De missförstådda klimatmodellerna

Model simulation showing average ocean current velocities and sea surface temperatures near Japan.

Klimatmodeller är något som många har åsikter om. Tyvärr är det inta alltid så välinformerade åsikter. För den som vill bli mer välinformerad har Ars Technica en bra populärvetenskaplig artikel om klimatmodeller, Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science. Där intervjuar man ett antal forskare som arbetar med klimatmodellering, bl a Andrew Weaver, Steve Easterbrook, Gavin Schmidt, och  Richard Alley. Så här säger Weaver t ex:

 “What is so remarkable about these climate models is that it really shows how much we know about the physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, because they’re ultimately driven by one thing—that is, the Sun. So you start with these equations, and you start these equations with a world that has no moisture in the atmosphere that just has seeds on land but has no trees anywhere, that has an ocean that has a constant temperature and a constant amount of salt in it, and it has no sea ice, and all you do is turn it on. [Flick on] the Sun, and you see this model predict a system that looks so much like the real world. It predicts storm tracks where they should be, it predicts ocean circulation where it should be, it grows trees where it should, it grows a carbon cycle—it really is remarkable.”

Jag hittade den här artikeln genom ClimateSight, en blogg som drivs av en doktorand (Kate) som forskar kring just klimatmodellering.

En annan bra blogg om klimatmodeller är Climate Lab Book, som drivs av forskaren Ed Hawkins.