Modelling is a great tool but only after a level of certainty about the parameters have been reached. In physics some known factors can be easily established by sheer experience and real live data observations. However, in regards to climate only a very limited amount of parameters are certain. Complicated by a dynamic interactive non equilibrium system one could say with absolute certainty that no model or series of models can be relied upon, not even an average even if they all agree. If the underlying premise or assumption is wrong the outcome is as well. So, if you assume the greenhouse gas theory is right in ALL your models All of them will more or less point to the same thing. Since everyone seems to be focused on Co2 maybe it is best to start the models without that and see how they level up to real time measurements. A lot better than they currently do would be my assumption
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much Mr. Paul for the explanation!!!
Thank you for a very nice series!
Modelling is a great tool but only after a level of certainty about the parameters have been reached. In physics some known factors can be easily established by sheer experience and real live data observations. However, in regards to climate only a very limited amount of parameters are certain. Complicated by a dynamic interactive non equilibrium system one could say with absolute certainty that no model or series of models can be relied upon, not even an average even if they all agree. If the underlying premise or assumption is wrong the outcome is as well. So, if you assume the greenhouse gas theory is right in ALL your models All of them will more or less point to the same thing. Since everyone seems to be focused on Co2 maybe it is best to start the models without that and see how they level up to real time measurements. A lot better than they currently do would be my assumption