Saturday, August 01, 2009

Study: current models not accurate in predicting temperature increase

Given that Minnesota has just experienced its 3rd coldest July in the last 118 years of recorded data, here's an interesting story that has been ignored by the media-
"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

This isn't just a lone scientist implying that global warming might be over-hyped. This is a study showing that the fundamental basis for the theory of man caused global warming (the link between increased carbon output and temperature increase) is not borne out by historical studies.
The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said. "This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM." (Emphasis mine.)

What other processes could possibly be affecting the climate on such a large scale? Go outside and look up. The amount of activity on the surface of the sun tracks very well with surface sea temperatures over the last 100 years. It's not proof positive, but it is at least as viable a theory of global warming as carbon output is. From NOAA-

I don't have a problem with people who believe in man caused global warming. They are entitled to their opinions, just as those who believe in 9/11 trutherism or alien abductions are entitled to theirs. But the difference is that the global warming crowd is attempting to sacrifice the US (and world) economy on the alter of junk science, and calls me a Nazi for not going along with them.

1 comment:

Brian Dodge said...

here's another view of the relevant data