I have now doubts as to whether the scientists who play a key role in the political goals or who are consulted have the real, appropriately up-to-date perspective based on two facts: On the one hand, the ocean vortex, even temporary, have a much more impact on the climate than previously believed and this has not been included in the previous climate model calculations. In spite of the high-performance computers, are the climate model calculations at all adequately good in order to pass such far-reaching laws on it, if only a few ocean eddies might in reality cause a different climate than the one previously calculated? Link to an German article on this: https://www.eskp.de/klimawandel/ozeanwirbel-die-fleissigen-helfer-der-meeresstroemung-935695/ Second, that methane is broken down in the atmosphere after approx. 8 years, but stores 25 times more heat than carbon dioxide and this again has not been adequately taken into account in the climate protection agreement. In addition, large amounts of methane are measured, the origin of which cannot yet be explained. Link to an German article on this: https://www.eskp.de/klimawandel/ozeanwirbel-die-fleissigen-helfer-der-meeresstroemung-935695/
Dear Eva,
As you know, in science we are continuously developing our knowledge and testing hypotheses. So, it should not be surprising to find over and over again some changes in our view on the functioning of the Earth system. In regard to modeling, famous prof Box used to say "All models are wrong, but some are useful". Indeed, models are not expected to provide a 1:1 representation of the Earth system, they must be to some extent simplified.
However, the climate models are still one of the best tools we have in science. Even if some issues were not addressed exactly in the previous versions, it does not mean that the models are wrong, as some of the effects of these processes were already included by so-called parametrization.
The key question is how the mentioned problems are important from a quantitative point of view. From my assessment, it is likely that they do not alter the general trends.
Sorry for the short answer but the issue is really extensive.
with best wishes
WItold
Climate change is so unpredictable that making models is just a personal opinion and every scientist has slightly different opinion anyway.
The conclusions reached at the regular climate conferences usually provide the latest in our current thinking about climate change.
Take the reduction of emissions due to lockdowns: They should have reduced the warming of the seas, but that has not happened to any substantial degree yet.
In my location for example, in the last 2 years we have had a new phenomenon of winter fog that was never here before. That fog probably came from the extra evaporation of seawater (due to warmer water).
Models sometimes become far from reality and some times if unnatural events occur AI even does not work. Hence policy makers sometimes become reluctant on model
The article referred to is also available in English here: https://www.eskp.de/en/climate-change/ocean-eddies-the-ocean-currents-industrious-assistants-935695/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change