I listened to an interview with a climate modeller yesterday. In the very first climate models, the first inputs were solar irradiance, volcanic emissions, and sunspots. As we know, these natural contributions could not account for the acceleration in global warming since 1960.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Once they input other contributions, they found that their models fit the global temperature measurements surprisingly accurately, with greenhouse gas emissions accouting for 70-95% of the warming over the past few decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Considering how complex the global climate and models are and how many degrees of freedom the models contained, it's very impressive how accurate they turned out. It's possible that they're wrong, but it would be highly unlikely for the models to fit the measurements better if the inputs changed.
So why do GW deniers claim that these climate models are unreliable?
2007-07-04
10:26:07
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Dana1981
7
in
Global Warming