The hypothesis that past climate data is not a good predictor of the future has been well established through observations that demonstrate historical averages and extremes are being exceeded. A variety of new modeling approaches are under development, including some at the regional scale, that would constitute new methodologies, what are those?
There are considerable efforts underway toward using numerical climate models to make predictions of climate variability at the decadal - multidecadal time scales. Typically, these models have been used to make long-term projections (centennial and longer) of future climate under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. But now, increasing need for information about future climates have spurred more focused research toward the development of climate prediction systems, including improved Earth systems models and various methods to provide better initial conditions, such as data assimilation. There is an emerging body of literature on the subject.
This is unscientificI: you do not ask a question but make an unsupported remark that past climate data is not a good predictor. You have to refer to the publications or better to the IPCC-reports where we can find this inforamtion.
Dear Fakhruddin, sorry I cannot reply you but I must send you a comment.
I am aware that we all have different approaches to problems, and I think that this is one great treasure for science and knowledge. However, I believe that if we use a 'tool' this does not mean that other 'tools' are wrong.
I know what means that 'past climate data are not good predictors for future trends in climate change' but I also know that our impact of environmental systems is not the only force involved in climate change. Moreover, some of the improved knowledge that science produces may be useful to moderate the impact of our future actions on the environmental systems (I hope).
If the research can assume today that some observations 'demonstrate historical averages and extremes are being exceeded' this means that the study of the past is useful at least as the numerical climate models, and not only because we need reference and comparisons with the present. I hope that the study of models do not forget this 'biological-naturalistic' point of view.
It is very likely that the biological component is one of the most important
regulators of climate, by regulating the concentration of various compounds like
Sulfur Dioxide, and Carbon Dioxide.
One of the things that has puzzled me for years is How can the Earth remain
within a large surface life sustaining temperature range for about 630
million years ?
My theory is that life forms evolve to use excessive amounts of certain compounds as food sources. These life forms will prosper until the abundance of these
compounds is reduced to a subsistence level.
The cycle can repeat itself. For example, large reef complexes occurred several
times in geologic history. I suspect they required an abundance of sulfur dioxide
as a base food source, in a shallow marine environment, that was gradually deepening.
Trees evolved to take care of the excess CO2, but they can not keep pace with
the rate that Man clears forests for agriculture.
The carboniferous was 60 million years old, and the trees in the swamps
died and were left in place to eventually become coal. Then Mushrooms evolved
to breakdown the lignin and coal swamps stopped forming, but were replaced
by peat bogs.
In time we will begin to understand that Life forms are one of the most important
long term regulators of climate on this planet.
Michael Clark: "... How can the Earth remain within a large surface life sustaining temperature range for about 630 million years ?"
by ignoring what politicians, commissions and their "topic centers" try to sell to regular tax-payers
Fortunately Politicians were not around for about 629 million of the last 630
million years, or we would have gone extinct a lot sooner than we will in the near future.
If we had moved in the right direction 50 to 70 years ago to eliminate burning as a source of power I suspect we had a chance to undo that which we had changed.
But now the planet is releasing the Methane Hydrate from below the melting
permafrost.
I suspect climate change is now an irreversible condition that will do what it did
56 million years ago, have a sudden temperature increase of 9 F or 5 C in addition to the gradual increase caused by the increase in the Atmospheric Pressure, Volume, Mass, Composition and heat retaining ability.
In the last 600,000 years the CO2 concentration never reached 300 PPM.
In 2012 it reached 395 PPM. It is rising around 2 points a year.
The greatest difference between prior high temperatures periods and the
current one is that the prior high temperature periods had a fairly uniform
Atmospheric Volume ,and mass, and a natural system that could in a few hundred years respond to the increases in CO2 and correct them.
In this period we are not only increasing the volume of the Atmosphere, but we have been and are continuing to destroy the planets natural ability to respond and correct
the increase in CO2.
I have my own aproach that diverges from the rest, I have writen and documented and detailed described that, and discovered the mechanisms involved in climate variability
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dimis_Poulos
- Badges
- Science topic