• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Could Global Warming Models Be Wrong?

    Is it possible that we may know less about the climate and temperature change than previously thought?

    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.

    “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.”

    During the warming period, known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM), for unknown reasons, the amount of carbon in Earth’s atmosphere rose rapidly. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.

    As the levels of carbon increased, global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

    The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. “Some feedback loop or other processes that aren’t accounted for in these models — the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming — caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM.”

    Emphasis added. For all this incessant talk about scientific consensus from proponents of cap and trade legislation, there sure are a lot of dissenting scientists. What does it take to reach a scientific consensus? How many dissenters does there need to be before the phrase “scientific consensus” is taken off the table? More than 650, apparently.

    For more on the science of global warming, be sure to check out Dr. Roy Spencer’s excellent blog.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    26 Responses to Could Global Warming Models Be Wrong?

    1. Betty, Los Angeles C says:

      So what happens if man does manage to cool the earth by a miniscule degree and Nature comes up with another little ice age? Oops!

    2. Chris Valenzuela, St says:

      All current weather forcasting is done by computer modeling and the long range forecasts are updated and changed daily. I suspect the populace needs to be reminded of the similarities and discrepancies.

    3. Rmoen, Reno, NV says:

      I've gone through the UN's 2007 climate report and pulled out quotes that show that climate scientists themselves have MANY misgivings about computer models. Please see http://energyplanusa.com/modeling_problems_energy

      – Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

    4. Peter Erickson, Rock says:

      Global Warming is a cruel, expensive hoax that is part of the plan to push this country into Socialism as is the trillion dollar stimulus and trillion dollar revision to our health care. Prof. Richard S.Lindzen Professor of Meteorology at MIT has published many papers that convincingly counter the Al Gore push for "Cap and Trade." Most of his papers are available on the internet.

    5. Barb -mn says:

      The government interpreted cause (man-made)is deceit. Because they presented this government crisis called by government and the EPA as "global warming," conveniently changing the name to "climate change" should prove to EVERYONE it's a convenient scam. LET NATURE TAKES IT'S COURSE AND MANKIND LIVE FREE!

    6. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    7. Jim Few, Florida Pan says:


      The public and the media is overly enamored with capability of computers. Check this time loop of the forecast models for Hurricane Katrina: It shows how diverse the forecast paths are for the different models particularly in the early stage.

      Climate model inputs:

      The largest component of environmental green house gasses is water vapor which is approximately 95% of the volume all green house gases. While it may have a shorter life than CO2, it has approximately 36% to 70% of the total greenhouse effect. You don't hear much about that fact in the news media.

      The remaining volume – 5% of gasses:

      Second third and forth in order of the strength of estimated greenhouse effects are

      CO2 — 9%-26%,

      methane — 4% – 9%

      ozone — 3% – 7%

      Notice the wide range of estimated effects!

      There are others which have much less greenhouse effect due to low concentration levels. Some are long lasting and some have negative feedbacks such as solid particulate matter in the atmosphere which reflect heat back into space or reduce warming.

      None of the computer models handle the combination of relationships with water vapor very well. Computer models for the future worldwide climate change contain assumptions which are considerably more complex, chaotic, and uncertainly coupled than hurricane tracking models.

      One of these assumptions not mentioned for man's CO2 future output is the highly uncertain prediction of social development and economic growth of the world's industrial CO2 contributors. This makes the climate prediction comparable to a computer model that is picking future stock market results. How many are willing to make investments base on this crystal ball factor? Much less likely that we should make severe economic changes such as the CO2 auction plan solely on such climate models.

      One major related consideration : China, a vowed non-participant in world CO2 reduction efforts, is estimated to have a CO2 production that is higher than the U.S. by 2009-10.

      Other factors such as water vapor and cloud formation rates, ice cap sizes, glacier melt, ice accumulation and melting rates, ocean temperature effects on sea currents, how water volume change with water temperature change, the influence of the suns variability, astronomical variations in earth orbit and axis tilt in relation to the sun, are just a few of those additional estimates that must be included.

      The models also have to use proxy data such as tree rings, ocean bottom borings and ice core borings data, for estimates of climate conditions during historical times before actual measurements were recorded. In predicting the remote future using dynamic computer models with highly sensitive, uncertain, coupled inputs, very small changes in early year assumptions will very likely make enormous differences in the out years. Since there are no equations for some of the physical relationships the computer models are loaded with uncertainties.

      With regard to complex, non-linear systems, Edward Lorenz (1963) and F.Giorgi (2005) concluded that it is not possible to reliably model even simple parameters over a long period of time, in an open, chaotic system like the atmosphere. The idea that computer simulations can test the validity of a hypothesis is not scientifically sound. The computer simulation IS the hypothesis, and it must be validated against real world data. It does not match current measured data. Without adequate data input, the use of such models constitutes circular reasoning.

      "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."Yogi Bera

    8. Lloyd Scallan - New says:

      This entire Man Made Global Warming issue is so much more than a hoax or simple deception. It's like many of the other environmentalist movement out-right lies. It's yet another program designed by the anarchist among us that are dedicated to the total distruction of America, and to make it just another European socialist society. The people of this country better understand that everytime you see or hear the word "green", we all must understand what that word implies.

    9. Ben Franklin says:

      They can't account for the "feedback loop" or some other "unknown factor"? Really? It hasn't occured to them to look up at the sky and see that big ball of fire up there called the Sun!?

    10. Brad L, Phoenix says:

      Unfortunately, most Democrat and few Republican politicians have sold their soul to the Devil. No longer do we hear pronouncements that are “misrepresentation” of the truth, but are now outright lies. Buried in each of the massive economic packages being “rammed” through our legislative process have clauses that refute the positive talking points discussed in the media. Since talk is cheap, and all are entitled to their opinion, little “legal” action can be taken against these people. I cannot understand why the current media does not uncover these lies and expose them to the general public. Unless they wake up one day and see the destructive nature of their inattention, they will soon discover that they will no longer be a “free” press, but under the direct control of the Administration. When freedom of speech gives way to propaganda, the totalitarian state will have been finalized. Unfortunately, there will be no USA to come to our rescue like we did for Germany and Japan.

    11. Ramon Whittaker, Nev says:

      It certainly is arrogant to believe we can control any aspects of God's creation, or will in any matters.

      Some simple mathametics can debunk this "politically motivated idea" for global warming!

    12. Tom, Pittsburgh, Pa says:

      Global Warming is the biggest hoax of the 21st century. Mr. Gore preached to us that global warming was not politically motivated……if a politician tells you that something isn't politically motivated, you can bet it is nothing but politically motivated.

    13. Gary, soon to be fro says:

      Global warming is hoax proven by the ice core samples from Greenland Glaciers that show periods of natural climate change going back three hundred thousand years. In the strong thriving American economy of our recent past, considering the current rush of technological breakthroughs from private industry occuring so fast it's fascinating. In that America, some free thinking entrepenuer would have soon put things togeather making the need for oil obsolete, the possibility of unlimited free energy from cold fusion, room temperature unlimited conductivity, power from the "push" of the aether force of gravity, or who knows what marvel of science awaited, and in days or months not years. We are, or we were, right on the edge of breakthrough to the next phase leading to the technical evolution of human society, of all mankind, to become the authentic people of the "Next Generation," as predicted by men like Buckminster Fuller. But, now instead, we are on the precipace of a complete engineered social collapse of our American society, of our economy, a lightening quick degeneration into the collective, into Marxist Socialism, a fall back into a Dark Age, a period of death, of class hatred and ignorance, a subhuman nightmare of epic proportions.

    14. Jerry from Chicago says:

      There are a lot of places where reaching a consensus is useful. Science is not one of those places. In science, something is either conjecture or fact.

      At one point in time, the "consensus" of scientific opinion was that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Once upon a time, the "consensus" among physicians was to bleed sick people back to health, by letting out the bad blood or evil spirits, or what have you.

      Full page newspaper articles, addressed to President Obama, and signed by hundreds of scientists have disputed the claim of global warming. It really doesn't matter if 51% of the "scientists" believe that we are in a period of global warming. This is not something that can be determined by a simple majority vote. What were the criteria used to conduct the measurements? Over what period of time? What were the baseline numbers to which these measurements were compared?

      This seems to be just another "crisis" that is just too good to waste.

    15. William Seay Clarkes says:

      Everyone has all kinds of thoughts on this globle warming, but I have not read one word on the one who is in complete control of this problem. Who is that you ask; might it be the Creator of the univerce him self God Almighty.We have pushed God out of the United States and we wonder why we are having so much trouble. Wake up America before it's to late.Read 2nd Cronicles 7:14 if you want the real answer to our problems. For give us Father !!!!

    16. gjr, Nevada City says:

      Could the models be wrong?! Anyone familiar with numerical models of the size and scope of NOAA'a general circulation models would rephrase the question 'Could the models possibly be right?'

    17. Ron Thompson says:

      without a doubt the model is wrong! look at the local weather, see how the weather folks bend, fold and mutilate the trends to fit them into the model! these are the same people defending Al Gore! They can be 98% wrong and still considered successful. It's too bad they haven't figured out who is incharge of the earth, it isn't man for sure!

    18. Ross Writes, Brade says:

      In science, I'm an ignorant man. But what little commonsense that I was blessed with from birth, tells me that our sun, the earth under our feet, and their rythms and cycles may have a lot to do with our weather, not the "piddly" actions of the human race. At least someone in the science field is noticing that our universe/world does not follow models very well.

    19. Spiritof76 says:

      I agree with Jim Few of Florida Panhandle.

      People go gha-gha when somebody mentions computer models. Immediate reaction is that it must be accurate. Wrong.

      We need physical basis via mathematical relationships to describe the phenomenon. The computer modeling simply transforms those mathematical relationship describing the system into a solution format. This model needs to be validated with data. For example, the climate models can not validate the Maunder Minimum related mini-ice age of 1650-1700.

      Climate system is vastly complex with very little definable relationships. Jim talks about water vapor. The increase in temperature will incrase the water vapor as 75% of the earth is covered with water. Solubility of CO2 increases as temperature increases. The plants and algea growth accelerate as temperature increases in the presence of CO2. While those relationships are know qualitatively, we do not have any deterministic relationships for them.

      The models used are purley projections based on the calculated effect of CO2 without any other variable and projecting it to 100 years. It is not science. It is like a kindergardener describing theory of calculus. It is so rudimentary that it is useless.

      There is a big issue whether the CO2 or increased temperature led the spike. The data would suggest that warming occurred first followed by the CO2 level increase. Even the hypothesis that CO2 causes any warming is false.

    20. Pingback: Sundry Notes « 36 Chambers – The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!

    21. Andres Peres, New Or says:

      Many stand to make money out of the uncertain-certain climate change.

      One of them, the Nobel Laurate Al Gore, former Tennessee Senator and noted iventor of the internet.

      On cap and trade, and China and India not abiding by proposed scheme:

      "….if the US leads, China will follow." AL Gore on Cap and Trade.

      Add magician, psychic to Al's long list of accomplishements

    22. Betty, Los Angeles C says:

      I know nothing about all the science the rest of you toss around. However, I do know that climate change has been going on for millions of years and it's a joke to think we can control it by selling each other pieces of paper. What if all the crap & trade works & we do manage to stop global warming, then what will we do when we have another mini-ice age?

    23. Marshall Hill MI. says:

      What happens to the weatherman when his Prediction

      is Wrong? Nothing,he still gets paid!

    24. dixie heart, USA says:

      Yes, it is a hoax designed to gain political leverage by instilling fear and willingness into the masses. It goes to show you how widespread gullibility is and how readily the impressionable youth (and many an adult) will swallow junk science widely taught in our school system and hyped up in the media.

      Theorizing should not be the basis upon which to base public policy nor any legislation!

    25. Dale, Oklahoma says:

      While I'm sure that man does contribute to

      climate change to some very small degree,

      I think it has a lot more to do with naturally re-occurring global weather cycles, the orbital proximity of the REAL

      GLOW BALL warmer ( the sun ) and other

      factors such as volcanic eruptions, massive forest fires, etc..

      Can man be better stewards of this great

      and mighty ( not frail ) planet? YES!

      But we shouldn't be fooled by the Chicken

      Littles and lemmings who worship the Earth

      and lust for the almighty dollars they get from "global warming" research grants.

      Al Gore has become wealthy ( and FAT ) enough by fooling the "useful idiots" of our fair planet. "Fear itself" is NOT a

      good enough reason to scare our country

      into another exorbitant "energy" tax.

    26. Pingback: White House Balks at ClimateGate, Says Climate Change is Happening | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.