Apoclaypse Now...err, in 2100...err, as predicted by computer models

From James Bruggers in the C-J...

I haven't seen this. But it seems like the height of arrogance, ignorance &/or politics-- to use computer models about a highly complex topic, extrapolate their results a century into the future, AND to make predictions for each state!

Aside from the model's assumptions, we're assuming cause-and-effect from greenhouse gases, human contributions to those gases, and the efficacy of proposed solutions. Wow...

A new state-by-state analysis by The Nature Conservancy predicts sharply higher temperatures and more rain in Kentucky and Indiana if nothing is done to curb heat-trapping gases.

The analysis foresees average temperatures in the two states by the end of the century that could alter the seasons, with bursts of rain so brief and intense that it could actually result in more periods of drought....

Average precipitation could increase 7.6 percent to about 3.6 feet per year in Indiana and 6.7 percent to almost 4.3 feet per year in Kentucky....

More rain and more drought. Hmmm...That's possible? Something to do with run-off? Je ne sais pas...

The analysis, which used data from a 2007 report by the United Nations-sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was produced using a new Climate Wizard Web tool made with the help of experts at the University of Washington and University of Southern Mississippi.

Not in or submitted to a refereed journal? Hmm...

It concludes that average year-round temperatures may rise by 8.8 degrees in Kentucky and 9.2 degrees in Indiana in the next 90 years.

The numbers are slightly less than the average global surface temperature under the same emissions scenario predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of hundreds of scientists from 113 governments....

Among the effects The Nature Conservancy anticipates:

-Increased illness and death because of hotter summers.

-Decline in forest growth and agricultural crop production.

-Decline in revenue for the state's forest industry from the spread of pests and disease.

-Worsening water quality in streams and lakes, resulting in fish kills and loss of ecological diversity.

It's not a good sign when "analysis"-- either the Nature Conservancy's study &/or Mr. Bruggers' summary of it-- only includes benefits OR costs of any given scenario or policy proposal. Almost certainly, that's advocacy, not analysis.

Bruggers uses a quote from Sarah Lynn Cunningham, a leader of the Louisville Climate Action Network, an environmental group, to close things out:

“The good news is there's an easy way out — it's called green jobs and the green economy,” she added.

"An easy way out"? As if there would be no significant costs from a "green" economy? Again, not good...