http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=002...OR-enlargePage
Interesting article by Daniel Rothman of the MIT Earth sciences program. In summary, "the resulting C02 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales"
In other words, over the past 500 million years the amount of C02 in the atmoshpere has varied widely while global temperatures have varied widely, and they don't correlate with each other. At times the earth was hot and C02 low, at other times the earth was cold and C02 was high.
The only solid fact I can find on "global warming" is that the earth's temperature has very likely gone up approx. .8 deg. F in the last 100 years.
Regarding computer models- any computer model that has been adjusted to fit the historical data is suspect. If the model cannot produce correct results without adjustment it is useless for predictions. A model that is based on, or corrected by, empirical data is only good within the limits of the data. So if you make the model fit the period 1900-2000 it is only useful in estimating temperatures during that period. To make useful predictions the model has to be based on basic scientific principles and has to reproduce historical data correctly, without any adjustments or parameters.
Einstein's photovoltaic theory is a good example. He derived an equation that explains the photovoltaic effect correctly, with no fudge factors, working from basic principles. Fortunately for Alfred he was working with a very simple system. Climate modelling is so complex that no one has been able to do the same thing for the atmosphere. The models are all filled with empirically derived fudge factors.
03-10-2008, 08:45 AM
Linear Mode
