We Told You So Department: Alert Al Gore! A new peer-reviewed study may shake the foundation upon which man-made global warming fears are based. The new study discovered "something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." The study, which was published on July 14, 2009 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience, found CO2 was not to blame for a major ancient global warming period and instead found “unknown processes accounted for much of warming in the ancient hot spell.” The press release for the study was headlined: "Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong."
"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." [21] , [22] and [23]
Alright so here is what I really want to comment on click on link number 22 and it will take you to the abstract of the paper which says this:
The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 Myr ago) represents a possible analogue for the future and thus may provide insight into climate system sensitivity and feedbacks1, 2. The key feature of this event is the release of a large mass of 13C-depleted carbon into the carbon reservoirs at the Earth's surface, although the source remains an open issue3, 4. Concurrently, global surface temperatures rose by 5–9 °C within a few thousand years5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Here we use published palaeorecords of deep-sea carbonate dissolution10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and stable carbon isotope composition10, 15, 16, 17 along with a carbon cycle model to constrain the initial carbon pulse to a magnitude of 3,000 Pg C or less, with an isotopic composition lighter than -50. As a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increased during the main event by less than about 70% compared with pre-event levels. At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. 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.
OK long yes with a lot of numbers which actually go to references. But to summarize their summary they say that global warming happened and our climate models can't completely take it into account. But the one thing I want to point out is this:
At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records.
Yes that is right contrary to what conservapedia would have you think the CO2 increase did still cause an increase in global temperatures we just can't fully explain the complete increase in temps but 1-3.5 is still a large enough temperature change to cause drastic climate change all over the world.
One last thing on this topic while I am here. You read often people who say that in the past CO2 levels where much higher than they are today you can go ahead and believe them because that is true. However, the planet was significantly warmer when that extra CO2 was in the air as well, just think of the Mesozoic era.
Finally for this post and it is a little off topic Conservapedia posted this:
More intolerance by atheists: "Lawsuit seeks to block 'In God We Trust' engraving." Congressman Steve King observed, "This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation."[20]
I found the start of this post to be a little funny, more intolerance by atheists. I am sorry I am not by any means an atheist but they are one of the most looked down on groups in the US. Example:
But what really got me about the post by conservapedia was how this not wanting "In God we Trust" on public buildings denied our roots as a judeo-christian founding. This nation was founded on the freedoms of man and at its roots the founding was mostly secular. Yes, there was reference to a creator and even rarely God. But the founders of the US were for the most part deists. Their God was probably similar to the judeo-christian-islamic God because that is what Europe was for the most part and well most of them had roots back to Europe. As the article points out the whole In God We Trust was not put on money or anything until 1956 same with it being in the pledge. Most people don't remember a time without it anymore so they just assume that is the way it has always been. But prior to that most people just accepted that there was religion and then there was the Government and they were two separate things and that was the way the founder's wanted it. So who is really being the conservative here, is it the atheists demanding that it not be put up or is it the republicans demanding that it be put up? I know what I think think but I would more than willing to hear what any of the rest of you have to say on the topic.
Alright but that was a long and varied post if you made it all the way through here is something on topic but that should give you a little laugh.
alright that took far too long to find!
No comments:
Post a Comment