...
T'étais déjà en train de faire des attaques ad personam et ad hominem dans tes messages, avec toutes tes litanies sur les villains « écologistes bobos nantis du clergé persécutionniste »

....
Tu as la même manière de raisonner qu'un enfant de 5 ans
...
Tu n'as surtout daigné répliquer qu'à deux phrases de ma réponse, qui fait 9 000 signes.
...
Ton niveau de connaissances en matière d'écologie et de climat est à peu près égal...
...

• Quelle preuve avons-nous de la fiabilité des modèles climatiques à long terme ?

A partir de prédictions aussi peu fiables on peut imaginer le futur que l'on souhaite , ou faire le procès de qui on veut avec un épilogue qui tiendra plus de ses propres affinités avec tel ou tel courant de pensée que de faits scientifiques avérés.

FAQ 9.1 | Are Climate Models Getting Better, and How Would We Know?

Climate models are extremely sophisticated computer programs that encapsulate our understanding of the climate
system and simulate, with as much fidelity as currently feasible, the complex interactions between the atmosphere,
ocean, land surface, snow and ice, the global ecosystem and a variety of chemical and biological processes.
The complexity of climate models—the representation of physical processes like clouds, land surface interactions
and the representation of the global carbon and sulphur cycles in many models—has increased substantially since
the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, so in that sense, current Earth System Models are vastly ‘better’ than the
models of that era. This development has continued since the Fourth Assessment, while other factors have also
contributed to model improvement. More powerful supercomputers allow current models to resolve finer spatial
detail. Today’s models also reflect improved understanding of how climate processes work—understanding that has
come from ongoing research and analysis, along with new and improved observations.

Climate models of today are, in principle, better than their predecessors. However, every bit of added complexity,
while intended to improve some aspect of simulated climate, also introduces new sources of possible error (e.g., via
uncertain parameters) and new interactions between model components that may, if only temporarily, degrade a
model’s simulation of other aspects of the climate system. Furthermore, despite the progress that has been made,
scientific uncertainty regarding the details of many processes remains.

An important consideration is that model performance can be evaluated only relative to past observations,
taking into account natural internal variability. To have confidence in the future projections of such models,
historical climate—and its variability and change—must be well simulated. The scope of model evaluation, in terms
of the kind and quantity of observations available, the availability of better coordinated model experiments,
and the expanded use of various performance metrics, has provided much more quantitative information
about model performance. But this alone may not be sufficient. Whereas weather and seasonal climate predictions
can be regularly verified, climate projections spanning a century or more cannot. This is particularly
the case as anthropogenic forcing is driving the climate system toward conditions not previously observed in the
instrumental record, and it will always be a limitation.

Quantifying model performance is a topic that has featured in all previous IPCC Working Group I Reports.
Reading back over these earlier assessments provides a general sense of the improvements that have been
made. Past reports have typically provided a rather broad survey of model performance, showing
differences between model-calculated versions of various climate quantities and corresponding observational estimates.

Inevitably, some models perform better than others for certain climate variables, but no individual model clearly
emerges as ‘the best’ overall. Recently, there has been progress in computing various performance metrics,
which synthesize model performance relative to a range of different observations according to a
simple numerical score. Of course, the definition of such a score, how it is computed, the observations used (which have their
own uncertainties), and the manner in which various scores are combined are all important, and will affect the end result.

Nevertheless, if the metric is computed consistently, one can compare different generations of models. Results
of such comparisons generally show that, although each generation exhibits a range in performance, the
average model performance index has improved steadily between each generation. An example of changes in model
performance over time is shown in FAQ 9.1, Figure 1, and illustrates the ongoing, albeit modest, improvement. It
is interesting to note that both the poorest and best performing models demonstrate improvement, and that this
improvement comes in parallel with increasing model complexity and an elimination of artificial adjustments to
atmosphere and ocean coupling (so-called ‘flux adjustment’). Some of the reasons for this improvement include
increased understanding of various climate processes and better representation of these processes in climate
models. More comprehensive Earth observations are also driving improvements.

So, yes, climate models are getting better, and we can demonstrate this with quantitative performance metrics
based on historical observations. Although future climate projections cannot be directly evaluated, climate models
are based, to a large extent, on verifiable physical principles and are able to reproduce many important aspects of
past response to external forcing. In this way, they provide a scientifically sound preview of the climate response to
different scenarios of anthropogenic forcing.

Il faut arrêter de dire n'importe quoi la. Ou alors il faut arriver avec autre chose que des affirmation péremptoire comme ça.
Au sujet des modèles climatiques, un thème qui est quand même assez exigeant scientifiquement pour savoir de quoi on parle je te renvoie vers ce rapport du GIEC : https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf, notamment la FAQ 9.1 :

Et donc à l'image de tout les rapports du GIEC ce qui est écrit ci-dessus reflète le consensus scientifique, étaillé par un nombre plus que conséquent de références (plus de 20 pages de bibliographie pour le rapport cité) à des publications scientifiques.