"These findings may seem to imply that fewer storms in the future will be good news for disastrous western U.S. wildfires, but drier conditions near the ground combined with higher lightning
flash rates per storm may end up intensifying wildfire damage instead"
quote: The model was applied to a future scenario in which the temperature had risen 5 degrees and CO2 levels in the air had doubled.
quote: I also wonder why NASA is wasting taxpayer dollars running simulations under conditions that wildly unrealistic, and then publishing press releases with the results. Are they actively trying to add to the global warming fear mongering/FUD? What's the motivation exactly of studying something so hypothetical?
quote: Now come on, you don't believe 10ºF increase in our lifetime, do you? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Iowa for sale you might be interested in.
quote: In addition, it seems like from some of the other posts here (esp. from masher2) that GISS is pretty tainted. They seem to be peddling junk-food science and getting involved in politics.
quote: And scientists who have devoted 20+ years of their lives to climate research have published peer-reviewed papers that predict only 2.5C rise over the next 100 years. Still other peer-reviewed publications have predicted cooling over that period.
quote: By the way, the peer-review process isn't nearly so rigorous as you seem to believe. Even for a publication like Science, Nature, or GRL, it normally consists of a single reading of the paper by two other individuals. In a pinch, for someone with lengthy academic credentials, it may be read by only a single individual, or even skipped altogether. But in no case is there ever any cross-checking of data, calculations, or conclusions.
quote: The majority don't suggest a 10 degree rise either. But you say you "trust" those papers that claim this. Why is that?
quote: On the contrary, I do trust it. It does what its designed to do. What you fail to understand is that peer-review is not intended to validate the results or conclusions of research. Its a simple "minimum standards" check, not a full-scale audit. Reviewers read the paper-- that's it. They don't check the data or redo the calculations. That's not the goal of the process.
quote: 6) Scientists then conduct more experiments which may or may not support the previous finding. Models get revised and updated along the process.
quote: For popular journals that have a high number of submissions, peer review has a second purpose-- to ensure the paper is "newsworthy" enough. This step has nothing to do with the quality of the research...its based strictly on the novelty of the results.Peer-review works quite well in many cases. In others, it doesn't...which is why the field of astronomy (among others) has pretty much dispensed with peer-review entirely. Nearly all major researchers in astronomy now simply put their papers online in electronic format.
quote: Rovemelt: "You don't trust the peer-review process "Masher2: "On the contrary, I do trust it. It does what its designed to do."
quote: You seem to take anything Michael(6%)Asher writes as absolute truth, yet from his own spin, only 6% of published scientists endorse his theory on climate change.
quote: I just created a computer model that shows 100°C increase in 100 years. What does that prove?
quote: They seem to be peddling junk-food science and getting involved in politics.