The predicted effects of global warming, or global climate change, are based on computer models of the climate. Plug in a higher temperature, and turn the crank, and report on the results.
There are problems with the global climate models in use. Among other things, they don't reliably predict past climate changes when you plug in the values for those eras. Now, we find their predictions don't match current changes.
Many climate models have predicted that as the Earth warms, “the wet will get wetter and the dry will get drier,” said lead author of the new study, Frank Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems. This exaggeration of current rainfall patterns would mean that very rainy places such as Bangladesh could be soaked even more, while places such as the American Southwest would see even fewer drops than it currently does.
But by examining satellite data from the past 20 years, Wentz and his colleagues found that these predictions don’t seem to match what observations have shown, underestimating the rain that fell over that period and indicating that something was amiss in the way the models portrayed the water cycle.
Wentz described the water cycle as a “vertical conveyor belt”: winds help evaporate moisture from the surface and transport it, like boxes on a conveyor belt, upward in the atmosphere where it then eventually falls as precipitation. “As the planet warms, there’s going to be more water, and that means more boxes on the conveyor belt,” he explained.
With more water being transported, more rainfall might be expected to follow, but the previous models predicted a decrease in global winds, which would fail to circulate the moisture upward and leave the air humid and stagnant.
“What the models predict is that the conveyor belt’s going to slow down,” he told LiveScience. “So you’ll have more boxes on this, but it’ll be moving more slowly.”
But looking at the satellite data, Wentz and his team found that winds actually slightly increased over the past two decades, and so did precipitation and evaporation—and all by about the same percentage for each degree of warming during the time period. Their work is detailed in the May 31 online edition of Science Express.
Basically, we really don't know if the climate trends are going to work out for the better or the worse. Maybe we should learn that before we spent trillions trying to stop it.
2 comments:
Let's just say it is one, big mistake. Look at all the GOOD that is coming out of this focus. World communities are pulling together instead of pulling apart. Companies are being forced into becoming certified "green" which not only lowers emissions, but cleans up the water, earth, ground air AND human working conditions on a global basis. People are learning to self-organize and help themselves and each other without leadership telling them to do so. Warmer or cooler, the world is forever changed for the better.
That said, what if it is true? Then I prefer to err on the side of trying. We have nothing to lose and so very much to gain.
The problem is, if we "err on the side of trying", we may wind up making things worse.
What if the money we spend in "green" technology and certifications turns out to make only a marginal difference at best, and furthermore represents money that didn't find the cure for some fatal disease?
The cost of "erring on the side of trying" isn't just the cost of trying, it's also the lost opportunity to do something else with that money.
Post a Comment