Comment Re:Death throes of climate alarmism (Score 1) 156
Except they didn't change the model (not theory, that's the wrong term entirely). They changed the inputs from their estimates to the real figures and found that their predictions went from being close, to even more accurate. That CONFIRMS that the model is accurate--if you put in real inputs, you get real outputs.
The THEORY is basic radiative hydrodynamics (conservation of mass, momentum, and energy) with a REALLY complicated equation of state. A computer model of radiative hydrodynamics is as accurate as 1) Its boundary conditions, 2) its initial conditions, 3) its equation of state, and 4) the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy Only numbers 3 and 4 are part of the THEORY. Numbers 1,3, and 4 implemented as a computer program make up the model. 4 is (barring some nobel-prize worthy revolution in physics) completely, perfectly, undebateably accurate. 3 is well understood in basic theory (it's just a stochastic extrapolation from QM), but really, really hard to model in practice for a system like the earth. They changed number 2 which is not part of the theory or the model (it's the data).