10/22/2007

Much, Much Sooner on Melt

[artic ice, 2007]
Labels: , , ,

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I do hope you realize that this is written by a group that hopes to make LOTS of money from trading carbon credits.

10/22/2007 7:57 PM
Anonymous said...

Interesting article. I have been provided a couple of the research studies backing the IPCC study and it is curious how the scientist have covered their behinds: 1.. They state that the models they used were specified by the IPCC and were not of their own. The IPCC for these studies (through its Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison) specified exactly what models the scientists would use in their analysis of atmospheric convection and circulation. 2. The scientists were told to keep radiative forcings (the radiation coming into and leaving our system) and other key factors constant throughout much of their analysis which is bogus in that atmospheric and oceanic dynamics will change with changing environs. Some astrophysicists have reported that the biggest cause of global warming has been due to increased solar radiation and the planet is warming as a result - the requirement in these studies of constant radiative forcings means that this possible cause of global warming is disregarded by definition. 3. Of the 22 climate models utilized by the IPCC in analyzing man-made global warming, THEY ALL CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSIONS. Given how little we know about atmospheric and ocean science, particularly in light of our infancy in modeling global systems and the lack of proven model specifications, the odds that all 22 would come to the same conclusions is truly astronomical. 4. The operative analysis horizon was 100 years for most models and for some, they were taken to 300 years. Hey, the computer models these guys use can't even forecast the local weather for next week with any reasonable degree of accuracy! 5. The scientists express a caveat regarding the models they were instructed to use by the IPCC, they state that "the robustness of this behavior across all models cannot be confirmed due to lack of data". 6. The classic study on rising sea levels by the University of Maine, Dept of Geophysics, neglected to take into account changing land mass levels, plate tectonics, in their seminal study. I approached them about this major oversight and they swallowed hard. A major oversight that brings into question the validity of their other findings. 7. Your researcher's sources were weak, many of the points he made were refuted quite some time ago - sounded like his only source was the Al Gore movie. He also mentions the large number of scientists who support the man-made global warming theories. It is my understanding from the IPCC researchers that only 55 scientists actually signed the IPCC study - the remaining 1,945 didn't even get to see it before it was published and a large percentage have voiced their disagreement with its findings. This excludes the 19,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition saying this matter is bogus.

Michael Thomas

10/22/2007 8:03 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)