According to the publication Science Daily, global warming predictions may not necessarily be accurate. A new study from Nature Geoscience found that scientists are not as confident as Al Gore would make them out to be.
No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.
No freaking way!! This is poppycock of course, as we have been told, the science is settled!
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.
“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.”
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe, just possibly, that giant ball of gas we call the sun could be a natural explanation for the way temperature variance is explained? Just a thought.
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.”
Now, what else, besides that magical stuff we call carbon dioxide, could cause large amounts of heating? If only something could explain it, something big, that generates lots and lots of heat, something that is 1000 times larger then the Earth, alas modern science cannot fathom such a natural explanation, thus we’ll blame cars and humankind.
In all seriousness, I don’t know whether mankind is responsible for global warming or not. I tend to discount the theory, but I’m open to evidence and debate, something which the left is not open to at all. That is all I want, open debate where those who are skeptical of the Goreites can still do research and engage in the scientific process without being castigated as the modern equivalents to flat-earthers. Clearly the science is not settled, science is never settled and is constantly revised based upon our knowledge of the world and the universe. Only 100 years ago we believed in a Newtonian physical universe, then an Einsteinian, now its evolved beyond that. How arrogant must one be to believe that the science is settled? Of course, Al Gore is worth about 4000 times more now then he was before he lost to Bush in 2000, so maybe, possibly there is an ulterior motive to his “truth”. I’d probably believe him a lot more if he didn’t fly around in a private jet all over the world, something about his actions don’t square with his beliefs.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Giant ball of gas? Giant ball of gas? No, it’s your giant ball of gas that’s causing all the problems.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
actually if u read correctly and read other nature journals discussing the issue almost all scientists agree that the earth has climate cycles where the earth temperature rises and lowers, BUT and this is a big but they all also state that its the mankind contribution that has speed up this process and at the same time the CO2 damages the earth’s protective atmosphere which blocks most of the suns UV rays from the sun. So yes no one is disagreeing that the Sun increases temperatures but the whole point about Global Warming is that mankind speeds up that process dramatically because once you change one thing in a system(nature) u start a chain reaction in the system (basics of chemistry). Don’t rely on Glenn Beck for your info, leave the science to scientists.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Let’s see, we based this whole Global Warming thing on less than 150 years of data, not really knowing if we were actually a. In an Ice Age b. In a fugue state or c. Approaching an Ice Age. Plus, while the media is all excited about Carbon Dioxide, they still tell us to plant more trees. Did you know those pesky trees give off Carbon Dioxide as part of their respiration process? Then there’s the honesty issue wherein several of the key charts have been debunked since they chose to use only some parts of the data and not to correct their math mistakes which in turn would have not supported their political/social/environmental agenda. Finally there’s the issue of how close Global Warming has become to a religion. If you dare to question an authority or worse, dare to contradict them, you are met with derision, namecalling and exhortations to have faith in the all knowing, all seeing Al Gore and his magic charts.
As an aside, one of the funniest interviews I have ever heard was when Darryl Hannah was on the radio discussing some environmental gathering. The radio jock asked her, “So if conserving gas is better for the environment, shouldn’t Al Gore travel by commercial jet rather than by private jet?” She replied, “Oh, but he has important things to do, you know, speeches. ” And there you have it. Average people and their lives do not matter. We aren’t important enough. And that in a nutshell is the crux of the problem.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Shocka!
I’m sure the data has just been distorted….. nothing to see here, moveon along.,,,,,
July 15th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
I have heard the sun will burn out in 10 millions years. But if we start riding bicylces, stop using air conditioning, outlaw trucks and SUV’s, airplanes and conservatives the sun may last another 25 million years. Yes we have to return to the 1700’s.
I say this because the debate is over and it has been decided that the sky is falling. I know this to be true because science has proven that global cooling has cause global warming. That is why I moved my oven from the kitchen to the living room. It was sitting to close to the fridge. It has worked because now the oven never gets hot.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Typical lefty tactic Jason uses, go right for the ad hominem by bringing up Glenn Beck, like he has anything to do with this.
I’d just like someone to show me one piece of hard evidence that shows conclusively that when C02 goes up, so does temperature. Why, in the past 10 years, presumably CO2 levels have risen, but temperatures are lower? Why does the historical data show that carbon levels always lag temperatures by 600-800 years? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
There are a lot of unanswered questions and holes in AGW theories, but the science is settled.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Jason, Beck gets his facts from much the same people you and I do. He doesnt claim to be the man behind the facts so please stop with the disengenuous baiting.
All the models, the one just mentioned and the UNs are flawed as theres no way to allow for enough data to make accurate predictions, this is fact.
The point is not that man doesnt have an impact on our planet , the point is the fear mongering thats going to creating reactionary markets and changes to lives that are of no need.
At one time this planet was blown to smithereens and incinerated way past our comprehension and anything we could dish out in a thousand years and it did just fine….
didnt it ?
Our air today is actually cleaner than it was 30 years ago, so are our rivers and oceans.
And that doesnt come from Glenn Beck
Dr. Kevin Trenberth himself says in a Rocky Mountains News response: “Gore’s statement that ice-sheets melting in Greenland or the West Antarctic would raise sea level by 20 feet is correct, although it was misleading that he did not put a time-frame on this.”
Ask yourself: why didn’t Gore put a time-frame on it?
Answer: a twenty foot increase would, all things remaining equal, take millennia.
As Dr. Trenberth himself once stated:
“temperatures would have to remain 5.5 degrees Celsius higher than today’s for several millennia before the Greenland ice sheet would lose even half of its ice. The Greenland ice sheet has in fact recently thickened by 2 inches per year – a total of 20 inches in 10 years” (Johannesen et al., 2005).”
Is that, as Dr. Trenberth says, merely “misleading” on Gore’s part?
Or is it an outright prevarication?
So yeah, mans activities do harm our environment, but not to the extents these a$$holes are trying to bamboozle everyone into thinking. Present and past prevention allowed our earth is doing just fine with all perspectives being looked at.
Countries that can afforsd to improve upon their commerce will as a by product have the resources/funds to clean up behind themselves. This bullsh*t that they need us to punp a bunch of money into their cmmercial infrastructure is simply a ggrab at instituting global welfare, better known as Obama worldwide poverty tax.
Take a read, you’ll soon be convinced that theres those of us on the right who actually know what the hell were talking about and can see way past anything Anderson Cooper or Glenn Beck has to say.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff207.htm
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” (S. 2433) sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. ”
Wake up
July 15th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
The only reason I brought up Glenn Beck is people bring up Al Gore they both misconstrue the data to fit their agendas, but with that being said every top scientist I’ve read and I can base it on Pop Sci Mags, Scientific American, and watching Nat Geo and Science Channels where studies and leading experts in different fields have said that their is Global Warming but no one really knows as yet its full extent.
Trees don’t give off CO2 they absorb it to create oxygen and sugar its a process called Photosynthesis.
The Sun will not go out in 10 million years that is way too quick it will actually take more along the lines of 5 billion years where in then it will turn into presumably a red giant killing us all because its mass is too small for it to become a black hole, and yes the Sun is increasing in luminescence therefore heating the planet at a very insignificant pace because if it was significant we would be death right now.
So the whole thing about Global Warming is that we are destroying the atmosphere that protects us from the Sun’s rays. Yes every 10000 years there is a warming cycle but right now we are going at a much faster pace then we should be going and we know this not because of 150 years of data but of millions of years of data we collect from geographic rocks, sediments, fossils, caves(icicles) and canyons(they’re not just pretty to look at;) and then they are judged against those 150 years to determine the rate.
As far as CO2 not increasing temperature: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/ (I don’t get my info from senators(joe barton) because they aren’t scientists).
Micky you are mostly right in your statements that there is not many years of data to judge from, but with the data we do have and what we know on how our actions are affecting different parts of life we have a good idea of what happens later down the road. Yes there may be some of extremists on the issue just like all issues but like I said I don’t take what politicians give me for at face value, I listen to scientists and veiw all angles of an issue. For instance think about the fossil fuel debate, we would be better off to switch to better forms of energy because we would not be so dependent on only one form of energy, but I also know that just switching to ethanol from corn isnt the best solution, sugar cane is a better crop to use and this is just an example im using.
Yes I was wrong to bring up Glenn Beck but its also goes both ways The Right uses tactics like bringing up Al Gore as the spokesperson of the whole debate, he isnt he’s just one voice. I consider myself independent mindset but with liberal social views and conservative fiscal views, but the one reason I voted for Obama is because his stance to support science, sure I wished he would reverse many of the policies put in place by the Bush administration or previous administrations like Patriot Act or Don’t Ask Don’t Tell instead of working on Healthcare right now(should wait at least a year for stimulus to kick in) but at least I know that Science is being supported and hey other things ill have congress worry about them.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Jason, the sources you quote are actually highly biased. They sold out, ideologically, years ago, and have all the credibility of The National Inquirer or Daily Kos.
The main impetus for “man made global warming” is Hansen of the NOAA, who has slipped into crackpot status. He should have been fired years ago, but politicians realized that he gave them a cause to lead in the road to power for themselves.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Like any of the sources anyone else has provided aren’t biased? I wasn’t using the whole website itself I was just referring to the quotation by a scientist from the institute of oceanography, Jeff Severinghaus who explained the misconception about the CO2 vs temperature lag that was sprouted by a politician Joe Barton not a scientist to refute the Al Gore’s movie. I’ve never seen Al Gore’s movie probably will later down the road if its on youtube or something but all I’m trying to do is refute some of the misconceptions about the global warming facts, especially one I’ve seen alot of pundits use is the fact that when it snows in their area like Texas that means there is no global warming but what that really means is we still have climates and weather patterns that are affected by global warming. One case of how temperature can affect weather is El Nino and La Nina. The whole thing behind global warming is that in the beginning of the Industrial revolution larger amounts of CO2 have spurted into the atmosphere but at the time there was much damage since it wasn’t on a global scale, now at this point almost every nation has gone into the Industrialized age and there are over 6 billion people now then back 150 years ago where only about 3 billion people lived and most of those people are getting cars which help spurt out more CO2. The best way of clearly seeing effects of our damage is LA at 4 o’clock during rush hour when the heat is so blistering and the smog is so intense that at times you can’t even see the Hollywood sign. To me the whole thing about global warming that it makes people realize that you can’t depend on just one energy source or one way of living with all the solutions being discovered to combat global warming you also create a more efficient environment therefore no industry becomes too big to fail. A non bias source on the matter: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
July 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I want a clean planet, as much as the next guy.
Just dont try to sell me a bunch of sh*t on the premise that the skys going to hit me in the head sooner than it really is.
I want energy independence, clean energy, but I dont want my lifes actions dictated to me. I dont want this trojan horse socialism ( or any socialism) to come in on the backs of conservation and environmentalism.
I do not want to see life giving needs become a commodity where it cost peoples lives as a result of class warfare such as in the French heat waves were only the financially elite could afford to be cooled. I dont want to have to drive an ugly egg to support a failed government run auto company under the premise its to save the planet but instead a sublime form of corporate and federal welfare
July 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Not meaning to burst anyones balloon, but the study cited says a little more than what this blogger chose to include…like, CO2 only accounts for some of the prehistoric temperature increase discussed, and raises the possibility that there was some other factor…like a positive feedback loop that may come into play again at some point during the current warming trend…the study is a warning. Very selective editing was used to make it appear otherwise.
July 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“Why does the historical data show that carbon levels always lag temperatures by 600-800 years?”
i did not know that CO2 levels lag by 600-800 years, but they should lag.
CO2 is MORE soluable in cold water than warm water — that is why a warm soda can fizzes more than a cold one
soooooo … if the oceans are warmer CO2 should increase. if the oceans cool, CO2 should decrease.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
So I found this hot chick on a dating website this week, and let me tell ya she is so incredible take a look: thick chick