Is It All Just Hot Air? (Global Warming)

Albuquerque Journal ^ | 7/23/06 | John Fleck

[woofie]

SANTA FE— Greenland has become global warming's poster child: rising temperatures melt glaciers, threatening a devastating rise in sea levels that could inundate coastal cities around the world.

Greenhouse gases from factories and cars are to blame, according to the conventional story, which features prominently in Al Gore's documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."

And yet there was Los Alamos National Laboratory climate scientist Petr Chylek last week, standing before a gathering of his colleagues to explain that Greenland isn't actually warming.

What gives?

Chylek is a dissenter from the scientific mainstream. While most scientists think greenhouse gases are responsible for changes already seen in Earth's climate, Chylek believes the "data are inconclusive."

"You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change," Chylek said in an interview.

The Greenland story gained traction in February, when a team of U.S. scientists drew headlines around the world with new data suggesting Greenland's glaciers are melting and slipping into the ocean far more rapidly than previously thought.

Chylek shot back last month with evidence from Greenland temperature records showing the North Atlantic island was cooler in the second half of the 20th century than it was in the first.

The exchange is the sort of thing that happens all the time in science: researchers doing their best to make sense of imperfect and sometimes conflicting data.

But this is not just any science. In climate science, the debate over whether we need to change global energy production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions turns ordinary scientific disagreements into political minefields.

[ancient_geezer]

Talking with guys in the field (not politically motivated), I find that there is really hard evidence that indeed we are warming.

 

Again on what time scale!! Random variation about an overall trend does not make for change in earth's climate.

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

Another that may be of interest to you specifically:

 

 

Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller^* and Gordon J. MacDonald

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
by Richard A. Muller

Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning


Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.

***

Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.

 

 

There is evidence from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (ref 39) of a narrow dust band extending only two degrees from the invariable plane. The precise location of these bands is uncertain; they may be orbiting in resonant lock with the Earth (ref 40, 41). It is not clear that these bands contain sufficient material to cause the observed climate effects. We note, however, that even small levels of accretion can scavenge greenhouse gases from the stratosphere, and cool the Earth's climate through the mechanism proposed by Hoyle (ref 30). The dust could also affect climate by seeding the formation of much larger ice crystals. The accreting material could be meteoric, originating as particles too large to give detectable infrared radiation.

Data on noctilucent clouds (mesospheric clouds strongly associated with the effects of high meteors and high altitude dust) supports the hypothesis that accretion increase significantly when the Earth passes through the invariable plane. As shown in Figure 6, a strong peak in the number of observed noctilucent clouds occurs on about July 9 in the northern hemisphere (ref 41, 42) within about a day of the date when the Earth passes through the invariable plane (indicated with an arrow). In the southern hemisphere the peak is approximately on January 9, also consistent with the invariable plane passage, but the data are sparse. The coincidence of the peaks of the clouds with the passage through the invariable plane had not previously been noticed, and it supports the contention that there is a peak in accretion at these times. On about the same date there is a similarly narrow peak is observed in the number of polar mesospheric clouds (ref43) and there is a broad peak in total meteoric flux (ref 44). It is therefore possible that it is the trail of meteors in the upper atmosphere, rather than dust, that is responsible for the climate effects.


Fig 6. Frequency of noctilucent clouds vs. day of year, in (A) the northern hemisphere, and in (B) the sourthern hemisphere (ref 41, 42). The arrows indicate the dates when the earth passes through the invariable plane. The coincidence of these dates with the maxima in the noctilucent clouds suggests the presence of a thin ring around the sun. Peaks on the same dates are seen in Polar mesospheric clouds (ref 44) and in radar counts of meteors.

 

Along with some rather interesting observations by others:

 

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006

High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

There's a good book called "The Little Ice Age" (2001) by a guy named Fagan available from Amazon, if you haven't already read it. The book also describes the Medieval Warm Period when grapes grew in England and English vintners competed with the French.

-

I'll add a data point there:

Somewhere around the sixth century, the entire volcanic caldera known as Krakatao in Indonesia exploded, in an eruption larger by several magnitudes even than its massive eruption in the 1800's, which destroyed lives and villages for 50 miles in every direction.

The earlier eruption obliterated several hundred square miles of land, returning most of what had been been the island from which Krakatau rose - into the Pacific Ocean.

The resulting dust cloud which was driven miles into the atmosphere, radically altered climate around the globe for several years following the explosion, leading to the so-called "dark ages".

The flea which carries the Bubonic Plague, requires a cool, very specific temperature range to carry the Plague. As temperatures around Europe dropped in the years following Krakatau's explosive eruption, the black death reared its ugly claws and tore through the Western world.

Global temperatures rise, and fall. The sun is the primary driver.

Behind the sun, volcanos are far far more signifant as potential climate drivers, than humans throughout our entire history.

IMHO.

[RadioAstronomer]

And your point is?

[Paloma_55]

Data provided by N.O.A.A.

Based upon core samples from Antarctica, we see that it is more likely that global temperature change is periodic and due to an effect like Orbital Variance than human activity. The data, provided by N.O.A.A. shows that CO2 is rising rapidly, however, it also shows that CO2 is a lagging function of global temperature.

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the intormation. It sure beats take-my-word-for-it "science."

[marron]

Greenland was once warm enough for agriculture.

And then it wasn't.

Now its warming up again.

Interesting, but not a cause for action.

[Tzimisce]

Yep.

[ancient_geezer]

And your point is?

Random variation about an overall trend does not make for change in earth's climate.

On the timescales that are associated with global climate any current variations purporting to show global climate warming are little more than a blip in the larger view dependent on factors far outside the range of humanity's capacity to affect.

[MadLibDisease]

"And every day that conservatives spend claiming that global warming isn't happening"

Ummm, I don't see conservatives denying global warming is happening, they disagree on the cause. Get a grip

[gondramB]

>>Ummm, I don't see conservatives denying global warming is happening, they disagree on the cause. Get a grip<<

Hmmm... You must not read a lot of the Freep threads or see the debate on Fox. There are all kinds of people who call themselves conservatives who claim global warming isn't real.

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the chart. It shows a good, not perfect, overlay of the solar cycle and Northern Hemispheric land temperature over three centuries. Someone has the numbers to calculate the correlation. Looking at the graph, we know the computed correlation will be high. If the underlying data is at least tolerably good, then this is significant. I know earth temperature does not cause solar cycles. So causation would be from solar activity to earth temperature. It would be nice if we could extend the chart back through time.

I think this chart is persuasive. What, if anything, is wrong with it?

[marron]

I wouldn't say its "not real", I would say its cyclical and not particularly important.

[gondramB]

>.I wouldn't say its "not real", I would say its cyclical and not particularly important.<<

It could cyclical and still important - if it effects our ability to live as we do now. The worst possible situation is that we are breaking out of a 10,000 temperature boundary quickly and on the high side and we are not doing anything to cause it. That might mean we can stop it either.

[gondramB]

>>
I think this chart is persuasive. What, if anything, is wrong with it?<<

For one thing, the norther hemisphere land temperature covers less than a quarter of the globe and isn't the key measure.

For another, correlation doesn't prove causation. And for a third it doesn't look at other factors.

[patton]

Gag. "Hey, my climate model could not be validated against any historical event [that is, given correct inputs, it never produced correct outputs], so we will just bas our [my] pre-conceived notions...er, scientific conclusions, on a BOGSAT [bunch of guys sittin' around a table] of my cronies...er, peers, who all came to the same conclusion...soylent green is PEOPLE...er, I mean, global warming is caused by people..."

I could puke.

[Steamburg]

First, why do we accept this warming premise? What measure are we using? What measurement time frame are we using? Exactly how are we measuring human activity as the culprit?

I personally believe that its human flatulence that is causing the warming and that we need to reduce the human population by 60% to solve the problem. Based on this we should look at the over populated nations to reduce their populations and exempt the better developed nations. This has just as much science behind it as the rest of this "stuff".

[ChessExpert]

For one thing, the norther hemisphere land temperature covers less than a quarter of the globe and isn't the key measure.

Do we have a better measure of temperature change? How do other measures of temperature relate to the solar cycle?

correlation doesn't prove causation

True, but it is a strong hint. That solar activity would cause warming on earth at least makes sense.

it doesn't look at other factors

I will agree with you here, mostly because you presented other information in post 25.

One nice thing about the N.O.A.A. data is its long time span. And the chart in post 25 is definitely cyclical. So what are the causes of the cycles? For all I know, it might be caused by changing orbits, as indicated in your link to orbital variance. But I can’t rule out solar activity or other causes either. The chart definitely busts the “man made” aspect of the theory of global warming.

[itsahoot]

Who do they consider scientests anywy?

The ones that agree with their preconcieved theories.

Not unike the EVO priests that dominate the CREVO threads on this forum.

According to them Science is only the facts.

In the end it is always politics that determine the facts, until the facts are so overwhelming they can not be ignored, or the dissenters are destroyed, then the facts are facts whether or not they are true facts.