I am writing in response to M.D. Harmon’s column on Jan. 30, “Report that 2014 was hottest in recorded history was overblown.”

Harmon’s main assertion (that the 2014 temperature reading while higher than any previous reading was within the statistical margin of error) is accurate. But he also states that the Greenland ice core data collected under the auspices of NOAA “… show … that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and warming.” In fact, scientists have concluded just the opposite of what Harmon states.

An article from the Scientific American’s website states, “(paleo-climatologist James) White’s ice-core studies helped reveal two striking facts. The first is that the Earth’s great ice ages are bookmarked by a clear fluctuation in carbon dioxide levels: 180 parts per million (ppm) in the glacial periods, 280 ppm in the warmer periods (the level at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution about 150 years ago). A shift of 100 ppm in carbon dioxide concentrations meant the difference between flowers blooming in the Arctic and ice a mile deep over Chicago.”

I have been in email communication with Harmon, trying to determine how he arrived at his remarkably inaccurate analysis of the data. I have been disappointed in his lack of cooperation in pointing me to a source for his conclusions. He did email me two graphs comparing warming and carbon dioxide levels, but there was no accompanying statistical analysis of the correlation between the two sets of data. In fact, just eye-balling them, his graphs would seem to support covariation between carbon dioxide and warming.

Like most of your readers, I am trying to sort out the truth here. This is an issue for mature discussion and not simply expressing opinions that cannot be backed up by the data.

David Doreau

Waterville

Copy the Story Link