[ RadSafe ] Global Warming
Bradt, Clayton (HEALTH)
clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov
Thu May 22 14:15:33 CDT 2014
I have spent time with the publications of the IPCC, Susan. I simply don't find them that compelling. I do find that the scientific chapters tend to be a lot more tentative in their assertions than the summaries for policy makers. The fact that the summaries are always published before the scientific chapters makes it pretty clear that there is more going on than the honest communication of the results of scientific research.
Now, computer models are central (essential) to support the hypothesis of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Without them there are only time series of proxy temperature data which show trends, or not, depending on the choice of endpoints. The proposed physical mechanism causing the warming can only be 'tested' on the computer. In order to believe the computer models one must believe that the physics of the earth-atmosphere-ocean system are thoroughly understood and quantitated correctly in the code. One misunderstood or missing relationship between input variables could render the programs' output meaningless. And the modelers' efforts to adjust their codes to produce results matching the data is fraught with potential bias.
But even if the computer models' predictions are generally correct (i.e. most warming in colder-drier regions like Siberia, little warming in warm-humid regions like Amazonia), they still only predict one climate parameter: temperature. The models say nothing about precipitation, clouds, pressure, winds, etc. Yet this has not stopped the global warming enthusiast from predicting that every possible calamity known to humanity: drought, floods, hurricanes, plagues, mass extinctions, blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah, will follow ineluctably from a warmer climate. Nobody - NOBODY - predicts anything good happening because of climate change, anywhere! I find that very hard to believe.
Even if we accept that the CO2/warming connection, and I happen to think that it is certainly plausible, it doesn't mean that the case for a pending climate catastrophe hasn't been way over-sold. I think it has, and I'm not amused by that.
NYS Dept. of Health
clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov<mailto:clayton.bradt at health.ny.gov>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:39:48 -0400
From: S L Gawarecki <slgawarecki at gmail.com<mailto:slgawarecki at gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] OT: Global Warming
To: RadSafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu<mailto:radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>>
<CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CABtrgkWuyT6unNSbB-RN9R1x-Pris3HwTQwmJ+UBB8YeNXwcZQ at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I continue to be amused by the opinions on climate change by scientists who are not climate scientists or even earth scientists. To understand the SCIENCE behind the conclusions about global warming, spend some time with the publications by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/ . The Summary for Policy Makers of the 2013 report is a good place to start at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf .
More information about the RadSafe