This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Of course it is for data modeling. There is enough data out there that there is no need for any more collection.
Some of the models I have seen are impressive. One of them actually depicts animated graphics that show the correlation between the solar radiation in the atmosphere and the CO2 filtering the wavelengths.
It also showed, very accurately, how saturation of the filtering of particular wavelengths was reduced by increase of the CO2 generated since the Industrial revolution! I could go forever on how precise these models are and how much more precise they will get with all this$$ help. The degree of precision will be significantly increased.
Now, please note I used "precision" not "accuracy". If as you say, the money was to do climate modeling, the outcome would be very likely different that what it is going to be.
In climate data modeling is far much easier to be precise than to be accurate. Otherwise you wouldn't have to carry an umbrella when it is overcast and damp but the weather service says it will not rain.
Now, let's not get into the massaging of the data and results these 'scientists' consensually do.
I am to the point that I would not believe the results if they showed that AGW is not the case.
I need to rant for a second.
One wonders continuously why it is so difficult of the scientifically minded elite to create a #()#)#$ test loop with the models. Predict Next Year. Wait 1 year. Did the prediction match the results? NO! Figure out why and try again. Hell, tighten up the prediction schedule to predict next month, and really go to town.
Apparently though, climate is not the integration of weather. Just because they can't predict how much rain is going to fall in the month of may in the state of Washington in 2009 does not mean that they can't predict the climate in 2060.
Having just finished a meeting where I had to explain to my boss how our code was organized, I realize how these Climate Prediction go awry. My boss is not a bad guy, but he wants the code to be simple enough for him to understand, but he doesn't want to learn how to code. Eventually, I have to wave my hands in the air and say "Voila!" Everything is okay again until the next time. How many actual coders of climate are interfacing with the public and other scientists. I am pretty **** sure you don't want me to be that interface. I wonder if the climate modelers resemble me at all. I don't want to try and find another job right now. I just want to keep getting my paycheck. My boss glosses over the complexities and the client is even glossier than he is. I would like to corner a real modeler and get him drunk and eek out the real secrets.
I will happily get down off my Denialist soap box, if any model predicts next year. If a model can help planners get resources lined up based on what the weather is going to do to us next year, I will take off my virtual hat and say "Well done!". I am not so stodgy that I will deny success. I just expect more than dire predictions of the future.
Phew! NEXT! Whose next to stand on this wonderful soap box!
Obama should give them 10% of the money now and 90% if and when the model predicts the climate correctly. P.S. am I right in thinking thatt here is no qualitative diference between 'weather' and climate' - that temperature and so on are equally unpredictable over long and short periods? So that climate predictions really are only weather forecasts writ large?