Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
No.
A large portion of our understanding is based on direct measurements compared against the instrumental record and against the geological record, including things like ice cores. I am a field scientist, I am inherently skeptical of models, but when models have the ability to align well with observations (see Stephan rahmasdorf’s 2007 paper on sea level rise) using data not used to make the model, I take notice.
This (below) is a nice explanation of how climate models work, particularly about how the point of the models is to show the trends and not make a prediction of a date/time/magnitude. But you know all this, we have been around and around on this before. The whole political forum is a circle jerk of the two sides just aiming at each other same #^&#^&#^&#^&. Boring.....
https://youtu.be/3v9aRQpumPA
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
not no. yes. that’s why NONE of the dire predictions have come true. if it was an exact science, philadelphia would oceanfront. and alaska would
be exporting pineapples. i build
predictive models for a
living, and i do it it an area where it’s almost am exact science.
why have none of the dire predictions come true? because the models were off. you can’t ever make that statement wrong. only a zealot would
try to make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode