Mann said it’s not known just how much of a positive feedback effect a warmer, moister atmosphere and the increased cloud cover might have — which is why projections for the global temperature rise by 2100 vary by several degrees. Also, it remains to be seen how well scientists are modeling the effect of weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina. If the models are off, “maybe we can’t trust what they’re predicting” when it comes to climate change on a region-by-region level.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/08/5426675-life-after-climategate
Good stuff, but …..
- We don’t know if clouds are a positive or negative feedback
- El Nino and La Nina are not weather
- We know for sure that El Nino and La Nina can not be forecast more than a few months in advance
http://www.amazon.com/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays/dp/0970312598/ref=pd_sim_b_29
Yet another misleading headline. Mann didn’t say that we can’t trust climate models, he said that maybe we can’t trust them at this point to predict the exact effect of AGW on regional climates. Two quite different things. You included the full quote in the text, but you didn’t bold the qualification, and you mischaracterized it thoroughly in the headline.
And then he added, which you omit from your post, that “under any scenario, the models point to ‘an array of potentially deleterious effects’ that will accompany rising global temperatures, ranging from stronger storms to the loss of polar ice sheets.”
Complete drivel. If the climate models don’t work regionally then they don’t work.. That is like saying, we can’t do any portion of a jigsaw puzzle, but we can do the whole thing.
It’s more like saying Televisions are useless unless you understand the electronics that make them work.
Even if you still believe what you have said, Mann still didn’t say what your headline claims.
More like saying they are useless if the picture is scrambled.
That in itself is complete drivel. The coarse resolution of climate models makes it difficult to model regional scale changes. As computers improve and better techniques are developed then the resolution will improve and we will see more regional detail.
It’s like saying that a coarse resolution satellite image is useless because it can’t show you your house but can show you perhaps the peninsula you live on.
Such a bunch of BS on your part.
Improving the resolutions of the models will not improve the output until they improve the input which is limited by current understanding of natural weather pattens. The long term chaotic nature of weather makes any more than coarse guesses futile. It would be just better to project possible ranges based on past natural patterns without considering CO2’s contribution so in the future we can see where CO2 might have contributed. There is one minor point that needs to be included in the previous claim. First they will need “ACCURATE” weather information which they do not have at this time.
Current models are a good example of GIGO!
stevengoddard says:
“More like saying they are useless if the picture is scrambled.”
I believe you have some sort of academic/engineering background.
Are you seriously saying you believe models are useless unless they work with high definition?
They are admitting that all models are wrong but the average of all models are right. Mann did make the claim that climate models can not be trusted. If they can not be trusted on any level they can not be trusted.
Global climate is the average of all regional climates and regional climate is the average results of long term weather patterns in a climate region. The climate region I live in contains parts of 5 states but no one state is fully represented. The region I used to live in contained portions of 2 states.
Potential is a maybe. Potentially hazardous conditions are possible under natural weather patterns. Of course you and Mann apparently are not familiar with history.
“Mann did make the claim that climate models can not be trusted. If they can not be trusted on any level they can not be trusted.”
No he didn’t. Exactly what he did claim is written, (but not entirely highlighted), in the post. Do you need this portion pointing out to you?
Nor, for that matter, climate scientists.
It has come to this I suppose –
In the Marx Brothers “Day at the Races” Chico attempts to sell sure fire books that will assist Groucho in gaming the system and being able to bet on the winning horse. All the while, Chico is mearly attempting to raise money to place on an entirely different horse.
What Mann is asserting is little more than Chico’s explanation that, we just need to by more books. Mann is just trying to protect his funding and lacks the shame necessary to admit the truth.
ChrisD. If you maybe can’t trust climate models at this point what would make you think that you should trust them at all.