Analysis is rarely limited by arithmetic or mathematical skill, but by the validity of one’s models. Up until around 1916, there was a persistent, but subtle anomaly in the precession of the perihelion of the orbit of Mercury, that could not be explained by Newton’s theory of gravity. When Einstein applied his new general theory of relativity (which is really a theory about gravity) he came up with precisely the correct - in the sense that it agreed with observations - result. So far General Relativity has taken everything that’s been thrown at it, and it comes up standing.
Global warming theory cannot “predict” the past, in the sense that when the equation are run backwards in time it diverges from historical measurements, and its very modest attempts at predicting the last decade of so have been utter failures. Ptolemaic astronomy has more empirical validation than global warming theory.
Keep an open mind.
Exactly.
One of my biggest beefs with climate modeling is the ability to accurately measure CO2, literally our best measurements are wildly outside any margin of error.
The tolerances we work with do not allow measuring man’s output of CO2 into the environment with any accuracy what so ever! It’s like trying to measure the impact of a thimble of hot water poured into an olympic swimming pool with a garden thermometer.