How can we set any carbon policies when the Global Warming Scientists' Best CO2 Predictions are still wrong?

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.



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, 2009 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.



%26quot;In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,%26quot; said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. %26quot;There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.%26quot;



During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.



%26quot;You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different,%26quot; Dickens said. %26quot;This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world.%26quot;



Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.



The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. %26quot;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.How can we set any carbon policies when the Global Warming Scientists%26039; Best CO2 Predictions are still wrong?
As usual the orthodox scientific community is putting the cart before the horse! Here are some interesting starting points for your own personal investigation

.

Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. His work presents hypotheses about solar activity as an indirect cause of global warming; his research has suggested a possible link through the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays. His conclusions have been controversial as the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change considers solar activity unlikely to be a major contributor to recent warming, though it is thought to be the primary driver of many earlier changes in climate.



In review, the Sun used to be the cause, before the industrial age, but it isn't anymore?

I guess that would make sense if it was the Suns warming effect being blocked by the .038% CO2 we have in our atmosphere. But this is not the case. The Solar winds redirect the Radiation effectively disallowing them to interact with the Oceans, and create cloud cover. We know that a warmer ocean releases CO2, and a cooler Ocean absorbs it. However water takes much longer to change temperature than air, so their is a lagging in the data, that you can see, even in the warmists data. CO2 follows water temp. and water temp lags behind Solar activity. So the Solar activity of the last hundred years has warmed the Oceans, and the Solar minimum in just the last 9 years has not been able to cool the oceans enough yet. Too many people want to study the weather on an hour to hour basis when it is a long term equation!How can we set any carbon policies when the Global Warming Scientists%26039; Best CO2 Predictions are still wrong?
The study you quote is suggesting that based on the PETM, current climate models are *underestimating* the amount that the planet will warm in response to a CO2 increase. This is in fact a very good reason why we should regulate carbon as soon as possible.



*edit* you're talking about a climate change that happened 50 million years ago and saying %26quot;if we don't know exactly what caused every degree of that change, how can we regulate carbon?%26quot;.



You're essentially arguing that until we know everything about everything we shouldn't act on what we do know.



What the PETM showed us is that feedbacks can cause major additional warming, which is exactly what we're worried about with AGW. You're giving us an excellent argument to act ASAP to regulate carbon emissions.How can we set any carbon policies when the Global Warming Scientists%26039; Best CO2 Predictions are still wrong?
It's all bollox.How can we set any carbon policies when the Global Warming Scientists%26039; Best CO2 Predictions are still wrong?
Never argue from the specific to the general, or the general to the specific.



1. They don't know how much sensitivity the climate has to CO2



2. They know that global warming is occurring.



3. They know that a 40% increase of CO2 is the primary initial driver of these changes.



4. They know that most of the CO2 increase has come either from the combustion of fossil fuels, or a lack of absorption caused by deforestation.



The answer is that, they know that CO2 is the cause today. But they aren't sure about what drove the climate to go against its cycles in the past. Like I said, don't argue from the general to the specific or the specific to the general if you can help it.