Letter to the Editor
Climate projections
Published Sunday, July 6, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!June 30, 2008
To the editor:
After reading Mr. Freiberg’s report about the permafrost conference issued on June 30, I wonder on which basis estimates for 2030 are made.
Apparently, Commissioner Hartig believes that climate projections satisfy scientific standards. This is, of course, not true.
Numerical weather prediction models are based on sophistical scientific knowledge.
These models are applied to predict the weather for the next couple of days. Weather predictions, however, cannot be assessed as scientific results because (a) a prediction can only be evaluated when the prediction period is over, and (b) an evaluation of a prediction can only be performed on routine observations which are so strongly limited that a prove whether this prediction fulfils the necessary and sufficient conditions of the verification process is hardly possible. Clearly, climate projections have no higher scientific level than weather predictions.
In the atmosphere energy amounts of different orders of magnitude occur; only a very small fraction of its total internal energy is available for converting into kinetic energy. Compared to the former, the latter can only be considered as “noise.” Thus, it is very difficult to relate an intensifying of storms to an increase of total internal energy due to global warming. According to the 4th IPCC report there is no evidence of systematic increases in intense storms in the Arctic.
In his presentation before Governor Palin’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet Dr. Atkinson (who was cited by this IPCC report for the statement mentioned before) compared Bering Sea storms with hurricanes and stated that they have hurricane strength because Bering Sea lows have central pressure like category 4 hurricanes. It is true that in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale the central pressure is considered because only hurricanes are compared with each other. If we, however, compare high-latitude storms with tropical cyclones like hurricanes (Atlantic) or typhoons (Pacific) only the pressure gradient is physically relevant. The other relevant quantity is the Coriolis parameter (a part of the Coriolis acceleration). The Coriolis parameter strongly varies with the latitude. In science it is never a good idea to compare apples with pears.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
pretty fancy way of saying that there is no way to predict what the long term climate is going to do.
What he (Kramm) said...
I prefer, "The Sky is FALLING!"
Or "Its gonna get cold this winter."
Typical weather person. Uses all this technology to predict the weather when all it takes is to step outside and look. Makes you wonder how the Farmer's Almanac was able to function before the scientists.
"Makes you wonder how the Farmer's Almanac was able to function before the scientists."
it didn't.
"The Almanac claims that its long-range weather forecasts are 80% accurate. One disputing analysis concluded that these forecasts are at most 2% more accurate than random guesses."
2% better than random guesses. impressive.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.