Meanwhile,
other modelers found a variety of other ways to damp down spurious magnifications and other instabilities.
Not exact matches
Aside — the above links lead to
others including this tidbit
modelers might
find useful to crosscheck dust estimates from aerosol depth.
(1) In this case even if they were correct and the models failed to predict or match reality (which, acc to this post has not been adequately established, bec we're still in overlapping data and model confidence intervals), it could just as well mean that AGW stands and the
modelers have failed to include some less well understood or unquantifiable earth system variable into the models, or there are
other unknowns within our weather / climate / earth systems, or some noise or choas or catastrophe (whose equation has not been
found yet) thing.
All Kaufman did is, like every
other climate
modeler,
find some value for aerosols that plugged temperatures to the right values.
On the
other hand, the results would be
founded in observational facts and data, and would not be nearly as subject to the whims and biases of an agendized clique of climate
modelers whose basic starting point is, and always will be, «Nothing else but C02 explains it.»