Here's an interesting paper about CO2 modeling. The assumption of exponential growth of CO2 in the climate models underpins the predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, so it's vital for those models to get it right. This paper points out something very interesting: that the three commonly discussed models of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be distinguished from the data available. Only one of these models (the exponential growth model) has catastrophic implications. Assuming the paper is correct, this calls into question the fundamental basis of the IPCC's predictions.
A more commonsensical calling into question is this: scientists cannot predict with any degree of success the weather even for the next 30 days. It's not even just the detailed predictions that are wrong, it's also broad trends (for example, just last October, the British Meteorology Office was predicting a broadly warmer-than-usual winter for all of Europe. Er...not so much; instead this winter broke all sorts of records for cold). So if scientists can't predict the next 30 days, even in broad strokes, what on earth makes us think they can predict then next 100 years or more?
No comments:
Post a Comment