Printer Friendly

A moisture problem muddles climate work.

The world's 19 best computer climate models differ substantially in the way they stimulate "moist" processes in the atmosphere--a problem scientists must solve to improve global warming predictions, a new study warns.

"This study and others suggest to me that existing models are capable of giving qualitative evaluations but are not capable of making quantitative predictions," says study leader David A. Randall of Colorado State University in Fort Collins.

The study by 31 researchers in eight countries expands on a previous comparison which showed that models disagree in their assessment of how clouds affect radiation leaving or entering the top of Earth's atmosphere. The new study looked at another facet of the climate: energy absorbed and released from Earth's surface.

The scientists compared the models by running identical simulations of simple climate changes. At first, they lowered sea-surface temperatures by 2[degrees]C below present conditions and then let the atmosphere react. Later, they raised sea temperatures by 2[degrees]C above present conditions.

The comparison revealed that models differed greatly in their portrayal of energy entering and leaving Earth's surface, the researchers report in the March 20 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. But unlike the previous disagreement, this inconsistency does not trace directly back to the effect of clouds on radiation. Instead, it results from the way each model treats processes involving moisture. Most important among these are surface evaporation, the development of cumulus clouds and the absorption and emission of radiation by water vapor.

The results have important implications for those trying to improve predictions of climate change. Some scientists and administrators have emphasized the need to boost computer power, thereby permitting the use of models with greater spatial resolution. But Randall and his colleagues say this will not solve existing problems. From their study and others, they conclude that "dramatically increased computer power would not, by itself, be sufficient to greatly improve either our ability to simulate the present climate or our confidence in climate-change simulations produced by existing models."

Instead, Randall emphasizes the need for meteorological observations and theoretical investigations aimed at improving scientific understanding of how the climate works.
COPYRIGHT 1992 Science Service, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Monastersky, Richard
Publication:Science News
Date:Apr 4, 1992
Words:353
Previous Article:Adult neurons: not too old to divide.
Next Article:Striking pay dirt in prime-number terrain.
Topics:


Related Articles
Cloudy concerns: will clouds prevent or promote a drastic global warning?
Ancient ice reveals wild climate shifts.
El Nino weakens in Pacific.
Tropical trouble: two decades of Pacific warmth have fired up the globe.
Continents growing wetter as globe warms.
Climate change measure for the common folk.
Is there a vent in the global greenhouse?
Global vineyard: can technology take on a warming climate?
Extreme weather: is global warming to blame?
The wind and the fury: has climate change made hurricanes fiercer, or are such claims hot air?

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters