Get out your sunblock in 50 years (maybe)

This is one of those 'over the top' studies that don't consider variables such as vulcanism, but that's just my own opinion based in my own ignorance.

Over the next century, there could be a 20 per cent increase in the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the high latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere during spring and summer, and a nine per cent decrease in ultraviolet radiation reaching the Northern Hemisphere’s high latitudes, they report.

They say the tropics can expect a four per cent increase in ultraviolet radiation.

The predicted increase in UV radiation for southern high latitudes will amount to almost half the increase associated with the “ozone hole.” It was caused by ozone-destroying chemicals used in refrigerants and aerosol cans that were phased out in the 1990s because of international concern.

www.calgaryherald.com...

For those who enjoy Googling credentials:

As temperatures climb in coming decades, there will be marked changes in the circulation of the upper atmosphere and distribution of the ozone protecting Earth from the sun’s potent ultraviolet radiation, University of Toronto researchers Theodore Shepherd and Michaela Hegglin reported Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience.

And this, IMO, is the kicker:

Hegglin and Shepherd used a computer model to assess climate change’s impact.

Anything happens which is not included in the paradigm used for the modelling and all the forecasts go for naught. For instance, if a large volcano blows anywhere, it'll change the factors. If it blows in high latitudes, it'll change things even more. If we have a marked increase in vulcanism, the whole thing is out of whack.

This is what I (the layman) really don't like about long range predictions... because far too often unforseen chance plays its part over a century. Heck, with 2012 coming up soon, ANYTHING can happen, right? Or am I wrong?

(not that I want to talk about 2012, but, hey, there's a movie coming out)

I feel the same way about any other 'long range' computer generated projections. Nature is just too serendipidous (sp?).

It may suffice for working out forseeable tracks hurricanes take using information which exists in real time, but I'd still like to see accurate information about the 2010 hurricane season a year away, because I believe that to be almost impossible.

Stuff happens that changes the initial numbers fed into the machine, especially, as in this case, when those forcasts represent an entire century.

This thread is less about the potential for increased UV than it is about the fallibility of the method which was used to make that statement.

Is there ANY good reason to take heed of this study as a result?

grammar edit

[edit on 7/9/09 by masqua]