Here is the IPCC WORKING GROUP I CONTRIBUTION TO THE IPCC FIFTH ASSESSMENT REPORT CLIMATE CHANGE 2013: THE PHYSICAL SCIENCE BASIS Final Draft Underlying Scientific-Technical Assessment Let's go to page TS-103 illustration b and take a look at the reconstructed global temperature around the year 1000 AD? This is the part in gray, not the computer model data in red. See how IT WAS MUCH WARMER THAN TODAY back in 1000 AD when the Scandinavians lived in Greenland? Look for the height of the gray and the density of the shades of gray which shows a strong confidence level in the reconstruction. Now look at the red line, showing how the computer model didn't predict that at all. Now if the computer model totally missed the Medieval Warm Period, why should anyone care what it predicts for the future?
Meteorology. Trying to predict short term chaos. They regularly accurately predict the weather. They accurately predict Nor easter's a week ahead of time. One of the two model types used predicted Sandy's path. Your single biased observation means less than nothing. You try to find mistakes that they make, and ignore all the times they are right. Climatology. Predicting long-term general trends based on current trends and presumptions about future factors like increased greenhouse gasses. In fact the increasing greenhouse gasses make climate prediction easier. Easier still is predicting the total heat content of the earth in future years.
Actually they get even short term predictions wrong all the time. The Butterfly Effect Weather prediction is an extremely difficult problem. Meteorologists can predict the weather for short periods of time, a couple days at most, but beyond that predictions are generally poor. Edward Lorenz was a mathematician and meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who loved the study of weather. With the advent of computers, Lorenz saw the chance to combine mathematics and meteorology. He set out to construct a mathematical model of the weather, namely a set of differential equations that represented changes in temperature, pressure, wind velocity, etc. In the end, Lorenz stripped the weather down to a crude model containing a set of 12 differential equations. On a particular day in the winter of 1961, Lorenz wanted to re-examine a sequence of data coming from his model. Instead of restarting the entire run, he decided to save time and restart the run from somewhere in the middle. Using data printouts, he entered the conditions at some point near the middle of the previous run, and re-started the model calculation. What he found was very unusual and unexpected. The data from the second run should have exactly matched the data from the first run. While they matched at first, the runs eventually began to diverge dramatically â the second run losing all resemblance to the first within a few "model" months. A sample of the data from his two runs in shown below: At first Lorenz thought that a vacuum tube had gone bad in his computer, a Royal McBee â an extremely slow and crude machine by today's standards. After discovering that there was no malfunction, Lorenz finally found the source of the problem. To save space, his printouts only showed three digits while the data in the computer's memory contained six digits. Lorenz had entered the rounded-off data from the printouts assuming that the difference was inconsequential. For example, even today temperature is not routinely measured within one part in a thousand. This led Lorenz to realize that long-term weather forecasting was doomed. His simple model exhibits the phenomenon known as "sensitive dependence on initial conditions." This is sometimes referred to as the butterfly effect, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in South America can affect the weather in Central Park. The question then arises â why does a set of completely deterministic equations exhibit this behavior? After all, scientists are often taught that small initial perturbations lead to small changes in behavior. This was clearly not the case in Lorenz's model of the weather. The answer lies in the nature of the equations; they were nonlinear equations. While they are difficult to solve, nonlinear systems are central to chaos theory and often exhibit fantastically complex and chaotic behavior.
Current temps are about as high as they were in the MWP. But it doesn't matter. The MWP did not have 400ppm CO2 levels. Models need data, there is very little from the MWP. There is much more data and observation of the last 50 years or so. These charts show actual and modeled temps.
Why don't you look it up. Why don't you try to find a single science organization that does not agree with the consensus? You can try but you won't find any. Here's a recent statement from the AMA "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)