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?
Then this is going to be very tiresome for you. Because the models are wrong. All of them. Because we don't know the system well enough yet. We do not know enough about all the variables to make an accurate model. And you have proven that even when I can show that they flat-out state the model is bad, you will ignore that and continue to claim the data is fact.
By which your credibility is very badly damaged, in my eyes, I am sorry to say.
It would be more accurate to say that over the next 100 years, the average trend will be +0.2 C per decade.
No, that would *not* be accurate. You don't *know* how long it will go up, and how long in will go down. You don't *know* at what point it will begin swinging, or what causes that swing.
So predicting that the temp will continue to increase at a steady rate, and doing math to calculate how much, is the height of dishonest science.
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.
When comparing predictions to what actually happened, the model in that other thread was wrong. It underestimated numbers, did not predict several observed facts and made predictions that were not borne out by evidence.
And you can't admit the model was wrong.
What else is there to say about it? You're using the CBS line, "wrong, but accurate". That's spin of the first order. And typically, like with CBS, it suggest you know you're wrong and just continuing to spin.
I mean come on, you actually said, "Not wrong, inaccurate". How much more weasely can you get?
Do you see that as a climate trend, or not?
No, aggregates don't work that way. That is not what that data shows, no. Two freeze earlier, two freeze later, two are unchanged. Your side just isn't being honest when you say that "in toto, it's later". It's all in how you slice the data. Lieing with stats is easy. For example I could say, "Of the 6 areas studiet, 4 froze either earlier or unchanged. Therefore 66% are *not* freezing later."