An alarming observation has appeared regarding computer modeling of climate change. In the June 13 issue of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's magazine, Science, a three-page article discusses the controversy about the inadequacy of climate modeling used for decadal predictions, and therefore near-term political decisions.
It seems the current approaches are not reflecting what is happening as was predicted vs. the last 60 years. Old-style forecasting is better. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report compared the performance of 20 major models in use "against the past six decades of climate data. The results were disappointing," said Ben Kirtman, a climate scientist at the University of Miami in Florida and coordinating author of the near-term predictability chapter of last year's fifth IPCC assessment report.
Kirtman further comments that "we still have an enormous amount to learn" before we can have consensus on the modeling approach.
I've heard from the president that the science was settled and we must immediately respond or face abysmal conditions. Or, was it Al Gore? Maybe they should inform these climate scientists.
GARY TROYER, Richland