Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

OOPS--->Model Used to Predict Global Warming is All Wrong !

A new study published in the Journal of Nature Geoscience may have figured out why global temperatures keep falling much to the chagrin of the "Church of Global Warming Moonbats." Their entire model was all wrong.

According to the Article:
We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.
In English,  it is saying that around 55 Million years ago there was a major incident of Global Warming 55 million. This warming happened at the same time as  a massive injection of carbon into the atmosphere. Scientists have used this information to create a the model used to predict the global warming that will occur via our collective carbon footprints. The problem is scientist now say that warming was much greater than one can expect  from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide alone.

This means that either scientists are over predicting the future rise in temperatures from CO2 or something other than carbon dioxide created the temperature rise.
"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.....
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." Source
 A copy of this report should be sent to every person in Congress before they make a commitment to relying on bad info to mess up the economy.

Don't worry dems, since you can't blame the "non-warming" on CO2, maybe you can now blame it on Dick Chaney or President Bush.

There is a great post on Hot Air that talks to the real objective of Global Warming policy, income redistribution.Read it here



swmiller6 said...

"A copy of this report should be sent to every person in Congress before they make a commitment to relying on bad info to mess up the economy."
What makes you think they would read it? They do not even read the bills they are passing into law!!!!!

Angie Lee said...

How about plate tectonics? We had quite a different continental configuration some 50 million years ago compared to today, and the planet is in a state of constant movement - in the direction of another supercontinent - one of which (Rodinia) caused mass extinction and the entire planet to become one large ice-covered ball.

How about solar activity? The sun drives our wind systems, not just giving us light (and HEAT).

How about orbital shifts? Polar shifts?

They don't know and they never will. It is all conjecture - theories - and all it can ever be.

Tano said...

Like, have a problem with logic my friend?

The study finds that temperatures rose far MORE than the the CO2 levels would indicate under current models. I.e. that, if anything, current models, if they are wrong, are UNDERESTIMATING the amount of warming we should expect given the (factual) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The study does NOT find that current CO2 levels indicate lesser or no warming. The study is consistent either with CO2 having an even more serious effect, or some other factor entering into the equation to raise temperatures EVEN FURTHER than the CO2-driven rise that we predict now.

ALl around BAD news for the denier community.

Unknown said...

Thank you for your comment...You are wrong, but unlike the supporters of global warming, I allow dissent

tim maguire said...

I have the same problem with this as I have with virtually all global warming studies--the unrecognized, unsupported assumptions. As Tom astutely points out, we have a logic problem here--correlation is not causation. There is a rise in CO2 at roughly the same time as a rise in temperatures, therefore the rise in CO2 caused the rise in temperatures?

Sorry, they flunk Logic 101.

Unknown said...

1)If you use that logic than Micheal Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died the same day, that must mean the same thing killed them.

2) if you go back and read what I wrote, I dont totally dismiss CO2 as a contributor what I said was

"This means that either scientists are over predicting the future rise in temperatures from CO2 or something other than carbon dioxide created the temperature rise."

Angie Lee said...

I don't think dissent totally precludes acknowledging climate "change." In fact, it is evident from the geologic record that Earth has undergone multiple dramatic climate shifts throughout its history - it is cyclical and easily seen, moving beyond hypotheses and even theories and could easily be accepted as FACT.

On the other hand, AGW is little more than hypothesis: A guess. Not a fact, not even a theory, merely a GUESS.

Think about it. Even if CO2 *were* a major contributing cause to massive global warming 50+ million years ago, MAN WAS NOT HERE and could not be contributing to CO2 output. So where did the CO2 come from?

OTOH, modern man pours massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere yet our global temperature has been decreasing the past decade. WHY?

Perhaps the "massive injection of carbon into the atmosphere" 55 million years ago, during a period of major global warming, was INCIDENTAL to said warming. It happened AT THE SAME TIME - not *prior to* the incident of global warming - so how does cause and effect factor into this equation? There is no corollary here, that (A) massive amounts of CO2 were injected into the atmosphere, resulting in (B) significant global warming. A and B were concurrent; I would walk away from that statement with the understanding that (1) both A and B were caused by event C or (2) A and B occurred independently of each other but simultaneously, having nothing to do with one another.

Just my 2 cents.