Could They Be Wrong On Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Posted on July 16, 2009
Well, now that the USA Today asks, yes. There is no doubt that global warming has occurred. The Little Ice Age ended because of a warming planet. The seas continued their 6-8 inch rise per century, as had been going on for 7,500 years. Other planets, such as Mars and Jupiter, have seen increased temperatures. And there is an interesting new study
Could the best climate models — the ones used to predict global warming — all be wrong?
Well, yes. They are antiquated, and tend to ignore the Sun and water vapor. Essentially, they are much more complex and long ranging versions of weather models, except they tend to use much less hard and real data. And, yes, weather matters, True Believers. What do you think creates climate? Long term trends in the weather.
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.
There becomes a point when CO2 no longer provides any actual greenhouse effect. Furthermore, how does the temperature flat-line and go down while CO2 continues to rise, as has happened multiple times during the past 150 years?
“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.”
I hope Mr. Dickens is ready for the flack and unhinged abuse he will take for those comments. I bet his email box is overflowing today, and, he should be receiving many letters written in environmentally friendly crayon calling him names within a few days.
Mr. Obama said he was going to “use sound science over politics.” I’ll wait till your snickers stop. So far, few of the True Believers, including Obama, are interested in the actual science. Their model goes something like “Man is bad, someone decided that CO2 is the only thing that could increase temperatures, and only Man puts out CO2, so, Man must be stopped.” Sounds kinda like a religion, eh?
Meanwhile, their true goal is control. Control of economies (because Business is bad), control of countries (because countries are bad), and control of People (because people are too stupid to know what they should do.) The United States is 10 years behind the curve in doing things to destroy and limit our economy and control our people for this false issue, so, we are going to attempt the same draconian controls that most of the Kyoto signatory countries tried, and are now moving away from.
More and more scientists who once believed in AGW are now looking at the actual science and realizing that it is “the worst scientific scandal in history.”
Perhaps if the people who push the AGW issue walked the talk, more and more people wouldn’t be calling BS. But, hey, why should the True Believers do anything themselves, when their leaders don’t? Besides, in their world, like with taxes, it is always someone else who should be forced to give and take action. Boy, won’t the San Francisco hot tub crowd be surprised when someone from the government comes be and says “yes, we can get rid of your hot tub because it is too close to a tree.”
Others: QandO, Hot Air, Vox Popoli, Watts Up With That? and YID With LID
» Filed Under AGW hyposterics, Agenda based science, Global Warming, News, Science/pseudo-science, Social Engineering, Socialism, Taxes, Totalitarianism, environmentalism
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “Could They Be Wrong On Anthropogenic Global Warming?”
Leave a Reply
You’re being in the least bit…uhm…alarmist, now are you?
How so?
Meanwhile, their true goal is control. Control of economies (because Business is bad), control of countries (because countries are bad), and control of People (because people are too stupid to know what they should do.) The United States is 10 years behind the curve in doing things to destroy and limit our economy and control our people for this false issue, so, we are going to attempt the same draconian controls that most of the Kyoto signatory countries tried, and are now moving away from.
Sounds scary to me!
Perhaps, but, what else is the point? None of the plans actually accomplish a true reduction in temperature. Nor do they actually provide adequate clean energy for the future. All they do is provide control.
You’re being in the least bit…uhm…alarmist, now are you?
You should read HR 2454 if you think this is exaggerated. The bill is designed to give the government access to your house, business, and every other thing. A war was fought over this in the late 1700s. You should be alarmed! Wake up!
The bill does no such thing. You’re still entirely free to waste as much energy as you’d like in your own home.
One thing that provides nearly endless entertainment are people like you two, who on the one hand attempt to “debunk” “alarmist” climate models while at the same time using alarmist economic models to exaggerate the threat of climate legislation. Seriously, if things were to become as draconian as you suggest, there’s a way of fixing that: vote. OTOH, if the climate models are correct, there’s very little hope of fixing that.
This relates to the climate model discussion in this post: the author is quoted as saying that “feedback loops” may have caused the additional (non-CO2 induced) warming. In other words, it’s possible that with a little bit of CO2-induced warming, processes were set into motion that caused additional warming. That’d mean that current climate models may actually paint too-rosy a picture of what might happen in the future.
“That’d mean that current climate models may actually paint too-rosy a picture of what might happen in the future.”
That’d also mean that current climate models actually may not paint too-rosy a picture of what might happen in the future.
If you accept the research, then the only conclusion is that the current climate models are incorrect. Therefore, why should we turn the economy on it’s head based on incorrect climate models?
coeruleus, I just read some of your blog. I didn’t get a chance for an in-depth reading. All I found were attacks on science and/or any conservative who questions global warming – with a judicious mix of snarky ad hominems, quasi-reasoning, and latent racism.
Is there any amount of scientific evidence that you would accept to change your personal conclusions about global warming?
You’re entitled to your opinion about everything else on the blog, but racism?
Yes, I constantly question not only my own science (not climate science, BTW), but anyone else’s as well. And I will accept it if the data are convincing. So far there’s not enough out there to sway me, though. Maybe one day I will be proven wrong, but that’s OK.
Don’t worry about the economy. It got messed up at a time when emissions were steadily increasing and it’ll be just fine when emissions decrease.
Coeruleus: you are wrong. I have read the bill in question. It’s quite apparent that you haven’t. Download the bill. Read it, assuming that it won’t damage the atmosphere to read the bill. Don’t be alarmed if you don’t want to be, but don’t insinuate others are wrong for being alarmed. There are several things that are intended to give the government access to individual households.