Climate Models..... Not so reliable after-all?

Question

This reported finding appears to have the potential of 'neutering' climate models. Is it time to step back and (finally) question the the so-called basis of so-called 'man-did-it' global warming??

Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected
ScienceDaily (May 14, 2009) — The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete "conveyor belt" of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
________________________________________
New research led by Duke University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution relied on an armada of sophisticated floats to show that much of this water, originating in the sea between Newfoundland and Greenland, is diverted generally eastward by the time it flows as far south as Massachusetts. From there it disburses to the depths in complex ways that are difficult to follow.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
"Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn't hold anymore," said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. "So it's going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean."
And since cold Labrador seawater is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may affect the work of global warming forecasters.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm

Answer 1

This doesn't surprise me at all.



The climate models have to be terrible. There is too much about the climate that we don't understand, too many variables that we don't and can't know, and computer models can't help but be incredibly basic compared to the climate, and we couldn't possibly accurately input the data to imitate reality regarding changes to the system.



When we can accurately and assuredly predict a hurricane's development and path on formation, I'll start to give climate models a little bit of weight. A Hurricane has 1/1000th of the variables of the climate and we've spent a thousand times more effort on making hurricane models work. Those are still usually wrong if it's more than a day out.



That said, I think it's good science to work on these models, they will eventually be useful, but it's really BAD... really bad policy to make decisions based on what these models say.

Answer 2

Nice try, but to me, all this shows is the relatively young, undeveloped characteristics science of oceanography. Who knows if these currents haven't developed in just the last 10-15 years? So, big deal if the 50-year old model is outdated. Good! It's about time for a revised view. Remember that 1956 was the International Geophysical Year for researchers around the world?? You must remember that the oceans comprise a good 3/4ths of the planet and new species of animal and plant life are being discovered every week if not, then every day. So - why shouldn't ocean currents be the same?



Here, try this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518102954.htm



I posted this on another YahooAnswer, and will say this again: The facts may not be fully accurate in the article, but this is the degree to which scientists (who are far ahead of the "information envelope" than the general population) are thinking about and researching.

---------------

Lastly, your question belies some basic misunderstandings (to put it mildly) about the study of science. You should expect changes continuously - and in most cases, thankfully. Science is a human-driven activity, and is based on well-tested facts instead on dubious factors like religious-based faith and malinformed hopes, dude.



Good luck. We'll all need it within the next 50-100 years - less than a drop in the bucket of time in the "History of Homo Sapien".

Answer 3

Take this as an occasion from IPCC. they say (approximately fashions) "to confirm regardless of if a climate variety is doing a good activity, scientists supply it a attempt. The variety is administered by a term for which we've incredibly measurements of Earth’s climate, the previous one hundred years to illustrate. the outcomes from the variety are in comparison with the incredibly measurements of genuine climate. If the variety and the incredibly measurements are comparable, then the mathematics equations in the variety that are used to describe how Earth works are in all probability particularly precise. If the variety consequences are very diverse from our records of what actual befell, then the variety desires some artwork." Now take the climategate e mail that states "in factor of certainty that we can’t account for the shortcoming of warming on the 2nd and it incredibly is a travesty that we can’t." Does that mean that all of the fashions are bunk.

Answer 4

"We find that things are more difficult to measure than we previously thought" isn't the same as "We were wrong, so let's forget the whole thing".



When scientists argue over cause, they're not saying that the effect isn't real, just that they're no longer sure of the cause. I can tell with certainty that you're bleeding but unless I see the knife I can't be certain what color handle it has. But you'll still bleed to death if we don't stop the bleeding. My not knowing the handle color doesn't change the severity of the situation.

Answer 5

It's good to learn more about the abyssal circulation, that should help improve the models. No one claims climate models are perfect, it is impossible for any model to perfectly represent reality. That's why observations like this are so important, they help improve our understanding.



If you think somehow that let's people off-the-hook regarding anthropogenic global warming, though, think again. That was known to be a problem before global climate models even existed. It follows from basic atmospheric physics.

Answer 6

And, of course, *you* understand the NADAW, don't you? (ROFL)!



"Modelling" is meant to construct just that: models, test our knowledge and refine it.



Read "It's Got To Be Beautiful" and you'll find some enlightening information about chaos equations... Do you understand chaos, diddums??



At a complexity of over 3.66 factors, equations show how systems begin to behave chaotically.



This because, as the number of factors affecting systemic behaviour increase, the number of possible outcomes to any particular prediction increase exponentially.... (are you still with me pet?)



If choices are 2, then simple, binary outcomes result, if choices are three, the complexity show a "oscillation" between possible outcomes, above three factors huge unpredictability characterises the resulting systemic behaviour.



Now, the behaviour of the North Atlantic Deep Water Current (NADAWC) is affected by a large number of factors, not least:



A) Thermohaline circulation, comprising of:

1) sea water density

> a function of salinity

> affected by rate of freshwater inputs

> AND contaminant load

2) temperature

> a function of solar irradiation

AND volcanicity

AND anthropogenic thermal inputs (thermal pollution)



B) Turbulence

> affected by Channel Flow

> a function of channel shape

AND channel bed surface friction coefficient

AND barriers/ obstructions



.. it goes on, but I am bored lecturing you, because you won't listen anyway... *you* know best, *you*, in fact, know *everything*, don't you?



So, what's the point?



Thew fact is that nobody ever tried to pretend that modelling is reliable, especially not those involved in Climate Modelling.



the only people to refer to "model reliability" are academic, who are talking in mathmatical-algebraic terms, *not* real life. Real life modelling always implies a huge number of uncertainty, as the number of influences and factors are considerably greater than in the laboratory of mathematical models.



Modelling helps us to understand, not predict, where it sucessfully predicts, the resultant equations quickly become "Laws", as opposed to Theories.



Few models reflect immutable lwas, because those are already "as read"... in other words, we know what happens if you throw a roick in the air.... What we don't know, and cannot predict, is which way up it will land!



Get it now?!

Answer 7

Models are just tools.



The real basis of anthropogenic climate change is the fact that the planet is warming, and the only thing it correlates with is the build up of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Answer 8

Nobody ever claimed the climate models were perfect. As a matter of fact, these kinds of findings are expected. The researcher never made the leap that you did saying that all climate models are now "neutered". The models will change. To expect them not to shows little understanding of how science works.



Are you guys going to do this everytime a new piece of information is collected on how the climate works? Are you going to scream, "SEE SEE I TOLD YOU IT WAS WRONG!!!" with every new finding?

Answer 9

Australia is not denying AGW !

Only in ignorant America are people still clinging to the religion of DENIAL.

Answer 10

they can't predict the weather 48hrs in advance.

are we willing to believe ,they can predict a year in advance.

no less 20 plus years.

Answer 11

Their predictions have never been very accurate - so I don't know why anyone thinks that the models are reliable.

Answer 12

and they found out 80% of the temperatures gages where too close to hot black top parking lots, building with black roofs that made the temperature go up on gages