Pretty good fit, and no data fudging!
The ocean acts as a sink for C02 and holds 36,000 billion tons of C02. The atmosphere holds 720 billion tons of C02. A warmer ocean holds less C02, a 1 degree change would release about 1440 billion tons into the atmosphere. BTW: Humans emit about 26 tons of CO2 per year, with about 40% absorbed by natural sinks (trees, ocean, etc…).
An enterprising researcher in Hawaii has flipped global warming science on its head and formulated a simple model, backed by actual unmodified data, that shows that warming causes C02 rise, not the other way around.
With data from present back to 1960, he strongly correlated the rate of change in CO2 (derivative) levels with ocean temperature increases preceding. Prior to 1960, he correlated it to El Nino events (warmer water, although not precisely measured) preceding the C02 rise.
In summary:
Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly.
We offer no explanation for why global temperatures are changing now or have changed in the past, but it seems abundantly clear that the recent temperature rise is not caused by the rise in CO2 levels.
Read the article here – it can get a bit “technical” but is worth reading.
There are other researchers finding similar results – but you can bet those researchers won’t be getting their grants renewed…
June 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am
It’s not fair to say climate modelers don’t know what they are doing or are malevolent while claiming that a simple model predicts the results you want to hear. The whole picture is much more complex than simple correlations. In a battle of simple correlations it is easy to find one in the data to fit almost any hypothesis you choose.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Fair? I’ve been very fair. Don’t make up data. Don’t have bugs in your code. ANd don’t try to model things that are impossible to model.
And the “model” in this, I could care less about. The correlation of actual data is what interests me. Actual, uncorrupted data. And it makes practical sense.
I’m not saying this is right, just that it makes sense and is a viable alternative to the pap we’ve been given. The SCIENCE isn’t settled.
Certainly not settled enough to tax the hell out of me.