As we've proven in the other thread, those 'estimates' from modeling are wrong. Or 'not accurate', as you prefer to state.
If that trend continues, the warming over the next century will be 1.7 - 2 C.
But since in the last 100 years the temp went up for 40 years, then down for 40 years, then up for 40 years . . . assuming a constant increase seems to be pretty wrongheaded!
That basic error alone should show you how intellectually dishonest this theory is.
Altho if you aren't even willing to admit that the models are wrong, I'm not sure there's much chance you'd admit this error either, I suppose. Sorry, I don't mean to sound fussy about it. I just can't imagine being so closed.
Below is a link to one of my favorite climate studies. See what you think.
Well that seems to confirm what I'm saying. Some of those are freezing later, some earlier, some not much change at all.
On the whole, not much change.
You haven't proven anything from the other thread, and these models are dissimilar from those models. The estimate is based on several different formulations addressed as an ensemble. That's why there is a range given. Recent studies have indicated that the highest estimates (6 C for doubled CO2) are very unlikely. There have not been similar studies indicating that the low end is unlikely. You're getting tiresome on this "the models are wrong" tack. Models are tools that can be used to provide estimates.
But since in the last 100 years the temp went up for 40 years, then down for 40 years, then up for 40 years . . . assuming a constant increase seems to be pretty wrongheaded!
Every climate scientist knows that there is going to be variability. The variability you cite above has been explained pretty well, and no one is expecting an absolute constant increase. It would be more accurate to say that over the next 100 years, the average trend will be +0.2 C per decade.
Altho if you aren't even willing to admit that the models are wrong,
For me to say that "the models are wrong", it would have to be demonstrated that there is a basic fundamental principle that is either missing or incorrectly calculated -- kind of like the erroneous units conversion that doomed a previous Mars mission.
Well that seems to confirm what I'm saying. Some of those are freezing later, some earlier, some not much change at all.
And the net result of evaluating the freeze/thaw data taken in toto is that bodies of water in the Northern Hemisphere are generally freezing a week later and thawing a week earlier. Do you see that as a climate trend, or not?