Cleaner Air, Stormier World?
It seems we’ve discovered one more confounding factor to an accurate appraisal of climate change. As reported in the NCPA’s Daily Policy Digest, researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre in England believe that efforts in the U.S. and around the globe to improve air quality are contributing to greater numbers of tropical storms. Climate simulations (that is historical backcasting using climate models) indicate that as aerosols have decreased due to technological innovation and clean air laws, has increased tropical storm activity.
This is a bit curious since actual storm counts show no increase outside of the natural range of variability. Could this be another instance of model bias ― the bias of climate models to predict bad results whatever the change in inputs?
The more we know, the clearer it becomes that we don’t know that much about the climate.
Meteorologists cannot even tell me with complete assurance what the weather will be like tomorrow, why should I believe 5,10 and 100 year predictions?
I agree. Master the ability to accurately predict tomorrow’s weather.
We pick on meteorologists, but aren’t a lot of our public decisions made on similarly tenuous ground? We have all of these studies that conflict with one another and we pick and choose what we like. Who can we trust anymore?
It feels like everybody is corrupt nowadays.
It’s sad when corruption begins to corrupt science.
Few things in life are certain, but we can say that regardless of what we do, the climate will always be changing.
“The more we know, the clearer it becomes that we don’t know that much about the climate.”
Extraordinarily important. We all like to think that our knowledge of science can save us. It can’t. We are still learning. We need to be patient and keep learning instead of making rash decisions.
There should be an entirely new field of physics related to climate study.
I don’t know the how distinct the fields of study are, but the results certainly prove that we need to add a different approach.
That graphic flies in the face of everything we’ve been told about climate change over the last decade.
There is so much egg on their face, unfortunately I think that those who misled us the most won’t face serious repercussions.
Is climatology an actual and legitimate science that is to be taken seriously by serious people or is more comparable to superstitions such as alchemy and astrology? Or maybe just another superstition that’s comparable in natural world content to Keynesean so-called “economics.”
Climatology is an industry sparked by a political agenda. That’s why we see people like Al Bore and his funder, Maurice Strong (UN) at the forefront, leading the way into the murky swamp. It has less to do with the environment and more to do with power and making that monumental shift toward global governance. Followers seem to be able to ignore the fact that Al Washington with 2 million and has amassed 98 million more in carbon trading schemes since his departure. I guess “caring” is pretty lucrative.