Studies Raise Questions about Climate Change

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: COURTESY OF NASA

Climate prediction just got trickier, according to two new studies appearing in the current issue of the journal Science. Analysis of more than two decades of satellite data shows that more sunlight entered the tropics and more heat escaped to space in the 1990s than a decade earlier. Moreover, current climate models fail to account for the new findings, suggesting that they may contain more uncertainty than previously thought.

For the earth's climate to remain unchanged, the planet's energy budget must equal zero¿that is, the planet must emit or reflect the same amount of energy that enters as sunlight. But that's not what Columbia University researcher Junye Chen and colleagues found when they studied thermal radiation emitted by earth (left sphere in image) and reflected sunlight (right sphere in image) over the tropics. Between 1985 and 2000, they found, the amount of energy emitted increased while the amount reflected decreased, with most of the change occurring after 1990. The findings suggest that the movement of air masses over the tropics¿the so-called Hadley and Walker circulation cells¿increased in strength, causing rising air to become moister and sinking air drier.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In the second study, Bruce Wielicki of NASA's Langley Research Center and colleagues demonstrated that the earth's radiative energy budget varies on timescales as short as a decade, making it much more variable than previously thought. Using satellite data covering 22 years, they identified peaks in the amount of energy escaping the atmosphere and seasonal variations in the amount of incoming radiation. "We tracked the changes to a decrease in tropical cloudiness that allowed more sunlight to reach the earth's surface," Wielicki explains. "But what we want to know is why the clouds would change." Failure to fully account for the effects of clouds is one of the greatest weaknesses of current climate models. Indeed, four major climate models could not reproduce the tropical cloud changes or generate what the researchers call the "more subtle, but still large, decadal changes seen in the radiation data."

The scientists do not yet know what causes this variation in tropical radiation. "We think this is a natural fluctuation," Anthony Del Genio of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says, "but there is no way to tell yet." Still, he advises, even before knowing the cause of the variability, researchers should attempt to modify their models in order to accommodate it.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe