For instance, back in the 1960s,
simple climate models predicted that global warming caused by more carbon dioxide would lead to cooling in the upper atmosphere (because the heat is getting trapped at the surface).
Not exact matches
My
simple regression - based statistical
climate model predicts global carbon dioxide, surface temperature & sea level at yearly time steps.
Not only is the
climate of the Lorenz
model easy to understand, it is also
simple to
predict how it will respond to a variety of «external forcings», in the form of either a parameter perturbation or direct forcing term in the dynamical equations.
My point was that, if we accept this basic story (it's too
simple, even as an account of how cultural cognition works; but that's in the nature of «
models» & should give us pause only when the simplification detracts from rather than enhances our ability to
predict and manage the dynamics of the phenomenon in question), then there's no reason to view the valences of the cultural meanings attached to crediting
climate change risk as fixed or immutable.
As climatologist Gavin Schmidt jokes, there is a
simple way to produce a perfect
model of our
climate that will
predict the weather with 100 percent accuracy: first, start with a universe that is exactly like ours; then wait 14 billion years.
Climology,
modeled after cosmology, would include study of projected future
climate conditions, beyond what we can
predict with
simple differential integrations of the present state as determined by climonomy and climometry.
Even the best of the non-linear
models being used by the IPPC do not provide results which can be used to
predict the direction of our
climate, although as with
simpler models they are useful learning tools.