[Dean's World] Dave Price: Global Warming Models Not Pretty

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
Global Warming Models Not Pretty 
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1197478481.shtml


   [1]Uh oh.

     A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global
     climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an
     unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of
     the atmosphere.
     â¦.
     "The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of
     Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,"
     said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of
     Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models
     accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that
     the answer is no."

   Yeah, thatâs a problem. When you're proposing massive global energy
   taxes to address a problem based on computer models, it's a little
   inconvenient when they turn out not to work.
   Interestingly, the [2]CNS version of the story has much more
   entertaining quotes than the ScienceDaily piece:

     "This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very
     important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot
     smaller than what the models calculate."
     Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the
     effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that
     the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in
     the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the
     greenhouse gases."

   But non-skeptics are skeptical:

     "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not just a
     report. It's not just a random gathering of scientists. It's the
     largest scientific body ever assembled," he said.

   Apparently many scientific studies are "just reports" produced by
   totally random gatherings of scientists. Good that he clarified that
   the IPCC report isn't one of those.

     "Their most recent assessment determined that there's 90 percent
     certainty that global climate change is happening and that it is
     caused by human beings."

   Of course, that also means this massive throbbing nonrandom superbrain
   of scientists admits thereâs a 10% chance that theyâre completely
   wrong and all this time and effort weâre putting into global warming
   is a gigantic waste of resources.

     "We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."

   ...said the man proposing to gamble trillions on reducing CO2
   emissions that may or may not have any positive impact on climate
   change, based on unreliable computer models that donât even accurately
   predict the past.
   Whoâs ultimately going to be right on the climate science? Hard to say
   for sure. But Hendricksâ grasp of economic principles doesnât inspire
   confidence in his camp:

     Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a
     multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our
     global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation.

   Yeah, and if we pay little kids to break windows, then the glassmakers
   will have more business, and they will order more from their
   suppliers, and theyâll order more from their suppliers, and it will
   create this huge ever-expanding bubble of prosperity⦠what? What do
   you mean, [3]broken windows fallacy?
   Of course, what will actually happen is that China will chortle and
   build another thousand cheap coal-fired power plants, and weâll be
   stuck paying higher energy prices, thus further reducing our
   competitive advantage. But not to worry: we'll lead the world in the
   lucrative market for inaccurate computer models!

References

   1. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm
   2. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071211a.html
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy