http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/01/10/global-warming-no-natural-predictable-climate-change/
***************
"To doubt everything or believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." (Jules Henri Poincare)
***************
What is Al Gore going to do? Should he give his Nobel back? I know, he'll go to Davos this month and talk about "Sustainable Capitalism."
I don't think Al has a comeback for an extensively peer reviewed study published in December indicating that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us. The research was done by Nicola Scafetta, a scientist at Duke University and at the ACRIM lab which is associated with the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
According to Larry Bell, author of the article attached, the study takes issue with methodologies applied by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) using "general circulation climate models" (GCMs) that, by ignoring these important influences, are found to fail to reproduce the observed decadal and multi-decadal climatic cycles.
These cycles have been clearly detected in all global surface temperature records of both hemispheres since 1850. A 60-year modulation cycle also corresponds with warming/cooling induced in the ocean surface.
And finally, three major available global surface temperature record sources report a steady-to-cooling trend since 2001.
Scafetta predicts that the global climate may remain approximately steady until 2030-2040 because the current 60-year cycle entered into its current cooling phase around 2000-2003.
I don't think Al Gore has anything in his arsenal of assumptions and rhetoric to refute this. So, I'll be relieved to tell my daughter that her Escalade is not contributing to the "anthropogenically-induced" global warming because the "globe" is, in fact, cooling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, rather than waiting for Al to respond, I will. Scafetta is a controversial figure, hardly accepted by the mainstream. Example:
ReplyDeleteScafetta won't divulge methodology
I hope that link worked! Anyway, even Scafetta claims he can only explain about 60% of the movement of the cycle as from natural causes, an important point your Forbes propaganda conveniently ignores.
See here:
Scafetta's Research
Like I said, hope those links work. Lastly I'll leave you with a link of climate researchers who take umbrage with most of Larry Bell's Forbes columns, and this is one example where they tear his "reporting" to ribbons:
RealClimate
Hope this helps add to your understanding of this complicated issue. You're getting your news from a decidedly slanted source, here.
Cool my links worked! Now you can click on my stuff when I link it. hehe
ReplyDeleteCraig: I'm smiling. Thank you for your input. Could you make an argument for my perspective?
ReplyDeleteSure! But why would I want to be wrong? ;)
ReplyDeleteTruthfully you've done about as good a job as there is. About the best defense for the other side is to try to de-legitimize the research that's been done.
Craig: I agree with your last point but, to oversimplify, I believe in long cycles of weather/climate. I'm quite sincere regardless of whose research I'm quoting.
ReplyDelete