LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Editor:
I am compelled to reply to Messrs. Simms and Diefendorf, who took me to task in the Vol. 56 No. 3 (summer) issue of TPG. Also, I wish to thank Mr. Wojcik for his positive comment.
Dr. Simms took issue with the end date of the graph I supplied with my letter published in the Second Quarter TPG issue, suggesting that it has been supplanted with more recent data. He was even kind enough to supply a copy of the IPCC’s latest spaghetti model graph of the past 2000 years of climate: if Dr. Simms would like to see a spaghetti model graph, here’s one that compares all of the IPPC warming models against observed temperatures since 1977:
online, a publication of the Florida Geological Survey; Bulletin No. 46, “The Geology of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, western Florida Panhandle,” by Marsh, Owen and Thayer, 1966. Pages 88 – 90 identify confirmed shore- line terraces at elevations of 30 and 70 feet above present sea level, and less obvious terraces ranging in elevations of 80 – 280 feet (!) above sea level, all of Pleistocene age (i.e., during the vari- ous glacial and interglacial episodes). The subsurface strand line elevations I quoted naturally have no such citations, and are frankly of less pertinence to the discussion at hand (warming resulting in postulated future sea level elevation increases).
Since it appears to be the case that debate about anthropogenic climate change is raging on, it might be useful for the Institute to poll its members about their opinion on the topic.
Thank you for this opportunity to
comment. Sincerely,
Peter H. Dohms, CPG-7141
The squares are actual observations. A wise person once said, “All models of natural systems are inaccurate; some are however useful.” In the face of comparison with actual data, the models in this spaghetti graph appear to not be useful.
Dr. Simms also asked for peer- reviewed citations for the observations I offered of sea level strand lines in Northwest Florida. Since I’ve been retired for 7 years and have moved 1800 miles away from the professional library I had while working, I had to work some- what from memory. I recalled, and found
Mr. Diefendorf expresses pain that his letter in the Jan.-Mar. issue of TPG failed to open the discussion on how to mitigate climate change that he had hoped, but instead re-fueled the debate on the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Unfortunately, as noted above and in my previous letter, the debate is not settled, no matter how much global warming advocates might wish it to be. There are many websites where the case against anthropogenic global warming is made in a much more compelling fashion that I can hope to achieve in this limited forum.
Editor’s Note: I thank Dr. Dohms for his suggestion of a poll of the AIPG Membership on this issue. Serious con- sideration is being given to taking such a poll, but it will not be done through the pages of TPG.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64
