Ryan Gill ([info]montieth) wrote,
@ 2008-05-11 13:46:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
And the models are still wrong
The Climate models that the IPCC uses to predict what world climate will do (storms, rising sea levels, loss of hair, dogs and cats living together) has yet another flaw. Antarctic climate has cooled, not risen says a recent study of Antarctic weather.

"We can now compare computer simulations with observations of actual climate trends in Antarctica," says NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan, the lead author of the study. "This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe. The challenges of studying climate in this remote environment make it difficult to say what the future holds for Antarctica's climate."

The study marks the first time that scientists have been able to compare records of the past 50 to 100 years of Antarctic climate with simulations run on computer models. Researchers have used atmospheric observations to confirm that computer models are accurately simulating climate for the other six continents. The models, which are mathematical representations of Earth's climate system, are a primary method for scientists to project future climate.


Melting of the antarctic ice shelf is part of the factor which is supposed to make the sea levels rise. Artctic sea ice won't do that (See Boyles Law). Strangely, I have to wonder if increased precipitation at high altitudes and in Antarctica would in fact cause sea levels to drop due to the acumulation of the snow and ice which does not easily shift back to the oceans.


(Post a new comment)


[info]ch
2008-05-12 05:53 am UTC (link)
link please, i'd like to follow up.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]montieth
2008-05-12 01:39 pm UTC (link)
Doh, I thought I posted it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507132855.htm

(Reply to this)(Parent)

your tone...
[info]justicefire
2008-05-14 01:36 pm UTC (link)
Perhaps it is because it is written and this was not your intent but I find your 'tone' sort of condescending. Very few climatologists argue their models are definitive...that's Al Gore's job (BTW- I totally agree he did not deserve the Nobel prize). This in fact a perfect example of science working properly. Experimentalists provide new information to refine our models. I would point out that are models of evolution are still flawed. As are our models for most of what goes on in quantum mechanics. Yet we claim to understand how those processes work as well.

Maybe that wasn't your intent... damn text.... this is why emoticons exist... :>
(An)Drew Palmer

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: your tone...
[info]montieth
2008-05-14 02:18 pm UTC (link)
). This in fact a perfect example of science working properly. Experimentalists provide new information to refine our models.

The problem is is that the hypothesis is being stated as a law of nature. Have you seen as much money and effort to implement international agreements and expend enormous sums of money on implementing policy on any other hypothesis?

Evolution is, if I'm not mistaken, still a theory (not even a hypothesis) and there are a lot of people who disagree with it devoutly. The difference is that nobody is threatening me with a tax on my evolutionary diversity or lack of contribution to the human Gene pool.

As are our models for most of what goes on in quantum mechanics. Yet we claim to understand how those processes work as well.


Those models are still being tested, there's no UN commission on String Theory that's issuing press releases saying they're 90% certain and that we all need to change our lives or else.

My problem isn't that we're studying the data or trying to figure things out. Its that the media and demagogues have short circuited the process and gone from hypothesis to law and are making public policy over it.

As to tone, I am a bit perturbed but it's not meant to be condescending.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: your tone...
[info]justicefire
2008-05-14 11:48 pm UTC (link)
I completely agree that this has been blown out of proportion.

As for evolution there is however a move to teach intelligent design in school and undermine evolutionary biology as a field at large.

I figured that was what you meant just wanted to check in...
I did hear a great argument from a solar power researcher who said it is a matter of risk analysis. He argues that a controlled program to reduce emissions will not only reduce CO2 but remove harmful particulates and other compounds that are released into the air by many of these sources (you've mentioned mercury in coal I believe a long time ago). By reducing these emissions there are additional benefits to public health.

Drew

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…