"Black Dog" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
Please note the paragraph:
All leading computer models of the global climate system indicate that
natural variability isn't enough to explain the changes being observed,
causing most observers to conclude that human activities, notably the
emission of carbon and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases, are the
culprit.
These are the same computer models that can't predict the weather for
next week - but never mind that - chaos theory and all.
Exactly.....all the leading comupter models are expecting to find global
warminng caused by humans because that is what the base assumption is.
************************************************** **************************
*******88
Computerized models of the Earth's climate are at the heart of the debate
over how policymakers should respond to climate change. Global climate
models (GCMs)--also called general circulation models--attempt to predict
future climate conditions by starting with a set of assumptions about how
the climate works and making guesses about what a future world might look
like in terms of such factors as population, energy use, and technological
development.
Numerous analysts have pointed out, however, that many of the assumptions
used in modeling the climate are of dubious merit, with biases that tend to
project catastrophic warming. As a consequence, these analysts argue,
climate models have many limitations that make them unsuitable as the basis
for developing public policy.
Study Documents Computer Limitations
Computerized climate models have very little usefulness in the formation of
public policy toward climate change, particularly for policy decisions as
critical as ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, according to a July 7 study,
"The Science Isn't Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models,"
released by The Fraser Institute.
The study notes current global climate models have two significant
limitations. They rely on observed data, including surface station readings,
weather balloons, and satellites, which are of uncertain value and accuracy
due to the short length of the record and the need for adjustments to
correct for artificial discontinuities such as instrument and satellite
changes. Moreover, the models project future climate trends not only by
extrapolating from observed data, but by including "fudge factors" and other
complex adjustments that make the projections very unreliable.
"Climate models oversimplify many poorly understood climate processes, and
results from the models can be contradictory," said Dr. Kenneth Green,
author of the paper and director of risk, regulation, and environment
studies at The Fraser Institute. "Clearly, the data generated do not provide
a meaningful foundation on which to base sound public policy decisions,
especially something as significant as the decision to ratify Kyoto."
"Land surface temperature records are biased by the 'urban heat island
effect,'" the study notes. "Failure to account for local warming in cities
led to some claims of dramatic warming in the 1980s and 1990s and, while
adjustments are made today and the predictions of warming significantly
reduced, some researchers believe the adjustments to be inadequate."
Bizarre Assumptions about Economic Growth
"Scenarios of future concentrations of greenhouse gases are based on dubious
assumptions about the future," the study observes. "These scenarios depend
on other models of projected growth of population, economies, and energy
use. Some projections are so dubious that MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, a lead
author of one of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
science reports, has referred to them as 'children's exercises.'"
The study continues, "As researchers Ian Castles, formerly the head of
Australia's national office of statistics, and David Henderson of the
Westminster Business School and formerly the chief economist of the OECD,
point out, when estimating potential future climate changes, IPCC's modelers
inappropriately compared future estimates of GDP in terms of exchange rates
rather than purchasing-power parity. This produces GDP estimates that are
significantly inflated, leading to estimates of greenhouse-gas producing
activity that are similarly inflated. Castles observes that if such
assumptions are correct, then the average income of South Africans will have
overtaken that of Americans by a very wide margin by the end of the century.
Because of this economic error, the IPCC scenarios of the future also
suggest that relatively poor developing countries such as Algeria,
Argentina, Libya, Turkey, and North Korea will all surpass the United
States."
Green notes, "Canada's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which many
Canadian legislators vow to reverse, relied largely on frightening scenarios
generated by computer climate models that are simply not sophisticated
enough to serve as meaningful guides to instituting public policy. Though
politicians ... claim that 'the science is solid,' even a cursory inspection
of the many problems with computer climate models suggests it is anything
but."
Reality Check
Green makes several recommendations that he says would provide a "reality
check" on the science of climate modeling:
a.. Reexamine the science of climate change and stop grounding policy in
the output of computer models of limited utility.
a.. Redirect some resources from greenhouse gas reduction efforts toward
research efforts to improve the state of weather and climate forecasting.
a.. Acknowledge that published scenarios of future greenhouse gas
concentrations are skewed toward improbably high growth in emissions and,
therefore, climate models using those scenarios will tend to project
unrealistically intense warming.
a.. Acknowledge that models cannot accurately predict the absolute amount
of warming (or other climate change) resulting from a particular scenario of
greenhouse gas concentrations.
a.. Recognize that some climate changes (both natural and human-caused)
are climate surprises, events that are not anticipated in advance (and, by
definition, are not properly incorporated into models).
a.. Perform full and transparent economic and risk analyses of the costs
and effectiveness of proposed greenhouse gas control actions, including
alternatives.
a.. Redirect some resources away from greenhouse gas controls and toward
researching probabilities of different climate change outcomes.
a.. Redirect some of the resources currently focused on greenhouse gas
mitigation toward research programs that will help people adapt to climate
change regardless of origin.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15721
Let me first say that I am NOT right-wing or conservative or employed by
an oil company (I turned downed Esso in my 4th year university). I once
belonged to Greenpeace (their anti-fur campain which caused a lot of
problems for people living in arctic changed my mind about them). I do
have an M.Sc. in Geology and Geochemistry which makes me more a
scientist than any of the science reporters and many of the "climate
scientists".
I KNOW the so-called climate scientists claim that only 3% of the
warming can be accounted for by natural variation. But in the past,
natural variation caused 100% of the ice-ages and greenhouse ages the
Earth and all her inhabitants have lived through. Why not now? Because
we discovered Venus and her atmosphere and her greenhouse effect and
think it can happen here. Because we have raised the most spoiled
generation of humans ever - so spoiled we think we can control
EVERYTHING including the weather. And if it's bad it must be our fault.
Because we control everything, don't we?
There is a stunning correlation in the little bit of climate data we
have more than 100 years old (tree ring data, ice cores) and the known
maximums and minimums of sunspot activity (kept by Chinese astronomers
for centuries). What is more intersting to me is the very recent
occurances - 1999 was Solar Max, and one of the hottest years ever.
Before that 1988 - remember the year Yellowstone burned? Now in 2005 we
should be at a solar minimum and be observing a general cooling but
guess what - last time I checked there had been 17 major solar storms
this year - 5 more than in the 1999, the year they were supposed to max
out. So the sun has been extra busy this year - but I have yet to hear
a "climate scientist" mention it.
I find it kind of tragic that a science in it's infancy, namely
climatology, has been taken over by emotional and political forces. It
makes a reasoned debate/discussion impossible. I can't get a job in the
"Earth Sciences" field unless I toe the climate change line, I can't do
that because it is just bad science - I'd rather be a fortune teller or
TV preacher if I was going to make my living that dishonestly.