Climate science suffers from the same problem as weather science, the models are essentially giant monte carlo simulations. i.e the results aren't precise.
But that is ok, because precision isn't and shouldn't be the goal. What is important is the direction, we need to know whether or not heating is occuring, roughly the rate of change and if there is anything we can to do stop it.
None of these require hard "X *C by Y year" and not being able to make such predictions shouldn't invalidate the rest of the evidence that says it's happening.
But that is ok, because precision isn't and shouldn't be the goal. What is important is the direction, we need to know whether or not heating is occuring, roughly the rate of change and if there is anything we can to do stop it.
None of these require hard "X *C by Y year" and not being able to make such predictions shouldn't invalidate the rest of the evidence that says it's happening.