Model simulations spanning 140 years show that warming from carbon dioxide will change the frequency that regions around the planet.
Model simulations spanning 140 years show that warming from carbon dioxide will change the frequency that regions around the planet.
Gosh, all the brainpower here “proving” that all the climate scientists, national academies of science, EPA, NOAA, NASA, etc. etc. are wrong! You folks must have published scores of peer-reviewed papers disproving the IPCC conclusions. Would you mind citing them so the rest of us can take a look?
Assuming the temperature increases, there will be more evaporation from the oceans and lakes. The question is what will happen to the additional moisture? I’ve been noticing that there have been more incidents of extremely heavy rainfall these last few years, i.e. Houston recently. The Red River has flooded in 1997, 2009, 2011, and now 2013.
I’ve been in the major jungles of the world, where the humidity is 100%. When it rains, it pours!
The problem with climatological models is that the science is weak. We know generalities but we are uncertain as to the number of relevant variables and how to assign values to them. Thanks to computers, scientists can create models easily, but a good model requires a good theory. Are there good climatological theories? It seems one’s politics determines one’s opinion.
“They conclude the model predictions of how much rain will fall at any one location as the climate warms are not very reliable.”
In other words: their study is a load of rubbish.
That’s all they really needed to say.
People thought Jeane Dixon had the gift of prophecy, too. Her track record was actually well below 1%, but that puts her ahead of Ehrlich and Malthus and Holdren.
Chuck L – climastrology. That is a good one. Adding it to my word list!
It rained on that whole corner of MT.
Allen did it rain on the Indian end of the lake? You know they tell those folks more lies than anyone . .
Ten or even 50 years down the road what Brooks says is sadly correct,
witness Paul Ehrlich’s “Population Bomb,” proven wring over and over again, “Club of Rome” doomsters, same thing, Lester Brown (we will all starve to death shortly), they all get worshipful praise and imagined to be great “scientists” even after years and years of contrary evidence. What can we do about all this?
profitup10: My favorite forecast: July 3rd Kallispel MT, “There is no moisture anywhere near the Flathead Valley, Tomorrow will be the hottest and driest on record for the Flathead Valley!” July 4th (the next day) it poured rain without letup for the next two days.
They can not predict 140 hours – FEAR IS WHAT THE PROGRESSIVE E=GREEN SELL is correct . . Read about the 1912 Party Platform in this link.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/history-of-political-parties.html
Fear sells. It excites people and draws attention and money to you. It gives you a “cause” and inflates your ego. And who cares if you are proven wrong ten years down the road, most prople will have forgotten by then, if they ever knew about it in the first place.
“A NASA -led modeling study provides new evidence…”reads their web site conerning this simulated rian prognosticaion.So now their geuss qualifies as scientific evidence. An admiration of NASA in the 60’s led me to a study of physics.Today sadly,astrology is good enough for NASA.
Howdy br1022
Most of what we see in the name of “climate science” is poor science and this is certainly an example.
There is a real discipline of climate science. It is in its early stages and its true practitioners know this. We should be careful about panting all of climate science with the junk science brush. A lot of scientists with a real background in meteorology and in what we understand about longer-range climate are skeptics. Even deniers.
A model of a model is a model. A model of 14 models is a model. An ‘analysis’ of 14 models is a model. And if you model 140 models instead of 14, your model isn’t ten times better, either.
Nobody else does ‘science’ like this, and maybe that’s because ‘this’ isn’t science.
They can’t predict 140 days all that well. Why are they wasting time and money on 140 year simulations? National Aeronautics and Space Administration, our weather predictor?
Very few predictions from 140 years ago have been borne out. Why would I place faith in these predictions, all the more since they’re based on models that have shown zero skill?
“Analysis of computer simulations from 14 climate models …”
I really like Cork Hayden’s comment that if it were “settled science” there would be only 1 .
I am hoping that with departure of James Hansen, NASA might get back to doing science rather than politicking/climastrology
How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance
There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:
Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.
Why is Cognitive Dissonance Important?
Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.