explain the "concern"
in relation to known paleo-climates
Yeh but, a map of Saskatchewan ain't gonna help you much in Kentucky.....
And, of course, scale becomes important.
Which is something for you to keep in mind the next time you try to extrapolate from the local rapid climate changes around Greenland in the paleo record to suggest that the kind of rapid global change currently underway and accelerating is something that has happened routinely in the past, without catastrophic effect.
You ran that garbage argument in various manifestations over multiple threads and for pages of postings. You got the take itself - the extrapolation from good local research findings - originally from Exxon-financed denial sites. You are now extending it via Dorthe Dahl-Jensen's work on the Greenland ice.
Likewise this take, likewise familiar from the wingnut Republican media operations:
Some of thee models I've perused predict climate change out to 2100--------that is untestable.
If an hypothesis is put forth that is untestable, do you think that it has value?
It's a forecast, not a hypothesis. Human beings often forecast, even though they won't find out for sure until the time comes. The ability to forecast is often considered to be a major advantage of having large expensive brains.
I have studied several available climate models and found them wanting.
In no small part, most models were based on the climate of the past 20-30-40-... years.
You mean they were corrected by comparing their output with measured events and carefully acquired information.
That's something you refused to do, when provided with information about the global climate responses to the local Greenland area paleoclimactic events.
It seems that very few people really know much about the models
The people who do the forecasting know all about them. They built them, they are constantly working on them, and they are honest in their employment of them - ranges, probabilities, different ones compared side by side and with new data as it comes in, errors acknowledged, assumptions detailed, uncertainties described, etc, all published. Nothing kept in house, like Exxon, while peddling deceptions like "climate is always changing" or "what about the 400ky Milankovitch Cycle" to the public.
That's how they earn serious consideration.