Not exact matches
Modelling is generally shunned in
attribution in favor of
observation, but I do agree that climate science must turn to modelling when necessary, and that the statements in the 2010 post
about using a lab are quite accurate and insightful.
As for your comment, the fundamental point here is that there can be no «planet climate model» and «planet
observations» when talking
about attribution.
Chris Colose: As for your comment, the fundamental point here is that there can be no «planet climate model» and «planet
observations» when talking
about attribution.
«The assessment is supported additionally by a complementary analysis in which the parameters of an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity (EMIC) were constrained using
observations of near - surface temperature and ocean heat content, as well as prior information on the magnitudes of forcings, and which concluded that GHGs have caused 0.6 °C to 1.1 °C (5 to 95 % uncertainty) warming since the mid-20th century (Huber and Knutti, 2011); an analysis by Wigley and Santer (2013), who used an energy balance model and RF and climate sensitivity estimates from AR4, and they concluded that there was
about a 93 % chance that GHGs caused a warming greater than observed over the 1950 — 2005 period; and earlier detection and
attribution studies assessed in the AR4 (Hegerl et al., 2007b).»
And Ray, the whole point of the article
about curve fitting and natural cycles is that it is inappropriate to make strong claims
about random fits without mechanism,
attribution and supporting physics and
observations, unless you are perfectly willing to accept that the fact that the confidence in any assumptions indicated by any such «curve fitting» is likely lower in contrast to more relevant methods.