Climate Change in the Northeast

[ripple]

I don't know much about it.. but I have read that some of the peer reviewed scientifc journals refuse to review some studies/papers that go against the "99.75 %" thoughts on man made warming. Could that true? How does one get thier work reviewed?

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

has anyone figured out what caused the end of the last ice age?

The cause of termination of Cenozoic ice age cycles (there have been 18 to 20 of them over the past two million years) has been well known since the mid-1970s. These glacial terminations are caused by an increase in the amount of solar radiation received on Earth, which follows well documented astronomical cycles calculated by Milutin Milankovitch in the 1930s, which were later confirmed by detailed analyses of deep-sea sediment and polar ice core records of temperature change. The reason that the warming over the past century is such a concern is that Milankovitch cycles suggest that the Earth should be in the cooling phase of a 100,000-year cycle, not warming, which peaked about 9000 years ago. The glacial phases of the 100,000-year Milankovitch cycles account for about 90% of time over the past two million years; interglacial phases about 10%. So, we are due for the next glacial phase of a 100,000-cycle to begin, which in the past have ramped up very slowly. Humans probably could have adapted to a slow transition into the next glacial cycle (mammals are adapted to relatively cool climate, whereas dinosaurs were not), but many of us feel that humans will not be able to adapt to an interglacial warmer than any previous in the past two million years, given the possible collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets, which would cause sea level to rise by about 12 to 15 meters, among other calamities.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

This is worth repeating. I have not heard of any altenative theory, glacial and ice age cycles, earth's tilt and rotation etc that have not already been incoporated into the models. They do not explain the rate of the trend.

Sorry, in fact, rates are incorporated into Milankovitch cycles and confirmed by hundreds of paleoclimate studies that support Milankovitch. We are now observers to a human-caused global experiment where fast rates of climate change are occurring, unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.

 

[expat]

Changes in rates of change can also be natural

Yes, but you missed the point of my post. NOTHING in the history of the earth has even come close to the RATE at which it is now occurring and this new rate just happens to coincide perfectly with the greenhouse effect.

Well, the magnetic pole has quickly changed its rate of movement during the last hundred years, and is moving lots faster than it has during the previous several centuries. See http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/ap_051209_pole_shift.html

At the same time humans have done many things. Did human activity cause the change in the rate of pole movement? No.

Even the fact that there are more of what are called greenhouse gases that are measured in particular places in the atmosphere doesn't necessarily mean that those have influenced the rate of change in the earth's temperature. There's no evidence that they do, only observations that they're there, and that the rate of warming may be increasing.

If you want to do something about it, make changes in your own life that you feel may help. I'm not saying that I don't believe that we should be good stewards, in fact I believe that we should. Reuse, recycle, use fewer resources where possible, as in not buying 1500 more square feet than you need for a house, not driving a larger vehicle than you need, and doing you best to minimize your own impact.

 

[Gris]

As if we needed to take this to a whole new level...

 

[Puck]

Sorry, in fact, rates are incorporated into Milankovitch cycles and confirmed by hundreds of paleoclimate studies that support Milankovitch. We are now observers to a human-caused global experiment where fast rates of climate change are occurring, unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.

I think there is slight misunderstanding, symantic, syntax, whatever. I am saying that these other theories have been investigated in the current models. These alternative theories alone do not explain the current trend. sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gris]

Did human activity cause the change in the rate of pole movement? No.

Hmmm, not a very scientific argument ExPat. Your source actually says it is a "mystery" why the drift has accelerated. Since when does a mystery = no?

 

[expat]

Hmmm, not a very scientific argument ExPat. Your source actually says it is a "mystery" why the drift has accelerated. Since when does a mystery = no?

I'll stick with no.

 

[JohnL]

Seeing that pole reversals have been going on for over 100 million years and there wasn't a whole lot of human activity going on back then, I think No would be a safe answer.

JohnL

 

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dasypodidae-
well documented astronomical cycles calculated by Milutin Milankovitch

It may be well documented, but it's still just a well documented T-H-E-O-R-Y

 

[Gris]

Seeing that pole reversals have been going on for over 100 million years and there wasn't a whole lot of human activity going on back then, I think No would be a safe answer.

My logic doen't follow yours. The gist of the article linked by ExPat was that the shift had "mysteriously" increased in dramatic fashion in the last 100 years. Thus, I fail to see how that REBUTTS a human cause. Of course, it doesn't prove anything. But, to my way of looking at things, a dramatic increase in the last 100 years certainly doesn't prove no human cause.

 

[Puck]

It may be well documented, but it's still just a well documented T-H-E-O-R-Y

Pherhpas Bob you do not understand scientific theory. It is not synonymous with myth. Under closer inspection you will find much of what we call fact i s actualy theory. Most drugs do not have in vitro or in vivo experimentation to proove thier mechanism of action. So the way they work is aT-H-E-O-R-Y. However, the theory is strong enough, backed by enough empirical evidence that predictions can be made. Use any PDR as a reference.

A good theory organizes past observations, both experimental and empirical into a model that can be used to predict future events. A thoery needs to be in statements that are falsifiable.

 

[beverly]

I hate repeating myself......

It may be well documented, but it's still just a well documented T-H-E-O-R-Y

It's only a theory with an overwhelming scientific consensus - kinda like evolution. As Stephen Jay Gould said:
Quote:
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

and from Wikipedia:

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

If you are using "theory" in that sense, ok. If you are saying that it's just amounts to conjecture or speculation, well.....

 

[JohnL]

My logic doen't follow yours. The gist of the article linked by ExPat was that the shift had "mysteriously" increased in dramatic fashion in the last 100 years. Thus, I fail to see how that REBUTTS a human cause. Of course, it doesn't prove anything. But, to my way of looking at things, a dramatic increase in the last 100 years certainly doesn't prove no human cause.

I should have added that the recent PBS show Nova included at least one instance where the rate of change was so great at one time in the very distant past (I don’t remember how far back) that the rate of change in the direction of the pole actually shifted 6 degrees in one day. This was measured in the angle of iron particles of ancient lava flows. So rapid (or for that matter slow) rates of change have nothing to do with human interaction. The magnetic changes are a result in the shifting of the magma layers in the earth’s crust. These sort of magnetic reversals were going on long before humans came along.

JohnL

 

[Gris]

The magnetic changes are a result in the shifting of the magma layers in the earth’s crust. These sort of magnetic reversals were going on long before humans came along.

Now that makes sense, unless the shifts were caused by irresponsible Korean underground nuclear testing...

 

[bikehikeskifish]

While this debate has been truly fascinating, one undeniable, free, and currently available source of energy is the energy we do not use. So, read this:

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/globalwarming10.htm

and put some (not all!) of the energy from this debate into making your own little 0.0000000001% of the earth better.

1 ”Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” Do your part to reduce waste by choosing reusable products instead of disposables. Buying products with minimal packaging (including the economy size when that makes sense for you) will help to reduce waste. And whenever you can, recycle: paper, plastic, newspaper, and aluminum cans.

2 Insulate your home.
Add extra insulation to your walls and attic, and install weather stripping or caulk around doors and windows. This step alone can reduce your home heating costs by more than 25 percent.

3 Be thrifty with heating and cooling. Turn down the heat while you’re sleeping at night, and aim for moderation with heating and cooling.

4 Leave the car at home whenever you can. In addition to saving gasoline, walking and biking are great forms of exercise. Explore your community’s mass transit system, and check out options for carpooling to work or school.

5 Buy energy-efficient products. When it’s time to buy a new car, choose one that gives you the best gas mileage. Home appliances now come in a range of energy-efficient models, and compact florescent bulbs are now designed to provide more natural-looking light while using less energy than standard light bulbs.

6 Turn down your appliances. Set your water heater at 120 degrees to save energy and buy low-flow showerheads to save water, and wrap it in an insulating blanket if it’s more than 5 years old. Wash your clothes in warm or cold water. Use the energy-saving settings on your dishwasher and let the dishes air-dry.

7 Don’t leave the water running. Remember to turn off the water when you’re not using it, for example, while brushing your teeth, shampooing the dog, or soaping up your car. You’ll reduce your water bill and help to conserve a natural resource.

8 Get a report card from your utility company. Many utility companies provide home energy audits to help consumers identify areas in their homes that may not be energy efficient. And many utility companies offer rebate programs to help pay for the cost of energy-efficient upgrades.

9 Be an informed consumer. Learn about environmental issues so you can make wise choices for yourself and your family.

10 Encourage others. If there isn’t a recycling program at your work, school, or in your community, ask about starting one.

Tim

 

[forestgnome]

As a PhD climate scientist with 35+ years experience in academics, having carried out research on glacial fluctuations and paleoclimate change on numerous continents and mountain ranges on our planet, having worked many field seasons in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and having published over 50 lengthy peer-reviewed journal articles on glacial and climate fluctuations, I take full responsibility for being the "source" of my statement. But, better is Beverly's fine post above with links to the IPCC source that I identified earlier, which summarizes the consensus of over 1200 climate scientists that humans are mostly reponsible for the global warming of the past century. I also earlier provided a link to the RealClimate.org site, where climate scientists try to summarize recent findings in climate science in layperson's language and answer climate questions posed to them. I know of only three climate skeptics who publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, so 1197/1200 = 99.75% (so I exaggerated a little).

While your credentials are certainly impressive, 'cuz I say so', doesn't cut it. Either there is something tricky about "peer-reviewed" or you haven't availed yourself of dissenting voices, something hard to believe for such a learned scientist. To state that there are three scientists in the entire world that disagree with global warming is impossible to believe. There are more scientists than that who believe the Earth is flat. It must be that "peer-reviewed" or "I know of" is a disclaimer.

Here is an article
describing the dissent from many more than three scientists.

 

[dms]

Here's an article about the dissenter Mr. Jaworoski http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

 

[forestgnome]

Here's an article about the dissenter Mr. Jaworoski http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

One strawman down...

 

[expat]

Some lay research

Doing some quick Googling, I was able to find that the concept of global cooling was indeed presented as a popular theory in the mid-70’s. I also found another credible climate scientist who has doubts about human influence in global climate.

http://www.meteohistory.org/2004polling_preprints/docs/abstracts/reeves&etal_abstract.pdf describes the beginnings of the US Climate Analysis Center of the NOAA. In there, the report provides information about report from a working conference at Brown University titled “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?”. The organizers were geologists George Kukla of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and Robert Matthews of Brown. The result was that they wrote a letter to President Nixon with their views, “…a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.”

Kukla is also cited in the journal Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5724/abs/280668a0.html Saying that increased carbon dioxide would likely lead to cooling, not warming.

Dr. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin said, “"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and exploding population."
- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", 1971”

Here’s an article that describes another climatologist who currently questions human influence on climate: http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/46875.html. See this web page for more information about him: http://fizz.phys.dal.ca/people/PChylek/PChylek.html

Certainly there seems to be room for disagreement among climate professionals, and the possibility that the causes and effects are not completely known.

Since it appears that Mars may also be undergoing a global warming period (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html) there could be other forces at play in our own climate.