Global warming models flawed

Washington Times ^ | 09.11.02 | Michael Field of AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

[callisto]

AUCKLAND, New Zealand

[callisto]

ping!

[LiberationIT]

Ping!

[Tacis]

This is nothing more than an attempt to confuse America-haters, ultra-leftists, democraps, environmental thugs, and Al Gore with facts! Please, stop it. Facts do nothing to change the good feelings we had at Kyoto and that is what is important.

[alancarp]

My prediction on the fallout of this is a new statement: "The newly corrected models show that global warming is still an inevitable reality. While the noticeable effects will be delayed for an additional decade, expect climatory changes to accelerate therafter as excess heat near the equator eventually -- and suddenly -- spills into polar regions to cause dramatic ice cap melt. Thus we, as world citizens, must continue to prepare now for the changes to come. We call upon the United States to exercise leadership to this end."

[freedomcrusader]

Wildly inaccurate computer models - what a great thing to base a major international treaty on (Kyoto). NOT!

[fhayek]

Maybe someone could help me out here. The story says that temperatures are 68 to 86 degrees colder than the models had predicted. this is a 18 degree range. But all of the global warming alarmists that I have read say that a one or two degree raise in temperatures could be an indication of global warming. In other words, how can the global warming alarmists be so concerned with a degree or two when there own models appear to be so imprecise?

[Mike Darancette]

found that it is 68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit lower than computer models showed.

That's quite a difference. Predicted high today 50F real high -36F. Even our local weather dweebs aren't that far off.

[robertpaulsen]

"and some assumptions have had to be made, including air temperatures over Antarctica."

Right. This is so much better than going outside to actually measure it.

[sparkydragon]

ping

[eno_]

It reflects the poor training scientists get these days. They are unable or unwilling to get their noses out of their own fields and consider that, for example, cosmological or geological effects could very well drown out what relatively small influence man might have on climate.

[erikm88]

LOL!

I love FR

--erik

[Fudd]

Global warming could be caused by greater concentrations of carbon dioxide, which is a strong absorber of infrared radiation.

All you need to remember is: (1) H2O is also a greenhouse gas, with IR absorbtion properties similar to CO2, and; (2) there is much more H2O than CO2 in the air. The next time a watermelon says greenhouse gas, ask him about water.

For the technically minded: by volume, CO2 is just .033% of normal dry air, which translates to roughly .05% by weight. H20 can easily increase the weight of a given volume of air by 15% (20C air 10C dewpoint 100mm Hg pressure), according to a reference I have on hand. 15% is much larger than .05% any way you cut it.

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[alancarp]

Right. I can just picture the exchange at some research station near the South Pole:

"Well, who's gonna go out and look at the thermometer?"
"I'm not: I did it last month."
"Nope - not me... too friggin cold out there."
"Okay, okay. Nobody's actually gonna care that much -- and for SURE, nobody's here to verify the numbers... let's just write down a guess and go with that. How 'bout the current temperature in our hut?"
"Sounds good to me!"

[RightWhale]

Climate models have been in use since the first electronic computer, nothing new here except for additional size and complexity. However, the Global Warming model is a different species, economical/geo-political in nature rather than scientific. In the Global Warming models running now on supercomputers around the world, you have already given up your house, your car, and your livlihood so that an impoverished family somewhere in a government apartment complex on a continent far, far away but not far enough can have 3 more children that they normally would have had.

That's the difference between climate modelling and Global Warming.

[TC Rider]

Global warming has nothing to do with meteorology and everything to do with sociology.

The Greens proved it themselves some years back when they published the names of hundreds of 'scientists', who support Global Warming theories, in a full page ad in the NYT. Someone took the time to check the names against their disciplines and figured out that most of the 'scientists' had nothing to do with climate or weather. Many were Sociologists.

[Nephi]

Cool ammo!

[WorkingClassFilth]

Most often, I run into the complete dismissal of anything that runs in, or originates at, the Washington Times. The ususal dismissal is that it's right-wing disinformation from the Rev. Moon's paper. I seem to recall that the moonies bought the paper (could be wrong) aways back, but I wonder if anyone knows anything about its ownership these days?

[Looking for Diogenes]

A discovery that it is much colder over the South Pole than believed has exposed a major flaw in the computer models used to predict global warming, a new scientific paper says.

This is an error. The authors never say that it is a major flaw in existing climate models. It is a small section of the atmosphere.

Mr. Gardner said the team's South Pole measurements will help modelers and theoreticians better understand the atmosphere and incorporate that understanding into their models, making their predictions more accurate.

That is what the authors actually said. It was a discrepancy which will be corrected. The progress of science.