Climate measurements for 2023 were above the central estimate of climate model projections. The central estimates had us hitting 1.5C in 2030. That's not "inordinately alarmist". Quite the opposite in fact. However 1.5C last year was still within the range of all models.
I guess that after decades of credibility-undermining over-stating of things, the inputs have been tweaked so as to under-gauging the predictions.
Besides, this is really moot, because, as I say, it is tantamount to merely projecting an existing trend, with the actual outcomes being plus or minus some sort of normal forecast error margin. Why, you and I can do that.
But what these models don't do (the can't) is conclude that atmospheric evolution is a result of human activity and nothing else.
Because to say , as the famed modelers of the climate do, that it is definitely factor X is that causing outcome Y requires them to also demonstrate that none of the entire universe of other factors are not causing it.
If not, then that ain't due scientific process.
"Centrist can a broad term, but I wouldn't consider those working in the fossil fuel industry, or heavily invested in that industry to be centrist on this topic. Such people have too many conflicting priorities."
Centrist means people having adopted a position somewhere in the middle.
Yet you somehow inferentially equate "centrist" with fossil fuel advocates?
(You have a predilection for coming up with these sorts of false flags.
I remember when I said at one stage that climate warriors were saying five years ago that gas was not a transition fuel you somehow conflated that to something else that was being said fifteen years ago.)
"Fourier transforms are a pure math construct. They are not based on empirically derived electromagnetic evidence, or even specifically related to electromagnetics."
I never said they were. Another false premise from you.
"Fourier transforms just arise from the mathematical realisation that any function can be expanded into a series of sine functions."
Yeah, without getting into a lesson on the application or non-application of FTs, they are utilised for design and analysis of electronic circuitry. So, not just pure mathematical constructs for the sake of it; they have real-world applications in electronics engineering.
"The climate models may look like they are just projecting an established trend, but they are the result of simulating all sorts of physical systems and interactions. Fluid flow based on heating, carbon sinks, etc, etc, etc."
And the trouble with them is that - like all predictive models - the accuracy and veracity of their outputs are limited to the veracity of their weakest inputs.
So, "all sorts of systems and interactions", maybe, but not all at the same degree of accuracy and veracity.
Also, "all sortsof systems and interactions. ....", but most certainly not "all systems and interactions."
Case in point relating to dubious modelling, I visited The Maldives in the 1990s.
My visit coincided with media articles citing academic papers (ably reviewed by peers, mind) whose models were predicting rising sea levels that would render something like 75% of the island group submerged by 2010. In the year I visited, the Maldives received a total of 200,000 visitors.
In 2023 the place had just completed construction of its 5th international airport, at a cost of billions of dollars, and was developing resorts capable of handling 4 million visitors a year.
