Roger Pielke, Sr. is having a cow over just two of the lies found in the 1st chapter of the IPCC's Working Group draft. The WG1 is the actual scientific (ha!) document published to match (cough) the SPM, the Summary for Policy Makers. Pielke takes to task the mischaracterization of the butterfly effect and just plotzes over the second flat out lie:
"Projecting changes in climate due to changes in greenhouse gases 50 years from now is a very different and much more easily solved problem than forecasting weather patterns just weeks from now. To put it another way, long-term variations brought about by changes in the composition of the atmosphere are much more predictable than individual weather events.”
I'm having twin calves over this myself. Here we are, in only the second decade after the usage of many multi-decadal climate models began, and to posit that their predictive powers are better than weather predictions 15 days from now, which no metereologist would ever use, is just so laughable as to be absurd. I'm stunned. There is no scientific value to that quoted statement at all. The GCMs, using data collected over the last decade, can't even predict what's going to happen in the next five years. A model is supposed to be a tool to sharpen a hypothesis, and then you go and collect the data to prove or disprove that hypothesis. But for the IPCC, and the other alarmists, the models are the reality. Just ridiculous.
if you didn't have a link to my blog on your site, i'd send TCB here. we've had only a couple of conversations about it, but he seems to buy the whole alarmist thing.
ReplyDeleteblech.