I have not read the actual paper, yet (I will), but from this summary there is little we have not already stated for decades; the Mesozoic Era was much warmer and had higher CO2 levels than present. The only issues I am likely to have with the report are the inferences for anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change, which cannot be determined from a seismic tomography study. Before the name calling begins, I am a scientist (geologist, like the authors of this study), and, based on my own careful review of data, I do not accept a significant anthropogenic (man caused) contribution to climate change. Having said that, I am happy to have a data-based discussion with anyone who would like to try and sway my position; however, I will not respond to the typical empty insults that are designed to do no more than stifle conversation. The old, if you cant debate them, insult them. Below are a number of discrepancies I find with the concept of anthropogenic climate change that must be resolved in my mind before I can accept the idea: 1) Earth’s climate is in a state of continual flux, with the last few thousand years being abnormally stable. Past temperatures, including the 1930’s through 1940’s and the Medieval Warm interval, along with other recent time spans, have been warmer than today. How does this fit with steadily rising CO2 levels? 2) Data from ice cores show that rises in temperature consistently precede rises in CO2 levels. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship, does not the cause need to occur prior to the effect? I think a much more logical explanation is that of the oceans acting as a CO2 sink during times of cooler temperatures and releasing CO2 as they warm. 3) According to sea-level studies, we are experiencing the coldest interglacial of the past 800,000 years. Some studies suggest that, following the pattern of other interglacials, sea-level should be about 7 m higher than its current elevation. 4) There is little agreement between computer simulations and known climate history. Computer simulations consistently show a dramatically higher increase in temperature than what has been recorded by actual measurements. If we can’t model the past, how can we predict the future? 5) There is little agreement between computer simulations and current atmospheric measurements, as recorded by radiosondes and satellites. If we can’t model the present, how can we predict the future? “Fingerprinting” simulations show the same discrepancies as do other computer models. 6) Computer simulations show tremendous discrepancy between each other (e.g. the Hadley and the Canadian Models) in terms of both temperature and precipitation. Often, one will indicate a drought while another predicts extreme wetness for the same region. 7) While the Urban Heat Island Effect is acknowledged by all, and I’m told “it has been accounted for,” I cannot find how it has “been accounted for,” nor have I found any attempt to explain why rural areas surrounding urban heat islands commonly lack warming trends. 8) As I observe temperature curves, they appear to correspond much more closely to El Nino/La Nina events with significant overprint by solar radiation than they do to steadily rising CO2 levels. 9) Research that I’ve only recently become aware of suggests that CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas above ~50 ppm, well within the natural contribution. I have not yet had an opportunity to delve into this claim; however, if true, the warming ability of CO2 is exhausted long before anthropogenic sources have any opportunity to play a role. I welcome an intelligent discussion based on data. I do not consider the consensus (Everybody says so) argument to be intelligent. If you want to persuade me, show me the data.
Posted on: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 23:57:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015