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.
Before you get all excited about this, you do understand that the existence of some currently unknown feedback mechanism would mean that our current situation is far worse than scientists currently think it is, don't you?
For what it's worth, there are other issues that may be in play here. For one thing, the positions of the continents was very different during the PETM, and that might well have resulted in a greater climate sensitivity than we see in the present day. Also, this paper (I have skimmed it but not read it carefully yet) does not seem to have looked at the full suite of climate models in use today but only a couple of the simplest ones. It's possible that the more sophisticated models would derive a result closer to the known warming in the PETM.
So there are no absolutes in science, either? Amazing.
Huh?
Do you have any understanding of how science is done? Of course there are "no absolutes" if by that you mean absolute certainty. If you demand that before you're willing to act (in any sphere, not just science) then you will never act at all.
Before you get all excited about this, you do understand that the existence of some currently unknown feedback mechanism would mean that our current situation is far worse than scientists currently think it is, don't you?
only if you are using data to try to prove your belief in global warming...
instead of observing flaws in a flawed system of observation and concluding that the analysis is incorrect given the multiple problems in the modeling itself
"science" is not trying to interpret data to prove global warming because you want it to be true
if the science goes the other way.... how long do you cling to it before you become a flat -earther?
cultists don't practice "science"
they manipulate data to call it science that reinforces their belief..............
that seems to be where Global Warming agenda is headed
the tell-tale signs are in the adherence to socialistic solutions to climatic anomalies.
the real clue to the agenda of climate cultists vs. concerned students of the global climate trends.....
political agendas continue even when the numbers go the other way
the tell-tale signs are in the adherence to socialistic solutions to climatic anomalies
*****************
What the fuck does that mean? You are so full of your weird combo of fundie and ayn rand shit, that you can't even form a thought that resembles critical thinking.
If we drined the oceans and plugged up the volcaneos, there would be no global warming.
But we have to work on fossil fuels because that will solve the problem? Carbon footprints? Well, who would have thought that redistribution of wealth would solve the problem. And who would have thought the redistribution of carbon would solve the problem.
You can bet that China and India will grab the brass rig of prosp[erioty while we are let into poverty by socialists
If we drined the oceans and plugged up the volcaneos, there would be no global warming.
But we have to work on fossil fuels because that will solve the problem? Carbon footprints? Well, who would have thought that redistribution of wealth would solve the problem. And who would have thought the redistribution of carbon would solve the problem.
You can bet that China and India will grab the brass rig of prosp[erioty while we are let into poverty by socialists
the tell-tale signs are in the adherence to socialistic solutions to climatic anomalies
*****************
What the fuck does that mean? You are so full of your weird combo of fundie and ayn rand shit, that you can't even form a thought that resembles critical thinking.
Jim...
**************
the tell-tale signs are in the adherence to socialistic solutions to climatic anomalies
what part of that english language straightfoward sentence confused you spalding....?
ok ...baby steps
the tell-tale signs (that the environmentalist groups pushing the anthropogenic global warming scare are really interested in another agenda)
are in the adherence(the groups are sticking to a separate agenda)
to socialistic solutions(their agenda is really socialism....because all of their solutions to claimed problems result in socialism being advanced)
to climactic anomalies(this is the reason they use to advance their solutions which always seem to end in socialism)
This message has been edited by gillis7 on Jul 16, 2009 6:09 AM
You are so full of your weird combo of fundie and ayn rand shit, that you can't even form a thought that resembles critical thinking.
*************
i comment on Rand philosophy a few times ...that means that everything i say is attached to Rand?
does that mean that you base everything you say on Sufism?
you mentioned one time that Sufi was your ideal
does that mean you form your analysis while whirling around like a dervish?
or do you just use that one thing to focus on with me as an attack so that you can attempt to insult me with it by tying everything i say to one source ,thereby attempting to isolate me as a fanatic of Rand origin.
nice tactic ,but childish in that it allows you to avoid actually sticking your own thought process out for evaluation during the changes in subject that occur here
(just change the focus back to the percieved (invented)fanaticism of the opponent and you won't have to commit to a thought that could be evaluated [and critized ] by others)
Rand must have a chapter on that somewhere or i wouldn't have come up with it.
your perpetual propensity to insult those you disagree with on a personalized level puts you in the j2 category spalding (get out your tinfoil battle helmet colonel)
Jan, do you have any areas of doubt regarding either global warming or man made global warming? Any areas of science or debate that give you concern?
If you mean do I have any doubts about any of the possible effects that have been raised, of course I do - as you ought to know since I have expressed them here as well as in many other forums. For instance, I expressed doubt regarding the correlation of warming and frequency of hurricanes/tropical systems, and so far it seems that doubt was well founded (although we don't have any high-confidence answer yet.)
But if you mean do I doubt that the climate is warming due to human activity and that this warming will be sufficient over the next century and more to cause severe disruptions that are well worth preventing if we can, then the answer is no. The case for AGW not only makes perfect physical sense, but it is very strongly supported by observation.
How could the existence of some unknown feedback that amplified the warming in the PETM be good news? If such an unknown feedback actually exists (and mind you I'm rather doubtful that it does) then the Earth would warm substantially more than is currently predicted.
If such an unknown feedback actually exists (and mind you I'm rather doubtful that it does) then the Earth would warm substantially more than is currently predicted.
***********
here you seem to delve into the imaginary instead of "Scientific analysis"
if the feedback is unknown........ what is the evidence that the feedback would make the earth warmer and not cooler?
unknown ....could go either way....why would you assume warmer?...do you want warmer?..or is there some criteria for evaluating (and assessing the cause /effect of) unknown feedback that i missed in school?
the fact that it is unknown would suggest that its effects would be....unknown...
here you seem to delve into the imaginary instead of "Scientific analysis"
if the feedback is unknown........ what is the evidence that the feedback would make the earth warmer and not cooler?
unknown ....could go either way....why would you assume warmer?...do you want warmer?..or is there some criteria for evaluating (and assessing the cause /effect of) unknown feedback that i missed in school?
Because what this new research says is the PETM was substantially WARMER than is accounted for by current models - i,e, it is the specific conclusion of this research that there is an unknown POSITIVE feedback.
What's "unknown" is not the sign of the feedback, but the mechanism of the feedback (if indeed it turns out to exist.)
Try, for once, to let go of your bias and just consider the facts at hand. Can you do that?
Are you crazy! You cannot suggest that global warming as defined by the leftist is not as they claim...you're setting yourself up for an Obama-Gore "Re-Education Camp"...I'm sure the funding is there for the camps in one of the many bills that the leftist rush through without reading!
If after "attending" your re-education you still have doubts about their version of the climate you will probably be sent to a mental hospital to find out why you are not "in-tune" with the correct thinking...they will see to it you are and that you never think "impure" political thoughts again!
Are you crazy! You cannot suggest that global warming as defined by the leftist is not as they claim...you're setting yourself up for an Obama-Gore "Re-Education Camp"...I'm sure the funding is there for the camps in one of the many bills that the leftist rush through without reading!
So let's see ... I'm asked why I conclude that the hypothesized "unknown feedback" would be positive, I respond with an explanation of why this would be the case, and you go off on a crazed rant about re-education camps.
And we're supposed to take you seriously?
This message has been edited by jrooth on Jul 18, 2009 2:40 PM
Current Topic - Could we be wrong about global warming?
![[linked image]](http://www.network54.com/Realm/JansRealm/wfelix.gif)
