The science of global warming has arrived at a conclusion, which all data must now accommodate.(via Planet Gore)
Unfortunately, it sometimes does not.
You may recall that in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore noted nine of the 10 hottest recorded years have occurred since 1995. That's what the NASA data showed until a blogger crunched the agency's data and found out it made a mistake.
In fact, six of the 10 hottest years came before 1954, with the 1930s being particularly toasty. Ever hear of the Dust Bowl?
There has been much alarm about Greenland melting and drowning Florida. Feeding this are images of rapidly melting glaciers. They were melting quickly between 2000 and 2005. But since then the melting has slowed to what is considered a normal level.
Researchers from the Los Alamos National Laboratory discovered that the rate of warming in Greenland between 1920 and 1930 was 50 percent higher than today. And the glaciers were smaller.
Ice cores taken from a Russian research site in the Antarctic reveal that when you go back in time, the theory of global warming seems to put the cart before the horse. We are told that greenhouse gases build up and cause temperatures to rise.
But an analysis of the ice cores shows the temperature goes up first, followed by an increase in greenhouse gases. The heat is triggered by other natural phenomenon, such as solar radiation. This heats up the ocean, which releases carbon dioxide.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now actually is downright paltry compared with what it has been during Earth's history.
I could go on and on. Most all scientists agree the world has gotten warmer.
But many distinguished scientists think the evidence blaming humans is either bogus, incomplete or not overwhelming enough to think we are a significant part of a problem.
I have gone from being a believer to being a global-warming agnostic. I think we are having some impact but am not convinced how much of one. I remain receptive to arguments from both sides.
Global warming is a science in which imperfect data are plugged into imperfect models by too many scientists looking for the same conclusion.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Mike Thomas in the February 10th Orlando Sentinel: