Earth-Orbit Climate Model Results Contradict Current Global WarmingTheory
In yet another example of researchers driving a dagger in current climate research ‘knowledge’, researchers have run new scientific climate models exploring how the Earth’s orbit affects long-term climate trends.
For the second time in a week, we have new research data that explores other possibilities, other models of climate change theory with very different results from the predominant theory.
Post Copenhagen, I watched a PBS-type show of people in Bangladesh arguing that Americans should stop driving cars because we are flooding their countries with our global-warming emissions. Not only are environmentalists proposing that we retool the entire international economy, but people in developing countries are convined that the developed countries are killing them and are now responsible for any and all climate-related problems in their countries.
As Copenhagen fell apart, one woman negotiator from a developing country was threatening to cut her wrists and drew blood as a last-ditch negotiating position, basically saying ‘you are killing my people.’
Today I read that if there was no global warming, sea levels may remain high for another two thousand years, without any greehouse warming. Scientists have embraced one model and ignored the other hypothesis — AGAIN.
According to the ‘anthropogenic hypothesis’, long-term climate impacts of man’s deforestation activities and early methane and carbon dioxide emissions have artificially held us in warm interglacial conditions, which have persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,400 years ago.
Researching oxygen isotope ratios in tiny marine creatures deposited at the bottom of the Red Sea, scientists have resonstructed past sea levels, which were corroborated by comparison with the fossilized remains of coral reefs. This analysis allows researchers to test the ‘anthropogenic hypothesis’ and another model, based on the earth’s orbit, not embraced or tested by current scientists.
The researchers found that the current interglacial has indeed lasted some 2.0-2.5 millennia longer than predicted by the currently dominant theory for the way in which orbital changes control the ice-age cycles. This theory is based on the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth at latitude 65 degrees North on 21 June, the northern hemisphere Summer solstice.
But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.
Professor Eelco Rohling of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science hosted at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton says the we don’t understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends. Period.
I repeat that I’m a Hillary Clinton Democrat who considers herself an environmentalist and not a member of the party of ‘No’. I did not support Climategate, but I do support sound science.
Simply stated, the new research that’s rolled since Climategate leaves me dumbfounded. It’s as if now all the alternative views are being tested and voila — the science isn’t quite as self-evident as Al Gore says.
If Anne of Carversville was Gawker Media, we’d be writing a weekly column ‘WTF Green News’.
For now I’ll exercise restraint, but this daily dose of new environmental science isn’t funny. It’s frightening beyond words, mostly because the green cause is now so emotional, I don’t know how science and rational strategies will ever prevail going forward. Read How Well Do Scientists Unerstand How changes in Earth’s Orbit Affec t Long-Term Natural Climate Trends? Anne
To be continued in tomorrow’s Trend Dots column about men, ideology, and linear thinking. I’m remembering a famous night in Hong Kong when I quit my job the first time. The issues were identical.
Permalink
Reader Comments (1)
In general, most people cannot comprehend the collection of issues affecting climate change. Most people are seeking simple answers for phenomena that is very complex, and then go into denial when a simple answer doesn't seem to be adequate or entirely correct. We are within an interglacial period within a prolonged ice age epoch, and we are presently within a cooling episode based on planetary orbital conditions.
Greenhouse gases have protected us from some severe problems. A major volcanic eruption in the very late 1700s plunged us into a mini-ice age that was very disruptive. That mini-ice age abruptly ended in 1850 or thereabouts, presumably somewhat because of industrial pollution (greenhouse gases). Another significant volcanic eruption happened around the beginning of the twentieth century, and there was no mini-ice age effects because of greenhouse gases. There were predictions of a serious cooling or possible mini-ice age that was to occur in the 1950s that did not occur because of greenhouse gases (possibly including residual industrial and bomb residues from WWII?). We should be experiencing a cooling at this time, but instead are experiencing a warming because of greenhouse gases.
There are three global warming factors: greenhouse gas (primarily based on carbon dioxide and CO2-equivalents), changing albedo (reducing planetary reflection resulting in increased solar energy gain), and industrial soot. The computer models primarily focus on greenhouse gases, which I believe is why they are now accurately predicting the rate of global warming effects. Lowering albedo is probably a major factor in Arctic melting, and soot is a significant factor in glacial melting and also Arctic melting.
A major problem is that climate change is happening so fast that ecosystems and species are unable to effectively migrate or adapt. This is resulting in accelerated ecosystem collapses and species extinctions. Of course, some species, such as polar bears, have no place to go. But, many other species are blocked-off by human settlements and agriculture from migrating, and the changes are happening too fast. The forest fires in California are a natural result of dying ecosystems. Whether started by lightening or arsonists, this is nature's way of cleaning-up the remains of dead and dying ecosystems. Then, when no replacement ground cover with roots systems are immediately replanted, mud slides and loss of top soil occurs. This scenario is likely to happen throughout the west and Rocky Mountain region up into British Columbia.
Another problem for most people is understanding why global warming results in more severe storm conditions and why global warming results in colder winters. What we are experiencing now is considerable destabilization of weather and climate conditions. As global warming effects progress out-of-control, we could experience runaway warming, a severe mini-ice age, a full blown ice age, or extensive suffocation (due to methane release and its combustion, consuming much of the free oxygen in the atmosphere).