Garbage In, Garbage Out

I’ve often commented that I don’t really trust computer climate models because they’ve seemed to me to be missing a lot of variables. So, it’s a little satisfying to see this article, which shows that MIT researchers are enhancing the model to more accurately account for a significant variable.

Global climate models are missing a good chunk of plant information that could significantly alter long-term climate change predictions. A new technique for modeling phytoplankton — microscopic plants in the upper layers of the Earth’s waters — could reveal a much more accurate picture.

“(Other) modelers have populated their oceans with three or four kinds of plants, said Mick Follows, a researcher in MIT’s Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate. “We’ve represented a much more diverse community, and allowed it to have interactions that regulate it more naturally.”

Phytoplankton populations are constantly changing, which makes them difficult to predict. So the MIT researchers developed an algorithm using evolutionary principles to more accurately represent the microscopic plants. A more precise count is important because phytoplankton process carbon dioxide — a significant contributor to global warming.

Scientists interviewed for this article said it’s too soon to say whether the more accurate phytoplankton count will be good news or bad news for the global climate’s future. But climate researchers will have a more accurate picture once they factor the new phytoplankton model into their estimates, they said.

Now, as the article states, this could effect predictions positively or negatively. But, it does show that my basic concern, incomplete models, is sound. A model is only as good as the assumptions built into them. Change the assumptions, or model the variables more accurately, and the prediction should be more accurate. However, this also shows the biggest problem with climate change models.

Think of all the things that effect the climate and environment. Animals, plants, water, water vapor, solar activity, human population, transportation, industry, etc. Each one of those variables must be modeled as to the quantity and effects they have on the climate. Each of those variables have assumptions built in to assume rate of growth.

I just don’t think the modeling science is advanced quite enough to bet the whole farm on, yet. We may never get a completely accurate model of the climate, considering all the variables. We may get a model that is good enough to steer us in the right direction.

In the meantime, there are any number of actions and policies which would reduce pollution and increase energy efficiency.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Responses to “Garbage In, Garbage Out”

  1. on 16 May 2007 at 3:02 pm Lance

    Exactly right Keith. Of course, it won’t matter to many that your concern is valid if it turns out that CO2 is the main determinant. They will still draw the lesson that every time scientists come up with an ominous scenario based on incomplete data that we should jump.

    Which is a very dangerous thing considering how many of the dire predictions of the past have turned out untrue, practically all of them as a matter of fact.

  2. on 16 May 2007 at 10:04 pm peter jackson

    Great, plants. No how about, oh, say…clouds? When the models incorporate the effects of clouds and other hydrologic phenomena they might be worth looking at. Heck, they might even be able to start explaining the temperature record of the past at that point, which is a prerequisite for any concern about the future.

    yours/
    peter.

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply

Get rewarded at leading casinos.

online casino real money usa