The Fatigue of Climate Change

In 1954, two de Havilland Comets broke in the air, which is the loss of life and the suspension of service for the then top-plane.

The cause was attributed to metal fatigue, a sudden failure whose cause was the slow decomposition of the material caused by repeated load cycles.

Before and after, researchers have studied the fatigue of metals, to understand the causes and find if there are telltale signs that signal the impending collapse.

These studies involved the use of computer models.

Although the causes are much better understood than half a century ago, the accurate prediction of catastrophic failure is impossible - as it does with earthquakes.

Could the same be true in the Earth's climate?

In Nature Geoscience this weekend, said Paul Valdes, a Bristol University academic with experience in climate modeling and climate analysis of the past as he could.

The best computer models of climate, he says, is unable to "predict" at least four major changes in the past:

maximum temperature of the Paleocene-Eocene, when temperatures 56 million years increased rapidly

strong drying of North Africa, from 9 to 5,000 years

serial collapse of the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic (in common parlance, "out of the Gulf Stream")

sharp warning - Dansgaard-Oeschger events - recorded in Greenland ice sheets.
The "fatigue" In The Climate System


If the computer models of the climate system extremely complex and interconnected, we can not predict these, how can we be sure it will be able to predict something like this if it comes in the near future?

And if we can be sure what that means in terms of options that companies do - more of a "safe" measures such as flood defenses and how to be hard to reduce carbon emissions?

Boat aground on Amazon dry instead of a "flip" of the Amazon in a very dry climate is a potential "tipping point"

The climate in the blogosphere there are many bitter commentators agree with the statement of Professor Valdés lack of confidence in computer models.

They are usually at the end that society should take action to reduce emissions by up to more reliable forecasts.

Returning to the analogy of the aircraft, this equates to consider it on board a ship unless it has been shown to be hazardous.

And this is the commentators were skeptical of the company, Paul Valdes, because it makes the opposite conclusion.

"We must be careful," he writes. "In any case, the models underestimate the change in the geological record.

"According to the testimonies of the past, the Earth's climate is sensitive to small changes in the next century ... simulations of the generation of more complex models can give us a false sense of security."

How many times the teacher moves on a plane, I'm not sure, but I feel it would not be ready to come on board, except that he was convinced that he had proven to be safe - a radically different approach skeptics.

The airplane analogy is not exact, for a number of reasons - the easiest way is that if something like Comet accidents occur, engineers can look back, understand it and put it right - which can lead to a better aircraft and better models.

It is a luxury we do not have the climate system, as has often been noted, there is the world 2.0.

On the other hand, the human spirit thrives in an atmosphere free from fear unjustified.

So, with the conclusion that are you on board?