Environmental lawsuits and climate models Posted by: McQ
on Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A lawsuit which appears to be modeled on the attempts to blame the entire gun industry for gun violence seems to have failed to impress a federal judge in California:
A federal judge on Monday tossed out a lawsuit filed by California that sought to hold the world's six largest automakers accountable for their contribution to global warming. District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco handed California Attorney General Jerry Brown's environmental crusade a stinging rebuke when he ruled that it was impossible to determine to what extent automakers are responsible for global-warming damages in California. The judge also ruled that keeping the lawsuit alive would threaten the country's foreign policy position.
In other environmental/Global Warming news, an interesting finding concerning climate models. 5 Italian researchers "compared, for the overlapping time frame 1962-2000, "the estimate of the northern hemisphere mid-latitude winter atmospheric variability within the available 20th century simulations of 19 global climate models included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 4th Assessment Report"."
Or said another way, they compared the real data for a period with the predictions these models had cranked out and found some real problems with the accuracy of the models:
What was learned
Quoting the five Italian researchers, "large biases, in several cases larger than 20%, are found in all [our italics] the considered metrics between the wave climatologies of most IPCC models and the reanalyses, while the span of the climatologies of the various models is, in all cases [our italics], around 50%." They also report that "the traveling baroclinic waves are typically overestimated by the climate models, while the planetary waves are usually underestimated," and that "the model results do not cluster around their ensemble mean," which is another way of saying they are all over the place.
What it means
Quoting once again the scientists who performed the model tests, "this study suggests caveats with respect to the ability of most of the presently available climate models in representing the statistical properties of the global scale atmospheric dynamics of the present [our italics] climate and, a fortiori ["all the more," as per Webster's Dictionary], in the perspective of modeling [future] climate change." Indeed, it gives one pause to question most everything the models might suggest about the future.
The basis of much of the IPCC's findings were based in these climate models and their predictions.
Look for a general fade out of global warming hysteria, particularly in the U.S., as the "health care crisis" rises to the top of the cauldron.
First, after all the big bets placed on global warming, an actual counter-offensive of science, like the one described in this thread, is going to erode the public relations successes of the warmists.
Second, Hillary doesn’t need a sudden assault from a "Gore Climate Candidacy" as she climbs back to the top of the world.
Third, the postal workers need to be issued proctoscopes (my tag line for "universal" health care) ASAP.
But watch for this headline: Obesity Linked to Global Warming; Clinton Plan to Require Calorie Reduction for Eligibility; Americans Admonished to Switch to Tropical Diet.
The fast food industry will be heavily regulated, of course. But the link to global warming will only be featured on the undercard. And later dropped.
Look for a general fade out of global warming hysteria, particularly in the U.S., as the "health care crisis" rises to the top of the cauldron.
I think you’re right, and I have been saying the same thing for a while. Though not important, I don’t see it as the result of health care taking center stage, but rather as typical of the way these things go. Once I began hearing that the "debate is settled," I knew the days were numbered — though that could amount to some years.
This is a classic topping pattern. Once all the bulls are on board, then it’s time to watch out below (everyone is already in their position and there’s no more buyers to drive the price up). Likewise, once the mainstream swallows AGW hook, line and sinker, as it appears to have done, there’s no one left to convince and the whole thing just collapses because everyone who’s going to be converted has been converted. There’s little to no motivation to keep spending the time and energy on it.
Human beings seem destined to spend most of their lives being fooled.
Well, like Iraq, the future of the global warming debate will depend upon the facts on the ground ... or in the air.
I’ve read enough of the technical stuff that I’m persuaded that human beings do contribute to global warming, but how much and how serious it is, what are the countervailing forces, and how we might best respond are other matters.
However, if the global warming scientists have got this wrong (they claim 90% certainty in the IPCC docs) and the earth starts cooling, that will be a huge black eye for environmentalists. In following the debate, I do notice how many skeptics of AGW remember, as I do, how terribly wrong the earlier predictions of environmental disaster were from the sixties onward.
