Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RightWhale

Which meteorologist wouldn't want to develop a model of earth's climate 10 times better that runs on 1/10th the computer?

Making models ever more intricate does not make them any more capable of coming up with the correct answers when aprior postulates used in describing physical processes are insufficiently understood, not to mention the wags used for inputs of the models in use.

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html

"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."

......

"The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."

 

No meteoroligist gets a unilateral say as to what goes into the UN/IPCC models, everything is vetted by committee with a very strong agenda.

66 posted on 12/23/2003 5:24:30 PM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]


To: ancient_geezer
Well, if that's the case there wouldn't be much science going on. Still, there are other agencies sponsoring real scientists doing real science in this discipline. How about NASA? Are they bowing before a UN committee with their climate models?
67 posted on 12/23/2003 5:28:29 PM PST by RightWhale (Close your tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

To: ancient_geezer
"The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."

This is acknowledged in the AGU statement as follows:

"Scientists' understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has greatly improved during the last decade, including better representation of carbon, water, and other biogeochemical cycles in climate models. Yet, model projections of future global warming vary, because of differing estimates of population growth, economic activity, greenhouse gas emission rates, changes in atmospheric particulate concentrations and their effects, and also because of uncertainties in climate models. Actions that decrease emissions of some air pollutants will reduce their climate effects in the short term. Even so, the impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations would remain."

107 posted on 12/24/2003 7:48:29 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson