You may have seen this article a few days ago from our MSM titled:
Ready for 110 degrees?
NASA warns climate change could cook Atlantans
Not too hard to figure out that this article is one more doom and disaster piece in a long line of them. It’s supposedly reporting on a study done by Barry H. Lynn, Richard Healy, and Leonard M. Druyan in which they say:
Using high resolution weather prediction models, we showed how greenhouse gases enhance feedbacks between precipitation, radiation, and atmospheric circulation that will likely lead to extreme temperatures in our not-so-distant future,
Makes for good scaremongering but is the doomsday calls real?
Roger Pielke Jr. has his reservations in his new post today:
The short answer is that this is an example of where an otherwise interesting and informative research article was translated into an almost hysterical claim of future weather based on the predictions of a model.
He then proceeds to give a short analysis of the study, including some serious shortcomings and ends with:
These are remarkably serious shortcomings of the model study, yet the news media chose to headline the predictions from it as news without these caveats, and the authors did not correct the media’s misstatement of what their paper actually said (in fact they reinforced them!).
Equally disturbing (or it should be to anyone who values scientific credibility) is that a peer reviewed journal elected to publish this paper in this form in which untested predictions for decades into the future were presented, yet the global and regional model could not even skillfully simulate recent climate. The publication of such clearly scientifically flawed research conclusions raises questions on whether the journal (in this case the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate) is engaging in advocacy rather than being a balanced arbitrator of peer reviewed papers. Publishing predictions which are not tested, is not science.
Publishing predictions which are not tested is called politics. And make no mistake about it, the Global Warming scaremongering is all about the politics, the power, and the money.
See author page
What made me mad about this article is that NASA is not in the business of climate modelling. That job clearly belongs to NOAA. President Bush needs to get his act together and start cracking heads inside his departments to prevent “department creep” in which federal agencies start to encroach on each others’ jobs.
Found this article interesting and relevant. Brings in a new angle to the discussion:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/05/solar-conveyor-has-slowed.html
http://tinyurl.com/32jpay (same link – just in case)
Some interesting information has turned up lately. Weather observation stations have supposed to be built according to a strict set of specifications so that temperature readings will remain consistent over time. That is … a wooden box called a “Stevenson Screen” made of wood and coated with whitewash.
In recent years, however, many places have switched to painting them with paint rather than whitewash. The problem with that is the paint is transparent to infrared while the whitewash is reflective at infrared wavelengths. So this results in the wood heating up more and raising the temperature inside the Stevenson screen. And that isn’t all. More of these stations have now gone to digital thermometers. The problem is that the power supplies, charging controllers, batteries and other electronics gear is being place INSIDE the screen further raising the temperatures. And to top it all off, many new stations are being made of painted metal rather than whitewashed wood. A recent look at the very station in the UK that recently posted the highest temperature ever recorded in England showed that it was a metal screen, painted white on the outside and black on the inside. This provided the optimum possible radiation of heat to the themo probe inside from sunshine on the screen.
More here
That’s why we have sweet iced tea.
I could overlook the model’s stupid predictions, if she were really, really hot.
“What made me mad about this article is that NASA is not in the business of climate modelling.”
…Only since Hansen’s still-classic climate modelling papers beginning in 1983, and right up to this year. Of course, that’s just in science journals, so it doesn’t count, next to the opinion of arm-chair bloggers.
One of about 100 NASA modelling sites that might lead you to good reading: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/