By News on the Net ——Bio and Archives--February 17, 2010
Letters to the Editor | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
"Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed."What could be clearer. The IPCC says that we don't even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability - ie we don't know what future temperatures will be and we can't calculate the climate sensitivity to CO2. This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the "plausible" models to be tested anyway. Nobody ever seems to read or quote the WG1 report- certainly not the compiler of the Summary. In spite of the WG1 8.6.4. conclusion the Summary says:
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 ."This statement is fraudulent on its face when compared to 8.6.4. Those of us interested in objective science should try to see that the 8.6.4 conclusion gets as much exposure as possible. It deserves to be on the front page of the NY Times, The Guardian quoted by the BBC and read into the Congressional record in the USA. " Someone should ask Pachauri how he reconciles these irreconcilable positions. Hilary Page
View Comments
News from around the world