If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.So all models are first tested in a process called .Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.Mainstream climate models have also accurately projected global surface temperature changes. CO does explain that rise, and explains it completely without any need for additional, as yet unknown forcings.
Trends are important because they eliminate - or "smooth out" - single events that may be extreme, but quite rare.Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter.Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons.Similar kinds of problems are seen in the case of potassium-argon dating, which is considered one of the most reliable methods. Andrew Snelling, a geologist, points out several of these problems with potassium-argon, as seen in Table 7.know the true age, then how can it be trusted to give us the correct age for rocks that had no human observers to record when they formed?Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry.Testing models against the existing instrumental record suggested CO2 must cause global warming, because the models could not simulate what had already happened the extra CO2 was added to the model.All other known forcings are adequate in explaining temperature variations prior to the rise in temperature over the last thirty years, while none of them are capable of explaining the rise in the past thirty years.(Source: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009) Here, the models have understated the problem.In reality, observed sea level is tracking at the upper range of the model projections.