Dr. Savage ("Disputing Krugman," May 20 Steamboat Today) is correct in saying, "some of the critical aspects of the models have been proved wrong, thus invalidating the models in his judgment." Modeling the climate is not an exact science, and the model needs to be adjusted every year after the data is gathered. The data from 2008 places it in the top 10 of highest recorded temperatures. So, 12 of the highest recorded average temperatures have occurred in the past 14 years. The model from one year ago would be much more desirable than the current model. The 2008 data strays far from the model of 2007, for the worse.
Unfortunately, the only way to prove the accuracy of the model is to wait. In 50 years, we could look back at the 2007 model and say, "If they only would have told us how bad it was going to get, we would have listened." But by Dr. Savage's logic, if the model is not exactly right, the model has no value. However, the model is showing a trend that Dr. Savage chooses to not acknowledge.
Models may be debated and trends can be ignored, but what you cannot ignore are the signs Earth is giving us. On NOVA, they examined new research on glaciers. The researchers from Boulder and abroad have increased their understanding of glaciers. They have found glaciers are moving into the ocean at rates of two to eight times greater than 20 years ago. The glaciers are not redeposited each winter at rates equal to their discharge into the ocean. So, the glaciers are retreating, and Greenland is getting smaller. A trend that the model supports is that the glacier loss in 2008 was greater than the glacier loss in 2007. And 2009 probably will be more than 2008, and so on. There is nothing to suggest that this observable trend will change. Glacier National Park is another example where the glaciers have been removed from the face of the Earth.
Debating the model will only help us understand when sea level rise may occur. But whether the new model, with new feedbacks included, shows a sharp increase in the average temperatures and predicts five years until total glacial melt; or if it is a kinder model, like 2007, that gives us 150 years until total glacial melt. The model becomes moot either way. The real issue is not the model, the environment or climate, but the politics behind the carbon tax, cap and trade. It will cause fossil fuel energy producers a great deal of money and affect their profitability - and shows that it's not economically feasible to keep the glaciers intact. Good luck, Mother Earth!