Friday, April 25, 2008

Arctic Getting "Wetter" Due to Human-Driven Warming

In addition to heating up faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, the Arctic has gotten wetter and snowier because of global warming, according to a new study.

The extra precipitation could freshen ocean water in the Arctic and North Atlantic, researchers say, which might disrupt the so-called ocean conveyor belt, a current that runs through the Atlantic and carries warm water northward from the Equator.

The new study is the first to show that changes in precipitation in the Arctic are in part human-induced, said study leader Francis Zwiers of the government agency Environment Canada.

The study also shows that previous computer models underestimated how much precipitation would change because of global warming.

Contrary to the simulations, Arctic rain and snowfall increased by 7 percent over the past 50 years, the study found. In just the Canadian Arctic, precipitation jumped 11 percent.

"That might not seem very big, but a 10 percent change is quite a lot" when it comes to precipitation, Zwiers said.

The discrepancy means that models predicting future change "may underestimate what's coming down the pipeline," he said.

"If people are using these models for planning, they should keep in mind that what the models show may be weaker than what will happen."


The IPCC Sims were out of date and the committee members knew that fact. Their methodology for including X or Y data had a 'freeze' date that anything after that time would not be considered even if it was more accurate (and it was) just because the amount of data being generated is vast and teh science keeps moving at an incredible rate. To just be able to sita nd think about what the data they had meant, meant having to stop taking in information for a time.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

IPCC sims like most sims that I've encountered in my computer career don't adequately include all major drivers e.g. water vapor/cloud cover and worse yet have empirical constants e.g. those 'chosen' for positive CO2 warming feedback amplification. I have 'faith' but not scientific conviction that we're warming, but the converse could also be true. This is often the case in science where the signal to noise ratio of data is problematical and extracted via statistical means.