That's not necessary IN.
As I stated in the CO2 acquittal thread, Turtle's argument about underwater volcanoes might hold some water (pun intended
). He brings up a good point that we should learn more about the emitters and use that data to better update the models we have.
On the other hand, I believe that Turtle's dismissal of climate models based purely on the lack of data concerning underwater volcanism is a bit over the top. I agree with Turtle that we need to understand this better, but I disagree that this invalidates the models we have presently. Sure, the models are flawed. Is that not intrinsic to any model? (hence it is a model, and not the real thing)
The science of climatology, and particularly those that build/test/run climate models, should not be dismissed so easily. It is astonishing to see the progress in this field.
The models will never be perfect, but neither are we.
