The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.
Model prediction of Arctic sea ice loss - 2000 (L) vs. 2040 (R). From BBC news. Click to Enlarge.Now that the IPCC has released the summary of it's upcoming study report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis , strongly stating that global warming is man-made, it is still important for scientists to clearly enumerate any issues surrounding the accuracy and reliability of their models.
Because if they don't, global warming deniers, or those who believe that we need still more time for convincing proof will focus on the slightest inaccuracy in a model's prediction in classic red herring fashion. (In a way similar to anti-evolutionists, they will neglect the hundreds of accurate predictions and claim that the one that doesn't quite fit calls for total abandonment of a theory.)
Climate models are by their very nature prone to chaotic behavior. This behavior must be accounted for when using climate models for any type of prediction. An excellent article on how chaotic models are handled has been provided recently by Cecilia Bitz of the Univ. of Washington. In her Real Climate article Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st Century, Bitz describes work she did with colleagues Marika Holland and Bruno Tremblay, which culminated in a paper for the Dec. 2006 Geophysical Research Letters. I want to focus on two aspects of Bitz's commentary: the presence of chaos in the climate models, and the overall accuracy of the modeling process. Bitz recounts:
Return to Article
