Anonymous hints at a political agenda when s/he asks for "proof" (since science can disprove but never prove to an absolute certainty), although the comment also includes a better statement, "Where could I find the results from previous computer models scenarios? I would like to see how accurate they are."

I'll give Anon the benefit of the doubt and assume "proof" was an inadvertent slip.

The evidence lies in volumes of scientific literature, and without knowing your current level of knowledge, it is impossible to suggest what will help you to read through it.

Certainly the references in the books I cited will help (and the references in those references). Chris Mooney's Storm World, for example, discusses the science of predicting hurricane patterns (the subject of this thread) in considerable detail. It's an excellent source to understand the historical tension between modelers and those who look for empirical patterns.

(As a person whose doctoral thesis and post-doc work included developing models for condensed matter physics phenomena, I certainly could appreciate the limitations of models as well as their usefulness. If you want to see the only place where my name has become attached to a long-standing computational technique, Google "Bortz Kalos". That will lead you to work I did in the mid-1970s that is still cited today.)

Mooney's references will lead you to the work of many modelers and empiricists.

If you are dealing with the larger issue of climate modeling and its implications for climate change, the best source is probably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. These are full of citations to primary source literature and include discussions of the value and limitations of the various climate models that the panel has used.

Now this citation is certain to draw out right-wing ideologues who will bash the IPCC as alarmist and question the ability of any organization associated with the United Nations to produce good scientific analysis intended to guide policy-makers. They will conveniently leave out the other organization behind the IPCC, the World Meteorological Organization, and they will trot out the same small group of scientists advocating the minority viewpoint while neglecting the IPCC's recent Nobel Peace Prize.

Why Peace, you may ask? Because the consequences of climate change, if not addressed pro-actively, could lead to economic and social disruptions. (I recommend a book called The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1350-1800 for insight into the impact that even small changes in climate can have on human affairs.)

As you can see, I take a middle-of-the-road approach here, focusing on what science and modeling can and cannot do. I want our policy-makers to have the best science available for making their decisions, and I think political wisdom can come from people of varying perspectives.

So my recommendation is that you gradually work your way toward the primary source literature. Don't accept the conclusions of any of the authors whose books I have reviewed, and don't blindly follow any summary of the literature. Keep an open mind, giving the scientists who have produced the primary source literature credit for doing the same when they present their results. Of course they are human and favor their own viewpoints, but the process of consensus-building always manages to take that into account as well.

I always tell my young readers to "follow their questions." That's my advice to you as well.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)