| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| New Hard Data Debunking CO2 Climate Warmism Hysteria |
| 2013-07-25 |
| h/t Jerry Pournelle A paper just published in the prestigious journal Science (June 21, 2013) raises yet more fundamental questions--or at least it should--about the arbitrary designation of atmospheric CO2 as a "pollutant," in conjunction with anthropogenic climate "warming" hysteria. Investigators employed standard, robust multi-proxy techniques based upon examining sediments recovered from Lake El'gygytgyn in northeast Arctic Russia (100 km north of the Arctic circle in Chukotka, Russia) to determine local temperatures between 3.6 to 3.4 million years ago. Their findings revealed that during this middle Pliocene era period, ...summer temperatures were ~8 degrees C warmer than today, when the partial pressure [i.e., atmospheric concentration of] CO2 was ~ 400 parts per million [ppm] The most recent data available from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (May, 2013) at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and "globally", demonstrates current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are 399.77, and 396.72 ppm, respectively. Thus at essentially the same CO2 concentrations as those determined from ~3.5 million years earlier, and in the absence of "anthropogenic" CO2 production (i.e., by our bipedal Middle Pliocene ancestors!) any where comparable to what it is now, Arctic temperatures then were ~8 degrees C warmer than at present. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #7 Yes, AlanC, you are exactly right. I also have designed and built FORTRAN numerical models of systems described by complex differential equations. The climategate code releases were smoking-gun evidence of fraud. That doesn't necessarily mean the principle-investigator was the fraudster, but he was at the least negligent if not worse. |
| Posted by: rammer 2013-07-25 20:54 |
| #6 This wasn't just GIGO. The results of one iteration of the model where fed back into the model to "predict" the future. Obviously no-one had a clue about feedback and exponential error. It's near perfect in junk out under these situations. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-07-25 17:52 |
| #5 It was all questionable to me from day 1. It was all fake for sure with the climate gate releases. I am very experienced in computer modeling and know Fortran. The code fragments that were released had several flashing red lights. The worst one being the inclusion of a table look-up to modify the given data with NO indication of where the table came from or what was in it. The key danger with computer modeling of any kind, whether it is a complex, sophisticated scientific model or a small business Xcel spread sheet is that canonical saying "Garbage In, Garbage Out". Don't matter if the Garbage going in is accidental or deliberate, the results are worthless. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2013-07-25 16:46 |
| #4 previous work had indicated only 3F higher during Pliocene also, co2 was supposed to be 450ppm |
| Posted by: lord garth 2013-07-25 15:53 |
| #3 No Iblis, we knew they faked results but that doesn't necessarily means theory is wrong. This result proves theory is wrong. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-07-25 15:46 |
| #2 It all became crap to me when I found out they were positioning temperature sensors next to airports, etc.. No complicated science necessary. |
| Posted by: gorb 2013-07-25 15:41 |
| #1 The story on CO2 is not news. The news is that Science published it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2013-07-25 15:39 |