Posted by
Catmman on Thursday, August 30, 2007 11:18:34 AM
More government (taxpayer)-funded climate drivel. We've received these same forecasts of doom and gloom for years now, so we need another one?
Why is NASA throwing more good money after good money conducting more studies which are rehashes of studies they have already done before? I know one of the measurements for scientists is confirmation of original results, but this is not a re-running of the same models and predictions, which have already been shown be be false in some cases.
No, this is from a
new climate model which assumes so many variables that I cannot believe those who ran it think this is news, let alone science. (Well, I can believe it since these folks aren't scientists, they're activists).
From
LiveScience:
First, the prediction:
Global warming will make severe thunderstorms and tornadoes a more common feature of U.S. weather, NASA scientists said today.
Climate models have previously shown that Earth will see more heavy rainstorms as the atmosphere warms, but a new climate model developed by NASA researchers is the first to show the difference in strength between storms that occur over land and those over the ocean and how storms strengths will change in general.
Now the running of the models predicting an outcome based on unknown variables which NASA just plugs in:
Researchers then ran the model for a future climate scenario where carbon dioxide levels were double their current level and the Earth's surface was 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is now. The model's projections showed that continents warm more than oceans (a result which is expected because water needs to absorb more heat than land to raise its temperature) and that lightning occurs at a higher altitude where storms are usually more vigorous.
So let's run models based on contrived 'data' which is assumed (doubling of atmospheric CO2 and a 5 degree increase in temps) and then call the 'conclusions' rock solid science. WTF?
I'm no climatologist, but I am a thinker. And I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, but how in the world can you use this type of modeling and call it science? There are so many variables, so many unknowns that there is no way it can be accurate. Yet frickin
NASA is playing it off as concrete observation and have the audacity to say
"it will happen." They don't even say
"may happen", they say
"will happen"!
And another thin about the stronger storm theory. Is there really any difference if you house gets hit by an F3 tornado as opposed to an F5? If you live in a flood plain, is there really a big difference between 8 inches of rain and 10? Do you see where I'm going with this?
So what's the point of the alarmism? When you ask yourself that, you will begin to see that the alarmism does not pass the smell test.