This is like "how much wood could a wood chuck chuck? How much predictive value does a model have if it has not ever accurately predicted? I don't know why Lomborg didn't point that out, but his other analysis seems to aimed at the believers who like to ignore how poorly the models are working.
Answer: "None, but we have to use something! But since our changes won't really change anything, even with our non-predictive model, what the heck!"
"But this is just rhetoric. My own research and the only peer-reviewed published assessment of the Paris agreement used the United Nation’s favorite climate model to measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every major carbon-cutting promise in the treaty between now and 2030. I found that the total temperature reduction will be just 0.086 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
"Even if these promises were extended for 70 more years, then all the promises will reduce temperature rises by 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. This is similar to a finding by scientists at MIT. It’s feeble."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/21/climate-change-real-paris-treaty-costly-few-benefits-research-green-energy-column/83292440/
No comments:
Post a Comment