Off course computer models at best are only as good as the equations underlying them. Again this is obvious to the people who program them. There is absolutely no basis for using this to reject computermodels. No one building models claims putting something on a computer magically makes it accurate. This is just as much a silly straw man argument as those BD uses.

Computer models are nothing more than numerical solutions to differential equations which are too complicated to solve analytically. They boil down to making estimates for the solution to a set of differential equations, checking the error of the estimate by putting newly and formerly calculated estimates into the equations, and then refining the estimate if the error is above a desired level. The more complicated the equations and the smaller the error tolerance the more computing time/power is required. The means of checking the accuracy of the simulation versus the underlying equations are well established in mathematics and engineering.

The equations that govern mass and energy balances are decades old long predating computers. These equations are used in all sorts of programs by the same business interests opposed to paying global warming preventive costs. The difference with global warming is that the system is so complicated that many more differential equations must be incorporated into the computer model than most models making it a difficult computational problem. Assumptions must be made as to which variables are most important in order to make the problem manageable. This certainly leaves the door open as to the validity of the models, but once again the fact that different models using different assumptions indicate the same general result strongly suggest that CO2 induced GW is a real threat.

I think what it all boils down to is that the primary effect is the suns energy input coupled with the concentration of CO2. All the attempts to include the impacts of the minor variables people like to fuss about being left out really don't amount to much over the long term. They impact the rate and degree of warming, but are not large enough to counter the most important variables of Solar input and CO2 concentration. The very ones that have been validated by using models on Mars and Venus. But as Larry likes to say, what do I know I've just programmed my own 5 differential eqaution model for affinity chromotography not a climate model?

I also know that fequently used analytical solutions to engineering problems often involve simplifications to allow analytical solutions of far more questionable justification than the minor climate variables people like to squok about in opposition to climate models. If an mass or energy input is less than 1 % of the total most engineers would have no trouble deleting the variable in an attempt to derive an analytical solution of practical use. Despite these assumptions engineering equations work very well because a 99.99999 % accuracy is not needed when you throw in a 10 % margin fo error.

Similarly we don't need to know exactly when a certain temperature will be reached and what the impact on every single location will be to know that raising average temperatures will cause a lot of havoc. The minor ups and downs of Earth's own climate and differences between lattitudes show this. anti-GW folks tend to use small levels of uncertaintly to justify ignoring a general trend that is very likely to occur.

Your mumbo jumbo about wavelengths is irrelevant. We know the wavelength distribution of sunlight, how these get converted to infrared wavelengths, and what infrared wavelengths CO2 traps. All this can be tested and reproduced without any computer model.

Regards,
Mark