<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Climate change modeling key to disaster preparations]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by Brad Arnold</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-16-world-disaster-report-ifrc/</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:07:16 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-16-world-disaster-report-ifrc/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p>Depending upon climate change modeling is laughable: current climate models have (grossly) underestimated sea level rise, polar sea ice melt, and average temperature rise that is occurring now.&nbsp; In my (and Dr Lovelock's) opinion, this is because current climate models only use physics and chemistry, when instead they ought to be including biology.&nbsp; In other words, "biogeology" or the effect of biological systems on the Earth, is sadly lacking in current climate models.</p><p><br />By the way, I've also noticed a tragic inability of mathematical models to predict non-linear or exponencial change.&nbsp; For instance, sea level rise exponencially increases the odds of inland flooding due to storm surge.&nbsp; Another example is that because future natural methane emissions (from melting methane hydrate) can't currently be accurately estimated, it is simply not included in climate modelling.</p><p><br />Frankly, I feel sorry for any poor fool who depends upon current climate models to plan for the future.&nbsp; Instead, an insurance model of risk should be adopted, where money is spent to plan for and adapt to the worst case senario.&nbsp; On thing ought to be perfectly clear: non-linear events (black swan events) are low probability/high consequence, and will inevitably eventually occur.&nbsp; Tomorrow is almost always like today, until it isn't.&nbsp; Do you really need a model to tell you that?</p></br></br>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p>Depending upon climate change modeling is laughable: current climate models have (grossly) underestimated sea level rise, polar sea ice melt, and average temperature rise that is occurring now.&nbsp; In my (and Dr Lovelock's) opinion, this is because current climate models only use physics and chemistry, when instead they ought to be including biology.&nbsp; In other words, "biogeology" or the effect of biological systems on the Earth, is sadly lacking in current climate models.</p><p><br />By the way, I've also noticed a tragic inability of mathematical models to predict non-linear or exponencial change.&nbsp; For instance, sea level rise exponencially increases the odds of inland flooding due to storm surge.&nbsp; Another example is that because future natural methane emissions (from melting methane hydrate) can't currently be accurately estimated, it is simply not included in climate modelling.</p><p><br />Frankly, I feel sorry for any poor fool who depends upon current climate models to plan for the future.&nbsp; Instead, an insurance model of risk should be adopted, where money is spent to plan for and adapt to the worst case senario.&nbsp; On thing ought to be perfectly clear: non-linear events (black swan events) are low probability/high consequence, and will inevitably eventually occur.&nbsp; Tomorrow is almost always like today, until it isn't.&nbsp; Do you really need a model to tell you that?</p></br></br>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by marshall</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-16-world-disaster-report-ifrc/</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:56:13 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-16-world-disaster-report-ifrc/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				Thanks, but you have the link to the Red Cross Report wrong.  It is <a href="http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2009/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2009/</a>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				Thanks, but you have the link to the Red Cross Report wrong.  It is <a href="http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2009/" rel="nofollow">http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2009/</a>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>