate data.
Models are not necessarily scientific (although they could be if they model theories "proven" by the scientific method to account for all known characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation).
Models in effect are simply computations that are performed according to the wishes of the person who designed them - they may fail if the designer didn't understand the theory to be modelled, or if the implementer failed to code the computations correctly.
Therefore to be validated, a computer model must be checked against all the available data to ensure that it accounts for the known phenomenon being modelled.
"In his annual review of the state of the global climate, Professor Ole Humlum finds much of interest to readers, but little to alarm them"
Ole Humlum is former Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard, Norway, and Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography, University of Oslo, Norway, and in this paper published by the GWPF he addresses known data only, so errors in modelling don't come into it (except in the final paragraphs where he contrasts his results with some IPCC modelling).
"It is informative to consider the variation of the annual change rates of atmospheric CO2 , and global air and sea-surface temperatures (Figure 19). All three rates clearly vary in concert, but sea-surface temperatures are a few months ahead of the global temperature, and 11–12 months ahead of atmospheric CO2 . Important changes apparently originate at the sea surface"
"During the most recent interglacial, about 120,000 years ago, global temperatures and thus sea levels were higher than today, because significant parts of the Greenland ice sheet melted"
My conclusion? "The science" is more complex than anybody seems to want to know, and is not yet settled.
