@Curmudgeon: No, sorry, completely wrong. If you make those models more detailed, then you may simply make them more unstable.

Here, from the second hit returned by Google on "climate model computing power":

"A disadvantage of GCMs is their inability to resolve features smaller than about 50 miles by 50 miles. However, as computing power continues to increase, models are being constantly improved."
http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/pdf/q1d.pdf

I choose the second hit because the words seemed clear, but the same sentiment is expressed in all hits. This is from the Wikipedia hit:

"Although researchers attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and limitations in knowledge of the climate system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

This by the way is a general feature of all finite state analysis simulations, which is what most models are. The sad thing is you spout this crap off without having a clue, or doing even the most basic research.

Amicus: take note. This is how references are used to make a point. Also note how failing to do even basic research before posting (ie finding links) can lead to embarrassment.

@Jon J: Well, according to Hansen himself in 2004

Your quote lies. Hansen didn't say that. Here is the original paper, containing the original quote. Hansen wasn't an author.

http://glory.giss.nasa.gov/aps/docs/SPIE_7826-26.pdf

Oh, but its not an exact quote. In fact no one said it. The original didn't sound good enough, so some liar inserted a few words in here in there to make it sound better. Here is the original:

"Current uncertainties in the total solar irradiance (TSI) and aerosol radiative forcings of climate are so large that they limit quantitative evaluation of climate models against global temperature change."

How mean of them to mislead you like that.

Amicus: take note. Notice how Jon J's like failed to show what he thought, thus disproving you claim that you can "prove or disprove anything you like" with links. I hope you are learning something from these excellent examples provided by your mates.

oh no another fail you know what they say,

Isn't cute when peoples ignorance doesn't stop them from trying to do science. Hell maybe he could give us his thoughts on Relativity or knock out a cure for cancer, why waste these none talent on climate change.

I find it tells you a great deal about a person, when they are more interested in the spelling of a word, or a name, than they are in the meaning, or identity referred to. It shows what's important to small minds.

I believe it is interesting that many of the old global warming supporters have drifted off. Probably they were here long enough to get their eyes opened to the the total lack of evidence presented by the gravy train conductors.

I think it would be fair to say that most of the global warming shrills left are those who's income is likely to be dependant on that gravy train. That is definitely the impression I am getting.

Climate doesn't kill people

Weather does ..

and ..

If the world has become 1 degree C hotter in the last 150 years, why aren't we celebrating such a period of incredible climatic stability?

I see some people have moved on, and are now skeptical of population explosions and food shortages being the next "problem" events, seems reasonable.

Google wars .. what fun, not. Look, it's not science, and it's not convincing, so what's the point?

It's just serve and volley in the sport of internet blog combat. Amicus had rstuart picked right, and look, there he is claiming victory and points in Google searches. rstuart, you're a winner, ok, can you stop now please?

The game right now is Carbon Tax, what it will or will not do for us.

The government's defense is other people are doing it and as well, we need to set an example.

If anyone out there gives a rat's bottom what Australia thinks, I'd be amazed, we're universally laughed at for small minded thinking and having a huge cultural cringe and ego, we have enough expats all trying to prove this point that we should just shut the fork up in public.

Did you see today's piece by little Johnny Pilger, jeez John, let it go! Attacking Australians has become your trademark, we get it, you win, we're awful, now please leave us alone already!

The tax won't do anything, except fill the government's coffers for long enough for them to claim they have balanced the budget, beyond that .. as usual, they have no plan.

For those who want to "do something", you need to either just do it, or go somewhere else, as a nation, we're done.

rstuart
Okay, to anyone familiar with the computer models, the section you cited is straight nonsense.. and I don't care how many times its repeated on google. You are not to blame for this, the reference you cite at least excuses you from that, but the computer modelling community who have foisted this nonsense on the public. Those models as they stand are extremely sensitive to starting conditions and rely on a series of assumptions about atmospheric conditions. In any case they are chaotic, non-linear systems. A global figure (that is to say an average over the whole globe) may be right if the theory is right (which it probably isn't) because they're averaging over such a large system. but 25 square kms.. what rot..

Roses2
most of your post is irrelevent to the point I made. What happened
was that there was a peak in the 1940s then temps went down until the mid-1970s (hence the warnings of the time about a looming ice age) then they went up again until around the turn of the century. Since then nothing. A couple of years ago it was just possible to claim a slight cooling trend since the turn of the century (hence the reference in one item you quoted - it must be old), but that seems to have gone away. Temps are right down now, of course, due to the la Nina, but that has to be averaged with the high temps of last year.

So why have temps flat-lined for more than a decade, and why have they varied so much in the past? will they keep going down like they did in the 1940s, or go up? Will the collapse of the solar cycle have an effect as many think it will? Stay tuned.