The article you cited leaves many questions.
What were the assumptions for the models? With what accuracy have these 52 models been able to predict the weather and forest cover that we have had for the past 100 years? With what certainty can they say that a single digit rise in temperature will cause the amount of forest cover to change? What is the point in comparing the models' output when they all have different inaccuracies and different assumptions? Are there more models that they did not include for some reason? With what accuracy have they been able to predict the amount of cloud cover for the next 200 years?
Richard Betts said this study makes an "important new contribution to the debate on the effects of climate change." These are just guesses at what could happen in the future. Environment Canada is rarely correct in its 5 day forecast. If meteorologists cannot predict what will happen 5 days into the future without at least an average of 95% accuracy, what makes people so confident in the 200 years predictions? Go to
http://www.forecastadvisor.com and enter a zip code to find out its 5 day forecast accuracy.
A debate should be based on facts, not wild speculations of what could happen. This is like your
Greenland\'s Melting topic that sunk into a hairied discussion on what cities are going to be below sea level. There is another question. Why did these 52 models not indicate a huge rise in sea levels? A debate on the effects of climate change is barely useful in developing plans for the future. It is great propaganda though.
I like how the articles finishes with this, "Dr Scholze said he hoped the findings would be used in debates on dangerous climate change and the measures needed to avoid it." It is as though they think there is some way of avoiding climate change. How can you avoid something that is out of our control?
John M Reynolds
