Rational Capitalist on Facebook

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Oh, By the Way

In a previous post Maybe It's The Sun - Impossible, I discussed the fact that scientists apparently do not clearly understand the role of the sun on earth's climate:

I submit that if climate scientists are still at the point of saying things like "I think the main question is, how does the sun [in general] act on climate? What are the processes that are going on in the Earth's atmosphere?" then perhaps we should have some skepticism as to the validity of their computer models which extrapolate their current understanding and attempt to predict the weather over the next 100 years!

Well, here is yet another example of why we should be skeptical of computer climate models. According to a recent Cornell study published in Nature Geosciences:

A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.

Then comes this little nugget:

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

So, apparently, scientists do not clearly understand the relationship of the earth's climate to both the sun (which I suspect might have something to do with heating) and "soils" which allegedly has 10 times the effect of human emissions (of course, besides these little problems, they have it down). But, didn't Apostle Al et al tell us that it was indisputable that humans are causing global warming (or excuse me "climate change")? Weren't us skeptics castigated as "global warming deniers", and weren't we warned that based on these models it was necessary to wreck half the world's economy in order to stop the satanic carbon emissions from roasting us to death?

No comments: