New posts

Reply to thread

Message

You cannot account for something that is neither apparent nor quantified!

Proxies are not perfect, but all credible ones show that within the past 1000 years the present rate of change is unprecedented for the northern hemisphere:
[ATTACH=full]159119[/ATTACH]

Given science is supposed to be explanatory, and this paper offers none, what makes it credible

But the models actually do put in all the variables that are known to have a quantifiable effect on climate. However, climate change is not linear so temperature trajectories can skew higher or lower, but maintain an overall trend based on the chosen settings.

That's a false claim, and every credible climate scientist can prove how CO2 affects temperature. Where is your evidence that the the well understood physics of additional CO2 in our atmosphere is different?

They have accurately predicted the trend for over 35 years:
[ATTACH=full]159117[/ATTACH]
Hansen produced the above chart - based on his modelling - in 1988. How much more evidence do you need to prove the ability of models to show what outcomes are likely?

<blockquote data-quote="rederob" data-source="post: 1234577" data-attributes="member: 2837">You cannot account for something that is neither apparent nor quantified!Proxies are not perfect, but all credible ones show that within the past 1000 years the present rate of change is unprecedented for the northern hemisphere:[ATTACH=full]159119[/ATTACH]Given science is supposed to be explanatory, and this paper offers none, what makes it credibleBut the models actually do put in all the variables that are known to have a quantifiable effect on climate.&nbsp; However, climate change is not linear so temperature trajectories can skew higher or lower, but maintain an overall trend based on the chosen settings.That&#039;s a false claim, and every credible climate scientist can prove how CO2 affects temperature.&nbsp; Where is your evidence that the the well understood physics of additional CO2 in our atmosphere is different? They have accurately predicted the <a href="https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200203_ModelsVsWorld.pdf" target="_blank">trend </a>for over 35 years:[ATTACH=full]159117[/ATTACH]Hansen produced the above chart - based on his modelling - in 1988.&nbsp; How much more evidence do you need to prove the ability of models to show what outcomes are likely?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rederob, post: 1234577, member: 2837"] You cannot account for something that is neither apparent nor quantified! Proxies are not perfect, but all credible ones show that within the past 1000 years the present rate of change is unprecedented for the northern hemisphere: [ATTACH=full]159119[/ATTACH] Given science is supposed to be explanatory, and this paper offers none, what makes it credible But the models actually [B]do [/B]put in all the variables that are known to have a quantifiable effect on climate. However, climate change is not linear so temperature trajectories can skew higher or lower, but maintain an overall trend based on the chosen settings. That's a false claim, and every credible climate scientist can prove how CO2 affects temperature. Where is your evidence that the the well understood physics of additional CO2 in our atmosphere is different? They have accurately predicted the [URL='https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200203_ModelsVsWorld.pdf']trend [/URL]for over 35 years: [ATTACH type="full"]159117[/ATTACH] Hansen produced the above chart - based on his modelling - in 1988. How much more evidence do you need to prove the ability of models to show what outcomes are likely? [/QUOTE]

Verification