New study: could the sun have warmed the world? February 11, 2010Posted by BlueGreen in Deception, Doesnt Understand, Misrepresentation.
Post February 10, 2010
Here, Bolt completely misrepresents the content of a paper by Professor Eelco Rohling of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science.
Based on the media release (not the original paper!) at ScienceDaily, Bolt makes the following claims:
- Yet another paper questioning the theory that man is behind the warming of the earth over the past half-century.
- Why is Rohling’s research interesting? Because the IPCC’s argument that man’s gases have caused most of the post-war warming is based not on proof that those gases did indeed do that, but on an inability to think of any other cause. Rohling suggests he may just have found that alternative explanation, or part of it.
The study actually relates to the intergalacial cycles associated with changes in the earth’s orbit and our understanding and modelling of them for long-term climate prediction:
I read the media release and here are the pertinent extracts from it (my emphasis in bold):
“Understanding how climate has responded to past change should help reveal how human activities may have affected, or will affect, Earth’s climate. One approach for this is to study past interglacials, the warm periods between glacial periods within an ice age,” said Rohling.
He continued: “Note that we have here focused on the long-term natural climate trends that are related to changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Our study is therefore relevant to the long-term climate future, and not so much for the next decades or century.”
Nowhere does the article suggest anything like the claims made by Bolt.
The paper does not question whether of not man is responsible for global warming at all.
The paper does not suggest that intergalacial cycles are responsible for current global warming trends at all.
I wrote to the professor himself and asked him to comment on Bolt’s assertions. He wrote:
This is always bound to happen, I guess. The piece [Bolt’s post] seems to be selective representation of parts of the press release, and I doubt that the paper (which is openly available in preprint) has been looked at. The complete release is copied below, and explicitly states that our work is relevant not for climate change in the next decade to century, but longer-term trends only.
Bolt has been advised but has made no retraction or correction.