Thursday, July 16, 2009

Gerald Dickens in Nature Geoscience: the climate change models are wrong

From USA Today:

Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?

Yes.

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.

But the 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."

Oh shit.



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.

16 comments:

Cedric Katesby said...

Allen, look closely at what the scientist said.
Forget the USA journalist "attention grabber" add-ons, ok?

Just focus on what the scientist actually said.
Now check out the Nature Geoscience webpage itself.

Before you go writing the obituary on global warming, do a little more digging.
Please.
One thing you could do is contact Gerald Dickens himself.
(His contact e-mail is freely available)
You could say 'Hi, read something about you in a USA Today article.
So...global warming is a hoax, right? It all crap, right?"

Pay careful attention to his reply.
I really don't think you'll get the answer you'd like.
(But that's ok.
When he gives you the answer you don't like he'll become just another corrupt scientist.)
;)

Alternatively, you could and should read some of his other work and find out what else he's said about global warming.
Once again, I don't think you will like what you will find.

Further, this is one study.
ONE!
Getting worked up over one study is a bad idea.
This goes for any field of science.
The paper, whether it supports or refutes global warming, could simply...be wrong.
That happens in the peer-reviewed process all the time.
That's one of the reasons why scientists use the peer-reviewed process.
Being wrong and having somebody else publish another paper showing that you are wrong is...normal.
There's no disgrace in that.
Science is not a religion.
It works differently.
It's part and parcel of the scientific process.

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.

Damn straight. We didn't come from no monkey. The Earth is only 6000 years old, b'gosh.
(Just kidding)

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.

Then I guess I'll have to keep waiting. I just hope the payoff will be worth it.
(sigh)

vampE said...

What he said

Dr Ralph said...

Philip Henslowe: Mr. Fennyman, allow me to explain about the climate business. The natural condition is one of insurmountable obstacles on the road to imminent disaster.

Hugh Fennyman: So what do we do?

Philip Henslowe: Nothing. Strangely enough, it all turns out well.

Hugh Fennyman: How?

Philip Henslowe: I don't know. It's a mystery.

(stolen shamelessly from 'Shakespeare in Love')

fembuttx said...

I love you Dr Ralph.

kerrcarto said...

Cedric,
So you're finally saying it's going to be warming instead of mere "Change" ?

VampE,
There's something wrong about quoting Cedric with only 3 words.

vampE said...

kerrcarto,
There are many, many things that I do that are wrong.

TarrantLibertyGuy said...

Cedric - I'm looking closely at what the scientist said... and he didn't say or infer that "global warming" is a hoax. He didn't even necssarily say "anthropogenic global warming is a hoax", but rather, the methodologies used when associating carbon with temperature increases shows serious flaws.

Check this: "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." That's off Rice's webpage... Honestly, I'm not going to bug him personally.

The study simply says that 55 million years ago carbon levels rose dramatically (when there were dramatically fewer cars) causing global temperatures to increase. Taking scientifically collected information about the amount of temperature increase then vs. today - and there would appear to be some mystery incredient to the climate cocktail that we just haven't figured out.

Temperatures have increased generally in a recent cycle (although began cooling recently - and a trend is developing predictably).

And although man should certainly be careful with this world, using somewhat shaky evidence that 'man's addiction to coal and gas is causing this' is somehow a reason to shape costly and harmful policy to pay off political allies and donors is as wrongheaded as saying 'global warming/climate change is a hoax'.

A hundred years ago, man slaughtered whales to light our streets and burned coal and oil in the most filthy ways possible to generate energy and steam. Our city's air was FILTHY, whales were going away, and there was horse crap everywhere! But it wasn't "The Coal, Whale Oil and Horse Crap Act of 1907" that turned things around, but man's ever-improving cleaner burning energy technologies that helped us make it as good as it is today - which be honest, is much better environmentally - - if as many people were alive then as there are today.

The thing that spurred these improvements in cleaner burning fuels? A better world? Well, that's a byproduct (like carbon)... The catalyst was the promise of profit. Profit potential will make the world cleaner and NOT policy.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

What he said....

Cedric Katesby said...

I'm looking closely at what the scientist said... and he didn't say or infer that "global warming" is a hoax.
Yep, exactly.
There is nothing the scientist said that supports the conclusion that global warming is a hoax or a con or that it is not happening.
Check this: "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain ...
You went to the Rice University web-page?
You mean…you’re actually…***interested*** in what the scientific community has to say?!?!?
(…gasp…)

I’m impressed.
However, be warned! You are setting a dangerous precedent.
Once you start getting your science from science sources, you will find it difficult to stop.
Your next step will be to check the NASA web-site, then (almost despite yourself) you’ll find yourself sneaking a quick peek at the Royal Meteorological Society web-site.
The next thing you know, you’ll be feverishly reading information about global warming from the British Antarctic survey, the NAS and the American Physical society.
Stop now. Don’t let this go any further.
The only way a global warming denier can maintain his beliefs is by avoiding these kinds of sites like the plague.
They are the kiss of death.
Instead, stick to the no-name anti-science blogs.

However, since you seem willing to actually check out what scientists themselves have to say, then let’s check them out.
I like your quote from the Rice University.
In fact, I like Rice University. They do real work.

On the same page as your quote, they continue later with…
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. "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."

Linky
Still not sure what this all means? Fell asleep with all the science-words? Still waiting for the punch-line?
Me too. Scientists talking to other scientists can make for very BORING reading. How about some plain old English for us non-science types?
Let’s do some more digging.
How about we check out the Nature Geoscience Website itself? Some guy called Beering has a comment on the study.
Global warming 55 million years ago was accompanied by a massive injection of carbon into the ocean-atmosphere system, but the resulting climatic warming was much greater than expected from the modelled rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide alone.
Linky
Oh crap.
I don’t know about you but that sounds worrying, not reassuring.
In the press release section, we find…
They found that, using current estimates of climate sensitivity to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the carbon release could only explain up to 3.5 °C of the warming. They concluded that as yet unknown warming feedbacks must have caused the additional rise in temperature.
In the accompanying News & Views article, David Beerling writes "The upshot of the study by Zeebe and colleagues is that forecasts of future warming could be severely underestimating the extent of the problem that lies in store for humanity as greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere."

Linky

Yep, I think that makes things a little bit clearer.
Disturbing, but clearer.

Cedric Katesby said...

So you're finally saying it's going to be warming instead of mere "Change" ?

Oh, there's nothing "mere" about climate change.
"Mere" is the very last adjective you should attach to the phrase "climate change".
Going from "global warming" to "climate change" is not some sneaky, trickery double-talk designed to cover tracks and bamboozle the public by a secret cabal of money-hungry evil scientists living in black helicopters in cahoots with smelly hippies and Commies.
Honest.
If you check out the science web-sites, they will be happy to explain it themeselves.
Just because some brainless pundit on T.V. can't be bothered to find out how and when scientists use these two terms and why they are different doesn't mean you are powerless to do your own research and find out for sure.
Ask the EPA.
(Remember though, they are con artists)
Or ask NASA.
(Once again, a pack of no-good evil scientists who only spew lies to steal your hard-earned money. Shame on them.)

Get your science from science sources.

Cedric Katesby said...

(taken from the other thread)

Allen, you hi-jacked a peer-reviewed paper.
You misrepresented a team of scientists' work.

Please act responsibly.
Set the record straight.
Do you really want to be part of a disinformation campaign?

Do an update. Tell people what the paper really means.
It's the decent, honourable thing to do.

Dr Ralph said...

Just to keep the fun rolling...I offer you this, which I stumbled on: HighWire Press, a free service of Stanford University, which it modestly points out hosts "the largest repository of high impact, peer-reviewed content, with 1269 journals and 6,059,877 full text articles from over 140 scholarly publishers. HighWire-hosted publishers have collectively made 1,920,255 articles free."

Have fun, everyone. You'll excuse me if I don't join in.

Cedric Katesby said...

Cedric, you threw down your challenge on the other post, but didn't include the email, phone, address, etc. Please put all the info there so it'll make sense without having to flip back to this post.

Ok.

Gerald Dickens
•PhD University of Michigan Oceanography (1996)
•M.S. University of Michigan Oceanography (1993)
•B.S. University of California, Davis Chemistry (1989)
•Paleoceanography, marine geology and low-temperature geochemistry
E-mail: geol@rice.edu
Phone: (713) 348-5130
(713) 348-4940
Office: 323 Keith-Wiess Geology Labs
Martel House, 001

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Done !

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Cedric,
The email address you gave us is a bit generic. This is what I got in return....
Who the heck is Sandra Flechsig?

I will be away from the office July 30 - August 7, 2009, returning August 10.
For immediate assistance please contact soookie at soookie@rice.edu or
713.348.4880
Thank-you.

Sandra Flechsig

Cedric Katesby said...

The email address you gave us is a bit generic. This is what I got in return....
Who the heck is Sandra Flechsig?


You're actually going to follow through on this?
You're honestly going to try and find out what the scientists really think in their own words?

I'm flabbergasted.
Delighted and flabbergasted.

You do this right and I swear I will track you down someday, somewhere and buy you lunch in the restaurant of your choice.

In case Dickens proves too difficult to contact, here's a different contact e-mail to one of the other co-authors of the paper.

Richard E. Zeebe e-mail: zeebe@soest.hawaii.edu