Nothing brings out the armchair scare-mongers more than discussions of global warming. Why would you quote from the "summary for policy makers" of the IPCC? Really now, the one part of each report written/influenced by um..., policy makers (actually their staffers), whose intent is to push for... policy?
Since you're a meteorologist, do tell us: how can you believe that we can predict the climate 50 or 100 years from now when we can't accurately predict next month's weather? Computer models? The point of a model is to simplify a system/object/concept to the point where it can be systematically studied by our puny little minds. The problem with models is that they are simplified to a point where we can study the system/object/concept with our puny little minds. They are by design simplifications. And if we don't truly understand what is being modeled, oversimplifications. Which means that important inputs are missing that can (and if the current state of even weather modeling to be our guide, does...) severely skew the results.
Look, rather than being tired by all of questioning of the current global warming theories, can't you get back to improving the modeling for next month's weather? I'm certain that if I went back and looked, I'd find the models for my area were off at least +-5 degrees F. That's a pretty big range over a month.
What is your answer to the decades of cooling experienced last century and the global cooling scare of the 1970's?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing brings out the armchair scare-mongers more than discussions of global warming. Why would you quote from the "summary for policy makers" of the IPCC? Really now, the one part of each report written/influenced by um..., policy makers (actually their staffers), whose intent is to push for... policy?
Since you're a meteorologist, do tell us: how can you believe that we can predict the climate 50 or 100 years from now when we can't accurately predict next month's weather? Computer models? The point of a model is to simplify a system/object/concept to the point where it can be systematically studied by our puny little minds. The problem with models is that they are simplified to a point where we can study the system/object/concept with our puny little minds. They are by design simplifications. And if we don't truly understand what is being modeled, oversimplifications. Which means that important inputs are missing that can (and if the current state of even weather modeling to be our guide, does...) severely skew the results.
Look, rather than being tired by all of questioning of the current global warming theories, can't you get back to improving the modeling for next month's weather? I'm certain that if I went back and looked, I'd find the models for my area were off at least +-5 degrees F. That's a pretty big range over a month.
What is your answer to the decades of cooling experienced last century and the global cooling scare of the 1970's?
And RMS is too a dirty, smelly hippie. Mother=hampster, Father=smells of Elderberries...
And off to the "Naughty" corner with you until you can clean up your potty-mouth!
"Hmmmm. That doesn't make sense to me. But then, you are very small."