I like computer models. I like ice cream too. Computer models have limits. Using such climate models to predict the future is misleading. Like week-old melted ice cream, climate models fall flat.
The graph below (Christy 2013) compares climate models with actual measurements. Keep in mind that models are computer code representations and not reality. Atmospheric measurements on the other hand provide us an indication of how the “whole” climate system is actually behaving and “changing”. Yes, that’s right. The global climate system is not static but dynamic. No matter how large the computer, or how smart the modeler, or how much money is thrown at it, computer code simply does not behave in the same manner nor represent the global climate system as a whole. A common sense approach to climate policy and funding decisions is needed with less emphasis on misleading climate models and absent
of UN IPCC politics.
John R. Christy. 2013. Distinguished Professor, Department of Atmospheric Science Alabama State Climatologist. The University of Alabama in Huntsville. Public Comment on EPA proposed rule for existing carbon-burning power plants. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
A rather ridiculous statement from Canada about not believing that”climate deniers” exist. Thinking that someone can “deny” climate is nonsense. Is Mr. Tamblyn a “physics” denier?
“I do not believe that climate change deniers exist. I have heard the statistics and have seen the graphs, but I am not convinced. So I do what the supposed deniers do – I ignore them and move on.” click here
Grande S, Risica S. Radionuclides in drinking water: the recent legislative requirements of the European Union. Journal of Radiological Protection 2014 Dec 8;35(1):1-19.
In November 2013, a new EURATOM Directive was issued on the protection of public health from the radionuclide content in drinking water. After introducing the contents of the Directive, the paper analyses the hypotheses about drinking water ingestion adopted in documents of international and national organizations and the data obtained from national/regional surveys. Starting from the Directive’s parametric value for the Indicative Dose, some examples of derived activity concentrations of radionuclides in drinking water are reported for some age classes and three exposure situations, namely, (i) artificial radionuclides due to routine water release from nuclear power facilities, (ii) artificial radionuclides from nuclear medicine procedures, and (iii) naturally occurring radionuclides in drinking water or resulting from existing or past NORM industrial activities.
Click here for paper (Open Access).