Spose its pretty easy to come up with another 13 dimensions other than the two plotted on that graph. Like the 3 spacial ones for example. And energy absorbed by different stuff. As many as you want there. Everything has different specific heat capacities. Oceans are real good at hiding heat to spank us with later, that ones important and any global temperature measurement that just adds in ocean and coastal area temps like inland ones is just diluting the data to hide the reality of global catastrophic heating. Lets call it 3ds there : solid,liq,gas.
what about biological energy absorbtion, and thermal output, 2 more. And the lowest solar activity in centuries for the last 18mths. Not much less heat in but the outer atmosphere is less fluffed up, and ozone down so more heat loss. Only 3 more needed… Geothermal flux, enso, and hot air from the (D)eny (W)arming (E)xists (E)specially (B)ought (B)y (O)urselves (DWEEBO) clan of the scared, deluded or remorseless.
Thanks NOAA for your “we are committed to sharing our data with everyone.” Makes me so excited to help. At least this one has the 2d’s of the earth, and you can see how the Sea hides the heat. Only 19kb file, hope thats OK. Feeling much remorse for the 2500kb refreshing everyday ones on SeaIce. A little scared but no denial.
This one should be stuck to the outside of every Fossils CEO and Politicians windscreens with that glass laminating glue.

No, it is not. A computer model is just a theory, a hypothesis to be tested against the reality.

Which are they? An hypothesis or a theory?

I can start with theories that pi=3 and pi=4. After testing these I can decide to replace the pi=4 theory with the theory pi=3.2 and so on.

Each run, a projection can be evaluated by comparing it to reality, for example, to the emissions and corresponding global temperatures. That might tell us that the atmospheric and/or sociological part of the model should be corrected. I don’t see anything bad with that because continuous improvement of the models (and data) will eventually improve our understanding of the climate and mankind.

Unless the model is a perfect (or even reasonably perfect) representation of the entire earth/sun/any other external factors system, then the each projection is just a fanciful computer game. Are the models reasonably perfect in their simulation of reality? The bad part is that these fanciful computer games are being treated as fact.

The scenarios of IPCC focus on emissions of CO2 and they can be found in IPCC Data Distribution center that was referenced in the post #38. The emission models of 1% yearly growth and 0,5% growth are simple sociological or econometric models, but you can find there more complex ones too.

Each run, a projection can be evaluated by comparing it to reality, for example, to the emissions and corresponding global temperatures. That might tell us that the atmospheric and/or sociological part of the model should be corrected. I don’t see anything bad with that because continuous improvement of the models (and data) will eventually improve our understanding of the climate and mankind.

This is not doing what you think. These are criteria for scenarios e.g. future levels of CO2, CH4,… and not criteria for selecting model runs. Not that there aren’t selection biases, but not quite as gross as you think.