/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16052090
Is it?

Predicting CO2 concentrations and temperature isn't the problem, and so far climate models have been pretty much spot on as far as temp/CO2. The main problem is predicting the effects temp/CO2 has had on terrestrial ecosystems. Like for instance we've found that the north pole has transitioned from mostly having year round ice to seasonal ice. The effects on other ecosystems is still up for debate, like with wildfires places can only burn so much until all the vegetation has burned off. Just don't listen to journalists.

>>12280002
>OK so multiple predictions of ice free north pole has failed
What predictions? Al Gore?

>Now tell me why we should believe they can predict climate 80 years ahead??
Because (((they))) have predicted temperatures accurately for several decades and the predictions are based on a good understanding of the climate.

But at least you have dropped the idiotic claim that there's no evidence.

>>12276644

>>12194376

>>12159944
>However, and I mean however because this is very important, "climate scientists" have no idea how the climate will change going forward
Then why are their predictions successful?

>they have no way to prove that humans are causing the climate change that is happening right now.
It's directly observable: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3428v1r6/qt3428v1r6_noSplash_b5903aebfe105b4071103e11197138f8.pdf

>They don't understand how the earth's climate actually works
They unbranded more than enough to see humans are causing current warming and that warming will continue if CO2 emissions continue.

>so they can't create models that accurately predict its changes going forward.
They already have. Why are you making claims that are obviously false?

>They can create complex regression models using past data to predict its changes going forward
Which ones are those exactly? Because modern models are based on solving discretized thermodynamic and fluid dynamics equations, not regression. Why are you making claims that are obviously false?

>>11849682
>also known as "reading tea leaves"
Your opinion is less than worthless.

>the models backfit data, they don't predict.
Wrong.