Thanks for the clarification. Had read it part way through and thought it might be of interest to the forum. As for models they are subject to vast errors if the start point is 'off' the mark all subsequent inputs whether real or modelled will throw the entire prediction totally off.
Kev C
Mandy Meikle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>For anyone who didn't click, this is a paper looking at the effect of
>extreme climate events on capacity to absorb CO2:
>
>"...as a result of extreme climate [events], terrestrial ecosystems are
>absorbing approximately 11 billion tons less carbon dioxide every year than
>they could if the events did not occur. “That is equivalent to approximately
>a third of global CO2 emissions per year,” says the MPI-BGC director in a
>summary of the research paper posted to the Institute’s website."
>
>One of my bits of work at the moment is summarising academic papers
>pertaining to climate justice. It's crucial to remember that much of what we
>'know' comes from modelling. If the model's parameters are wrong (e.g.
>constantly shifting or presumptuous), the results won't reflect reality.
>Many (most?) economic models have 'economic growth' plugged in as a given,
>which is quite upsetting for biophysical economists and other realists!
>
>Mandy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kevin Coleman
>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 12:20 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Uncertainty Looms Over Terrestrial Ecosystems - Analysis Eurasia
>Review
>
>http://www.eurasiareview.com/24082013-uncertainty-looms-over-terrestrial-ecosystems-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29
>
|