Models are models, and not facts. Other influences, such as volcanoes in recent decades can influence things. For example in the charts posted by FYC, you can see a drop in temps after 1980 and 1990. I believe there were several very ashy volcanoes shortly after 1980, and Pinatubo in 1991 was definitely followed by severe winter weather for several years in the NE US. I particularly remember a severe ice storm that was breaking off trees and telephone poles in NY state and Canada. My brother who was living in Syracuse was very impressed by that and he had lived there since the mid 1960’s. Should we have a monster like Toba, or even Tambora, our risk of temp rise would be nil for a century or a decade. The climate models simply cannot include that kind of conjecture.
I know models are models.
We use a lot of models where I work.
Some we build into our product, others we use to test our product.
But we can’t do any of that until we can demonstrate that they produce results that match what they’re modeling within an appropriate tolerance.
That process is called “Validation”.
The global warming “models” are UNvalidated.
Models are models, that’s a hot one (as it were)... yet everyone pushing the AGW scam scorns everyone who disagrees (including Al “The Debate is Over” Gore, who also sold his disaster of a TV network to tiny oil giant Qatar), and furthermore don’t agree that models are different from facts. Their models happen to differ from facts, because they aren’t based on facts, they’re entirely political in origin, and designed to turn everyone else into serfs. I am not going.