Carbon dating is bullshit
To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings.
In fact, in a climate system with net positive feedback, uncertainty is skewed more towards a stronger climate response (Roe 2007).Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).The models accurately forecasted the subsequent global cooling of about 0.5°C soon after the eruption.Furthermore, the radiative, water vapor and dynamical feedbacks included in the models were also quantitatively verified ( A common misconception is that climate models are biased towards exaggerating the effects from CO2.There are various difficulties in predicting future climate. Short-term disturbances like El Niño or volcanic eruptions are difficult to model.
Nevertheless, the major forcings that drive climate are well understood.
(a) represents simulations done with only natural forcings: solar variation and volcanic activity.
(b) represents simulations done with anthropogenic forcings: greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols.
For this reason, many of the IPCC predictions have subsequently been shown to underestimate the climate response.
Satellite and tide-gauge measurements show that sea level rise is accelerating faster than IPCC predictions.
A paper led by James Risbey (2014) in run has a random representation of these natural ocean cycles, so for every 15-year period, some of those simulations will have accurately represented the actual El Niño conditions just by chance.