On 3/27/07, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> This might be of interest to some on this list. Certainly it relates to
> recent conversations.
>
> ted
I looked at the submitted dissertations and they all look impressive as well
as the interdisciplinary depth. One dissertation that caught my eye was:
Climate change assessment and climate model evaluation using multi-model
ensembles: A Bayesian approach
Min, Seung-Ki 2006
University of Bonn (Germany), 126 pp.
Min analyzed climate models using a Bayesian approach. The conclusion?
"Results show that global and regional SAT [surface air temperature] changes
provide observational evidences for ALL [both natural and antropogenic
forcing] or ANTHRO [anthropogenic] signals for the whole 20th century and
its second half, while N [natural] or ALL signals are dominant in its first
half."
English translation: When comparing the models against measurements the best
explanation for the Twentieth Century record, particularly the second half,
is both natural and anthropogenic forcing with the anthropogenic forcing
dominating the natural. Yet another nail in the coffin of those who deny
anthropogenic climate change.
The other interesting thing about the dissertation is the use of a Bayesian
model average (BMA) is superior to the arithmetic mean of the ensembles.
Given the fact that anthropogenic forcing is dominant then the forecast
will probably be higher than the arithmetic mean reported out of such bodies
as the IPCC.
Finally, the other thing that caught my eye was the prodigous output of the
participants after participating in the previous conference, particularly
since these are newly minted PhDs. It appears that being interdisciplinary
is a very good career move at least in the climate science realm.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Mar 27 16:26:03 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 27 2007 - 16:26:03 EDT