Or, to ask another obvious question, “Could we be wrong about global warming?”, as even USA Today’s blogs are beginning to ask:
Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong?
Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
During the warming period, known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.
As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.
The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”
In their most recent assessment report in 2007, the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the end of the century due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human industrial activity.
Basically, what he’s saying is that even though there’ve been increases in CO2 in the past, the correlation between temperature and carbon that pro-global warming scientists think ought to be there isn’t. Something else besides carbon content in the earth’s atmosphere accounts for a goodly share of climate change. So, not only is global warming theory not an accurate predictor of future climate behaviour (as the current cooling trend which has been going on since 1979 shows), but it doesn’t even backtest accurately either. I.e. the models used for climate change are wrong. That’s what happens when you substitute wishful thinking and the need to support the environmentalist agenda in place of, well, actual science.
Maybe this is why thousands of scientists in the relevant fields of study have basically came out and said that anthropogenic global warming is “not supported by the scientific evidence”?
It’s time to revisit the notion, first advanced by some Japanese scientists decades ago, that climate change has more to do with solar activity than anything else. And yes, that really is as much of a “Duh” proposition as it seems to the average observer who uses a little common sense.
BTW, it’s got to be at least a tiny bit disconcerting to the AGW-fanatics that an official blog associated with a MSM outlet like USA Today is feeling forced to begin to allow question of the “theory.”
* – C’mon people, this is a family blog!
Tags: Global Warming, Science
You must of read my mind! I had a post about to go on Record Cold in Wisconsin.
Global Warming MUST be true!
I mean, since January, the temperature has gone up from the mid 30’s in Oklahoma to over 100!
Al Gore was right!
We’re all gonna DIE!!!!1!11!11!!!!!
/
re: #1 by Rodan
Winsconsin isn’t too far from Comminsky Park, just as Maobama.
Personaly, I vote for radiation thanks to good ol’ Sol, along with the oscillating strength of our planet’s magnetic field. I’m sure some
Glowbull Warming idiotClimate Change freak can go at night to fix the problem with the sun’s currently diminished sunspot activity.Oops, I should have typed Axe Maobama, can’t even mistype correctly. BTW, up here in PA, it hasn’t hit 90 since May.
re: #2 by LanceKates
Do you notice that when it is Winter, Al Gore is nowhere to be seen?
Then come summer time he appears!
I found out that when its winter here, he goes to Australia, Argentina and Brazil and preach his crap there. It’s summer over there when it’s winter here.
Coincidence? I think not.
In a few decades, they’ll look back on this and have a big laugh, like when we think about the scientists who believed if we went faster than 60mph, the skin would tear off our bodies and we’d die.
In fact, the history of science is filled with so many wrong ideas and inaccuracies that weathermen look at them and go “dang, even *I’d* be fired…”
re: #6 by Rodan
In DC in March, a global warming protest was hampered by a blizzard.
Irony, thou art a cold-hearted bitch.
this is man made global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ8X9RvR2Fw
OT – Defenseman (actually Hoosier Hoops) and Irish Rose are at it again acting as if they are two shrinks in Vienna circa 1910.
http://defenseman.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/clueless-starring-rodan-aka-trajan75/#comment-649
Garbage in, garbage out…you can make ’statistics’ seem to support your claims, no matter what your claims.
When a gorebull warming idiot can tell me what MAN & SUVs did to melt the glaciers that covered Kentucky 20,000 years ago, I might listen to them about man-made GW or GC. mofos.
re: #11 by newsjunkie_ky
Even blowhard Bill O’Reilly buys into the global warming nonsense.
re: #11 by newsjunkie_ky
Iceland was once covered in ice and Greenland shows evidence of having been farmed by the vikings…… I guess even people living incredibly green still managed to alter the climate to where we have it today, if the global warming ninnies are to be believed.
Perhaps we should just get rid of all humans…. or, using the governmental history standard, just tax us.
the won promised at least twice, once at Bethune-Cookman University on Sept. 20, 2008 that:
“Under my plan, if you have health insurance, nothing changes for you, except that my plan will lower your health care costs. If you don’t, you’ll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves.”
http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar/2008/9/20/transcript_barack_obama_at_bethunecookman_university.html
re: #13 by LanceKates
LK,
I think that is the plan. The won’s healthcare plan will kill off the old, the sick, the diabled, and the unborn. Soon, we will be told only 1 child allowed (china). The ecoterrorists have already said that half the human population must ‘go’. But, don’t see any of the greenies lining up to be sacrificed for the good of the planet.
mofos
re: #15 by newsjunkie_ky
Those who call for sacrifice are never the ones to engage in sacrifice.
That’s how you know it is a fraud.
When Al Gore lives HALF as ‘green’ as I do, then I’ll consider listening to what he has to say. Until then, I know it is a fraud because the one pushing it so hard (Gore) lives like it isn’t true.
re: #14 by newsjunkie_ky
and now, if you don’t have his insurance, you pay fines.
Um, the SUN.
re: #4 by RickMZ
Like he said.
What about this OLD NEWS don’t they understand?
Somethin’ like the Maunder Minimum right? And cycles?
Made sense when I read it. Like THREE YEARS AGO!
And O’Reilly’s on Fox and Friends this morning pretty much calling anthropogenic global warming deniers fringers. He didn’t out and out say it, but implied it, so as to cover his butt both ways. It’s not even that most of us deny CO2 causes SOME greenhouse effect, or that we’re against reasonable emissions standards that don’t involve draconian assigning value to omnipresent, naturally occurring gasses.
It’s time people started reading a little bit.
Dr. Ian Pilmer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide, put together an excellent one hour presentation refuting anthropogenic global warming. It’s easily understandable by the layman.
On YouTube: Human Induced Climate Change: A Load of Hot Air.
He also has a book out called “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science” (ISBN-10: 1589794729). I got it yesterday and it looks pretty good.
BTW – Dr. Pilmer is a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-creationist. An evolutionist that doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming could cause severe existential dissonance in LGF 1.0 group think.
re: #16 by LanceKates
Those who call for sacrifice are never the ones to engage in sacrifice.
Very, very true. It is always the other guy who needs to sacrifice.
[...] With such a loaded headline typical of the US media, it’s no surprise that this article was seized by right-wing bloggers as proof positive that climate change is all just a liberal/progressive/socialist conspiracy. This camp is ably represented by Blogmocracy, answering USA Today’s question: Does a Bear Sleep in the Woods? [...]