🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CHJ7JL.LoK@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, rjw9y@envsci.evsc.virginia.edu. (rjw9y) writes:

|> e-mail rjw9y@virginia.edu----------- i am a rational person interested
                ^^^^^^^^
                ^^^^^^^^
sigh.

|>  i am a rational person interested
|> in rational responces not a political discussion, please. 

Then don't make slanted statements, please. For instance:

|> If modellers dont want the output compared to observational data how
|> come they dont govern the use of their model output?  Moreover, how in
|> the world do articles like these get past review?  

While I'm not one to claim that no drivel gets past peer review, the
statement that modellers don't "want" their output compared to observational
data misrepresents the situation badly.

The question is one of signal to noise ratio primarily. The current forcing
is relatively small compared to that which is to be expected in the near
future. The largest observed anomalies do in fact have a spatial pattern
consistent with that of the regions where most severe warming is expected.

Everything else is still well within the noise of natural variability, both
in observations and in interpolated model-derived sensitivities. 

Whether the local climate studies, and studies of agricultural and ecological
impact in specific localities, are or are not premature is a good question
on the other hand. Nevertheless, people and critters live in particular
places, not in a global average climate, so the interest in this question is
understandable. The information gleaned is highly tentative and preliminary,
but surely making some effort to see which places are most vulnerable has
some value.

mt