New research contradicts grim predictions of climate models
In 2005, the Amazon rainforest experienced an intense drought. Climate models predicted dire results, but a paper published last week in Science shows just the opposite occurred -- the forest actually greened up substantially, experiencing massive blooms of new growth.
The authors wryly concluded the forest "may be more resilient to climate change" than models have claimed. Some media outlets reported the work means climate change may actually help rainforests.
The research highlights a growing schism between modeling and reality. Global climate models predict all sorts of catastrophic events, but the effects we actually observe are quite different. Models overestimate the warming trend year after year, forcing continual revisions. They predict more storms, yet land-falling hurricanes have actually decreased. Polar bears are predicted to suffer as Arctic ice declines, but populations are actually on the rise.
As useful as models are, until one has proven it has predictive ability, it is useless for drawing conclusions. So far, no climate model has passed that test. None have successfully predicted a future trend. Most cannot even stay consistent with past, known-historical events.
In 2005, three researchers conducted a historical survey of climate models used to predict the length and severity of Monsoon seasons. Not only did they found current models to fail the task badly, they noted that model performance had not improved even slightly since the first hand-calculated model was done in 1932.
According to the new paper, drought will mean less rain, which is obviously bad for the rainforest. But less rainfall means more sunshine, which may counteract the lack of water. These types of negative-feedback mechanisms are common in nature, and they demonstrate that the "delicate" balance of nature really isn't all that delicate.
Consider the K/T extinction event. A 10 kilometer-wide asteroid struck the planet with a destructive force several thousand times as great as all nuclear weapons ever built. A massive tsunami several hundred feet high circled the entire planet. Firestorms raged, decimating most forests. Clouds of ash and dust obscured the sun for a decade, with near-constant rains of mud, saltwater, and dilute sulfuric acid. As catastrophic as this was, the fossil record indicates over half of all species survived ... and shortly afterwards, those survivors began thriving on the lack of competition, eventually differentiating into countless new species.
If the biosphere can survive an event as catastrophic as this, does anyone really believe it'll be decimated by a degree or two of warming? Certainly mild warming may cause some overly-specialized and poorly-adapted species to become extinct. But claims it will destroy the environment or threaten mankind's survival are no more than scary bedtime stories for adults who should know better.
Will climate change benefit the Amazon? Past geologic eras that saw global warming also experienced a large increase in rainforest coverage. Why would this time be any different?
"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher
|
DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine?
44 Comments
Most Popular ArticlesEasy Fix to Prevent Microsoft From Bricking Xbox 360s HDDs Arrives November 18, 2009, 6:41 AM Built Around the Browser, Google's Chrome OS Launches, Reinvents the Operating System November 19, 2009, 2:40 PM Update: Potential Fix for 1 Million Banned Xbox 360's Has Arrived November 13, 2009, 12:00 PM OCZ Technology Announces 3.5" 1TB Colossus SSDs November 17, 2009, 6:48 PM GM Sheds Light on Volt's Greatest Problems, How it Hopes to Overcome Them November 18, 2009, 12:19 PM
|