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."
If you want to continue this next week, do the following:
Find a climate model. Assess its assumptions. Show why the assumptions are inaccurate and why the predictions of the model must therefore be ignored.
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.
You misunderstood. The observed trend now is about 0.2 C per decade. If that continues (as Pat Michaels expects it will), at the end of the century the average global temperature will be about 2.0 higher. +/- 0.2 C, depending on the year.
Sure, it might not continue. We could also get hit by a big asteroid tomorrow and that would throw all the predictions out the window. But you can say what we don't know, but that's useless. Predictions are based on what we do know -- that's all that is possible.
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.
The FACT of a greenhouse-gas induced warming at the PETM is not, and was not, contradicted by the so-called "wrongness" of the models that were discussed in the article. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations at the PETM caused a major global temperature increase. Do you deny that? If you say "yes" (i.e., you deny that fact), then no discussion on this subject will ensue.
I mean come on, you actually said, "Not wrong, inaccurate". How much more weasely can you get?
Modelers count their successes in a different way than you do. If a model reproduced both the trend and the duration of the temperature rise, but not the absolute magnitude, the modelers would tend to think they were on the right track and their basic assumptions were correct. But their second-order assumptions might need adjustment to get a more accurate result on that variable. You'd be hard-pressed to tell the modelers that their model was "wrong" in this case; they'd acknowledge that it needed improvement. (As they did.) But that inaccuracy wouldn't mean they'd scrap the whole thing and start over from the ground floor.
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".
Go back to the figure and tell me which bodies of water don't show a trend of later freeze dates over time. Do likewise for the earlier thaw dates.