[flagged]
Disregard all of biology, physics, and engineering. Got it.
In case you are real, and have a problem with this particular Greta tweet delete.
Here is some research.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/06/viral-posts-distort-greta-...
On Climate
The science behind CO2 being a green house gas is over 100 years old now. I'm not sure why you think it is false.
So, what's your claim? Statistics don't work? "Models" (what do you mean by that) are all bunk?
The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017.
Not before 1979, they didn't. Because there isn't global temperature data before that. Nothing even close. There isn't ocean temperature data before this millennium. Not even remotely persuaded, I'm afraid.
There's pretty decent global temp. data going back thousands of years via proxy measures with good error margins.
I'm not attempting to persuade you, just stating STEM facts.
Read some papers in the field - the sparse coverage is not an issue and yes, it is possoble to get global estimates within error bars from sparse coastal points.
> I do suspect that you don't know much about "M".
More proof your intuition and opinions here are sub par.
2. We can't study open systems? Really. There are a lot of engineers might be wondering why they bothered studying doing it, if it can't be done.
3. Nothing matters that can't be an experiment? So all of Biology and Astronomy, anything with observations but no experiments, all worthless?
In life, some models have a few well defined variables, and some models have millions and are pretty fuzzy. To say one branch of science is a joke, because in your world, things are nice and pretty, is what is wrong.
You can't call it a joke, if models are continually improving and making steadily more accurate predictions and the accuracy is quantifiable.
You are just making the same error in opposite direction.
Lets ignore any results because it is just so complicated it can't possibly be correct.
In the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report introduction, you can see the various methodologies used to demonstrate the effects of human-caused climate change: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-1/#1.3
For example, we've been taking thermometer and barometer observations at Earth's surface since the 1600s. By the 1800s this was widely distributed through naval weather logs. For atmospheric readings, we've been getting those since the 40's, not 70s, because that's when we invented weather balloons :) but we have even further back information, through the field of Paleoclimate, where we do things like measuring C02 concentration of bubbles in polar ice sheets, dating back as much as 800,000 years ago. We can also use tree rings (hundreds of years, or thousands if fossilized), "corals, stalactites and stalagmites, dust sediments, fossil pollen, peat, lake sediment, and marine sediment" to measure climate change over millenia, no need for satellites!
Want to play with all the data on your own? https://github.com/KKulma/climate-change-data Her's a curated list of all sorts of data you can play with. https://openclimatedata.net/ Here's some jupyter notebooks!
What data is missing that you think it's "not enough?"
Let's apply your rigorous scientific standard and see if we can figure out how much of earth's surface was covered by ocean in 1979... hmm... well we have no satellite observations. We have a decent amount of maps, but, those are just from scattered naval mapmaking activities, really only engaged in by a handful of countries across the entire globe.
I'm not convinced the ocean was all that vast before 1979. Do you have better evidence? How do you even know how deep it may have been? What, from a couple depth readings here and there over a few centuries? Sorry, it's going to take more than that to convince me.