PrintApril 23, 2009
EPA and global warming
How confident can we be of the computer modeling that led the EPA to declare certain man-made "greenhouse" gases as pollutants that will contribute to global warming, a.k.a. climate change? Looking at past performance of weather and climate modeling, not so much.
Hurricanes have been studied for over 100 years and today's hurricane experts have the most modern technology available to gather data on these events. Unlike the vast multitude of earth and space events that may or may not contribute to global warming, hurricanes are very observable storms. They are realtively small, easily detectable, and can be monitored from their birth to their death. Every physical aspect of a hurricane can be measured, temperatures, pressures, internal wind speeds, travel speeds, moisture content, etc, ad infinitim.
Of course, the most important information we need to know is how it will track and where will it make landfall. Here is where the credibility of the models must prove their worth, so, our experts plug all the collected data into the computer model (or models) and - no conclusive answer.
The weather map on our TV screen will show several possible tracks. It may hit the Yucatan, the Gulf Coast, Florida, the East Coast, or , none of the above.
If the self-styled climate experts cannot develop a model for such an observable, measurable, short lived event such as a hurricane, how can we believe they can forecast decades in advance an event (global warming) that has such a myriad of detectable and undetectable causes? I say they can't and this entire exercise is a fraud with some ulterior motive yet to be determined.
