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.
Global Warming Global Cooling The Sky Is Falling Chicken Little Regulatory Busybodies Climate Change prevention advocates have long been saying that Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change is "settled science".
What gives? I thought we were about to redesign and remake our entire economy based on the prophecies of Saint Albert, The Goracle Of Music City? And what about the Climate Change bill that is still sitting on The Obamessiah's desk? Does it need to be reworked in light of new info? Is this study in Nature Geoscience the equivalent of a last minute reprieve from the Governor?
"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."
Note to my friend in Korea, Cedric Katesby: Please find out if the journal "Nature Geoscience" is peer reviewed. I still haven't made it to the TCU library to research the 1970's journals. Am thinking this might happen sooner, rather than later.
Note to everyone who votes: There's no such thing as "settled" science. That's the difference between, say, science and theology. People talking of "settled" science are generally seeking more funding from the public tit.
The Emily Litela "Nevermind" video came from "Yid With Lid". The Yid also has a few more excerpts from the study, which at this point can only be accessed with the proper academic credentials.