A common question from AGW "skeptics" is why it was so hot in the middle of the 20th century. This is a neat model, (sorry it is so small, click the acknowlegment for the original).
This shows how, contrary to the skeptics' claims, climate models do include all factors, and that they produce a good match to the data. Not perfect, because nothing is perfect.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Richard
A delay of the climate's response would explain that; but it also would mean that what we see as an reaction to human influnce today has been triggered from our impact during the seventies, sixties, may be the forties...
If that was true we will be coming late; much too late!
Christian A. Wittke
Yes, we have a problem. Even if we magically cut all CO2 emissions today, we would still be looking at significant warming, as there is a 40-50 year time lag. And then there are the positive feedbacks...
That is why I am a bit of a heretic on the carbon sequestration debate: I believe we have to reforest the planet.
http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/climate-change-email-list-throws-up.html
This is my take on reforestation:http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/DesertRose.htm
Also, I back research on ocean fertilisation. We have find where to place the iron precisely, so that by the time the algal bloom is maximised, it is over an ocean sink.
The task is enormous. I've just worked out that every year we release carbon that took about 67,000 years to sequestrate.
However, Gaia has absorbed about 50% of our emissions already.
We have to try, because if we don't try, we are like turkeys waiting for Christmas.
I always say Green activism is like a parachute on a hang glider: it may or may not save your life, but at least it gives you something to keep your mind occupied as you plummet downwards.
And reserve parachutes do work.
I like your blog.
http://efficiencymeetssustainability.blogspot.com/
Cheers
Richard
Thanks DocRichard!
1
I agree, reforestation is needed, fast and furious, simply because wood is not C neutral at all!
(http://efficiencymeetssustainability.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-so-neutral-about-wood-time.htm)
How can C be C-neutral, what delusive rubbish.
2
CCS is a technological gimmick, early days, and even if once reliable will never work in a big enough scale.
http://efficiencymeetssustainability.blogspot.com/2009/02/cart-before-horse-i.html
3
Research on geo engineering is required urgently; however, any application needs to be thoroughly looked at and counter-checked on its sustainability, i.e. any possible un-wanted/un-known side effects. I am afraid it might offer vast open fields for neo-lib lobbies establishing new rounds on new gambling tables.
http://efficiencymeetssustainability.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-geo-engineering-rebuild-planet.html
4
Energy saving technology and procedures are far from being deployed, not even fully explored. This needs to include all and any production cycle.
http://efficiencymeetssustainability.blogspot.com/2009/05/picnic.html
5
In the end it needs a different economic goal setting, a different global society defining “growth” e.g. as something quality related; quality of life, health and death, of education and work, of fun and entertainment. I know it sounds odd and we have heard that too often from too many dubious do-gooders.
However, this does not make it the wrong alternative – it is our only one!
Good luck, Richard.
Christian A. Wittke
All encouragement gratefully received.
Might world war in the middle of last century have had something to do with it? Quite a lot of smoke....
Found your blog via GreenWorld 67: very timely, as I'm giving a talk on climate change later this month. So many thanks for the material ! More comprehensive even than www.logicalscience.com .
steve plater
Kent
Hi Steve
I wondered that too, but if you look at the larger figure, the temp climb starts before the war, and falls away as the war progresses - if, indeed, wars can be said to progress. Smoke and soot does have that effect. It is considered that the industrial pollution of the 1960s had a cooling effect.
What I like about this figure is that it shows that climate models do work, although they will be refined in the future.
And thank YOU for the spam.
Post a Comment