For example, the models used by IPCC 2007 are more confident in predicting temperature compared to precipitation? Why is this?
If you have reliable reference, I would be very much thankful.
Thanks guys.
A white landscape most definitely reflects more sunlight (and energy) back into space which will cool the earth some. Before GW became a cause, climatologists had a hard time trying to develop computer models that didn’t end up with the earth in a perpetual ice age.
As far as the IPCC, it depends on when you ask. If it’s snowing, that’s what they predicted. Otherwise, it keeps getting warmer. Any scientific theory that can account for everything (as GW proponents act), explains nothing. Science must be predictive and falsifiable. GW is neither.
There is no doubt they are wrong, they did not predict that globaly averaged temperatures would begin cooling in 2003 and they did not predict that Arctic Sea Ice would begin a rapid recovery. Nor did they predict that the Antarctic Ice cap would continue to grow and set all time maximum sea ice extent records.http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image…
I remember when Hurricane Francis came over my home town in Florida and the Weather Channel, this is before the power went out of course, was giving us a 90% chance of precipitation for the day. I looked outside to see my bark porch flooded and winds lashing the palms. That 90% chance was the result of data entered into computer models apparently with a 10% margin of error. If these models give results like this can we really trust these global warming models? Especially when these models do not take into account variables such as atmospheric water vapor and location of weather stations?
