I was reading Thomas Friedman’s column, Mother Nature’s Dow, in today’s New York Times and saw this:
“In our more recent global model simulations,” explained M.I.T., “the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. Not one of these effects is very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not fully explain the higher temperatures. [But,] rather than interacting additively, these different effects appear to interact multiplicatively, with feedbacks among the contributing factors, leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.”
"Leading to the surprisingly large increase in the chance of much higher temperatures"? There’s a statement that says nothing useful at all. How large is the increase in the chance? How much was the chance to start with? How much higher temperatures? These questions are never answered.
I just have one question for all of these scientists who use these sophisticated models:
Please tell me what the temperature will be tomorrow, for the location of your choice.
Idon’t really expect an answer. I am supposed to believe that their models will predict 50 years from now, but I am absolutely sure that they won’t be able to predict tomorrow. We just don’t understand the climate well enough, and the best models have numerous variables that are basically guesses. I doubt that they could even predict last week’s weather.
But that all pales in comparison to this comment:
“Finally,” said Harvey, “we need a price on carbon.” Polluting the atmosphere can’t be free.
Just because somebody decides to call carbon a pollutant doesn’t make it so. A pollutant is harmful or poisonous. Something we exhale and plants require could hardly be termed a pollutant. Except in a world of doublespeak.
Powered by Bleezer