I've heard many different interpretations, that there will be no change, that there will be an increase, and there will be a decrease? Which is the most likely?
Hope you may find it useful!
Climate model simulations of the North American Monsoon depends on the model spatial resolution for a detailed representation of convective processes. Because of that, different resolution found to have different simulations and results (Tripathi & Dominguez, 2013).
For instance, decreases in summer rainfall of ~40% have been simulated with a coarse resolution model (0.5° land and atmosphere grid; Pascale et al., 2017), while high‐resolution simulations using a convective‐permitting (4‐km) model simulations showed increases/decreases in intense rainfall events in the last 60 years in southwestern/southeastern Arizona, respectively (Luong et al., 2017).
Tripathi, O. P., & Dominguez, F. (2013). Effects of spatial resolution in the simulation of daily and subdaily precipitation in the southwestern US. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118, 7591–7605. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50590.
Pascale, S., Boos, W. R., Bordoni, S., Delworth, T. L., Kapnick, S. B., Murakami, H., et al. (2017). Weakening of the North American Monsoon with global warming. Nature Climate Change, 7(11), 806–812. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3412
Luong, T. M., Castro, C. L., Chang, H. I., Lahmers, T., Adams, D. K., & Ochoa‐Moya, C. A. (2017). The more extreme nature of North American Monsoon precipitation in the southwestern United States as revealed by a historical climatology of simulated severe weather events. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 56(9), 2509–2529. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC‐D‐16‐0358.1
Bakshi Hardeep Vaid provided a comprehensive answer to the question raised by Maxwell Utter , though extremely frustrating. When you can have as many answers as you wish depending on whatever parameters used (here the resolution is invoked among other reasons), the end result is that there are no refutation possible and thus, we have left the realm of science as per Popper. This is what I explain Figure 77 of my book (link attached) dealing with the GCM projections of the rate of Arctic sea ice loss, where one can pick up the answer he wishes, there will be one for everybody. Science when based on rational theories comes with a unique forecast that can be refuted. You do not compute an orbit, saying that the astronomical body will "likely" be here or "very likely" be there :-)
I think it would be wise to learn again to say, when scientists do not know, that they simply dont. All that reminds me of Minze Stuiver who stated in 1978 "We learn that if present trends continue, with economics the only limit on the exploitation of fossil fuels, the CO2 concentration will have doubled by 2020. Forty to 80 years after fuel burning peaks — that will come mid-century — the CO2 concentration will be five to 10 times its present level". Simple fact checking of that "peer-reviewed" literature shows:
1978 336 ppm
2020 413 ppm (instead of 672)
Book The Rational Climate e-Book
- Poyet, P., 2020. The Rational Climate e-Book: Cooler is Riskier. The Sorry State of Climate Science and Policies. December 22nd, 114 Figures, 176 Equations, 430 pp., e-ISBN 978-99957-1-929-6
- Stuiver, M., 1978. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Reservoir Changes. Science, Vol. 199, Issue 4326, p. 253-258, DOI: 10.1126/science.199.4326.253
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation