you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well God damnit how can I parse any of this if the definitions are squirrelly and changing.

Sometimes you have to read the paper to understand. Sometimes I read it, and still don't understand.

All they did was fiddle with a computer model until it matches reality.

I don't think they tweaked HadCM3 for this paper.

They are picking and choosing what to model in the system.

No, they're not avoiding modelling anything that they had the understanding and computing power to model.

And the results are consistent with other models, as demonstrated by Meehl et al. Completely different model. The observed warning is still anthropogenic.

Stott et al got similar results later still with HadGEM1.

HadGEM1 was capable of showing the warming on each continent was likely anthropogenic.

There's gotta be better proof for anthropogenic climate change than this.

Proof of anthropogenic climate change is clearest from first principles. The increase in CO2 will result in a warmer planet.

This kind of paper is investigating the dynamics of that: How much of the observed warning is anthropogenic?