Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Yes, there is a lot of give in the models. And modeling something like the weather/climate is not at all easy. The resolution of the models is still extremely crude, and some of the parts of the model are a long way from being rigorously justified. Clouds, for one thing, have been a difficulty with models even for predicting the weather as the grids are way too coarse to resolve them. And yet they are very important for weather prediction...

I would also like to point out that weather is an inherently unpredictable thing, and whether an El Nino or La Nina event occurs in a given year is more-or-less a random event until we get within less than 12 months (I've heard a talk where the claim was we can really only predict if one of these will happen about 3-4 months in advance).

I'd still put my money on global warming. The data on CO2 build-up is uncontroversial, and the long-term trend over the past century is also fairly clear. But it's way better to be in the no-panic zone, and see how we can steer a course over the next century that will get everyone through it.

Tom and All:

I recently found a blog run by an ex-NASA guy who really presents cogent analysis on the whole global warming debate. In particular he provides intereting insight about the structure of the current models and the faults and issues with them. He also discusses some research he is working on and states some opinions he has about what's really going on, but he is quite careful to state these as ideas, not fact. He also outlines the methods and efforts he is persuing to fill in his gaps and to address some of the issues he see's elsewhere too. A bit nerdly, but good stuff you can find here:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I do believe that the long term upward trend is proof of nothing more that variable climate change. It was hotter, then cooler, then warmer then a little less cool. My point? Climate does change, what's the big deal?

To create grandiose tax and payment transfer systems based on the fact that climate changes is bad policy, especially when certain elements of our elite political call refuse to consider nuclear power as a solution. How stupid.

This WSJ news on global cooling may be a bit dated. Since early 2009, global surface temperature has begun warming again.

My favorite line on this topic: All models are wrong; some models are useful. Similarly, no data set is perfect. A comprehensive inventory of all indicators is the best way to approach the monitoring issue. IPCC*, despite its alarmist wing, does a good job at this.

I authored the original NCDC global temperature product & have been a climatologist for 45 years. To me, the recent cooling spell seems within the noise of the system. If, however, we see sustained cooling for several more years, then that would be something to get hyped about.

*Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

What RobQ and Joe Michels said.

To much hype on this and not enough science.

If you want as much as an in ternested amatuer can comprehend (instead of business spin), try
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Bring your slide rule, since this involves some actual science.