The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[Rigby5]

Of course they do modeling to say what caused the recent temperature trend. It's the only way. That you don't know that is surprising.

If something is history because already happened, then it leaves evidence.
You NEVER use modeling for something that actually happened and can be investigated in past data.
Modeling is only used to predict future events because there is no other way to predict a future event.
You clearly do not know what modeling is.
No one would ever try to model a past event.
Modeling can't ever tell you WHY something happened.

 

[ding]

If something is history because already happened, then it leaves evidence.
You NEVER use modeling for something that actually happened and can be investigated in past data.
Modeling is only used to predict future events because there is no other way to predict a future event.
You clearly do not know what modeling is.
No one would ever try to model a past event.
Modeling can't ever tell you WHY something happened.

Incorrect. That you don't know the IPCC uses a model to "history match" as their basis that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend is astonishing.

 

[Rigby5]

Incorrect. That you don't know the IPCC uses a model to "history match" as their basis that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend is astonishing.

Wrong. When you want to predict the future, modeling is the only way anyone can do it.
But to test the model, you can use it on the past, in order to "history match" in order to see if the model has any validity or not.

Again, you would never use modeling for to try to reveal something about past events.
You don't need to.
With past events, you have real data.
If the warming were due to increased solar activity, you would see that in the data from monitoring solar incoming.
If the warming were due to precession or nutation, you would see that in the astronomical monitoring data.

 

[ding]

Wrong. When you want to predict the future, modeling is the only way anyone can do it.
But to test the model, you can use it on the past, in order to "history match" in order to see if the model has any validity or not.

Again, you would never use modeling for to try to reveal something about past events.
You don't need to.
With past events, you have real data.
If the warming were due to increased solar activity, you would see that in the data from monitoring solar incoming.
If the warming were due to precession or nutation, you would see that in the astronomical monitoring data.

It's amazing you don't know this. It's called history matching. You can't make projections without it.

Climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6).

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Easily proven.
Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.
We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.
That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.

Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.

Complete cycle? That's not proof.

We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.

Which 20?

That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.

You're funny.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.

How much warming is caused by extra water vapor? Link?