Climate Change in the Northeast

[DougPaul]

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.

A couple of cautions about such net esearch:

Comparing past opinions with current opinions can be like comparing apples and oranges. Climate modeling requres massive amounts of computing power, is often done on the fastest and largest machines in the world, and is still often limited by available machines. In the recent past there have been significant improvments in machines, the science behind the climate models, and the data available to the modelers. Thus as time goes on, the quality of the modeling has improved significantly.

In my own field, the vast majority of the highest quality info is in the refereed journals and conference papers, little of which appears on the web. (These journals and papers are intellectual and commercial property.)

My understanding is that the current overwhelming opinion among the experts in the field is that significant human-caused global warming is in progress and that the effects of said warming will likely be very damaging to a significant fraction of the human population.

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

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.

Kukla and Matthews are imminent scientists (now retired, I think), but they were wrong in the 1970s about increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing cooling, other than in locally anomalous settings, whereas their CLIMAP colleagues at Lamont (George Kukla has(d?) a joint appointment there) and Brown Univ. (where Matthews spent his career) got it right. CLIMAP was the multi-institutional NSF-funded project that confirmed Milankovitch cycles using deep-sea sediment core data and the like. CLIMAP in the 1970s was roughly equivalent to many of the paleoclimate research projects today, whose scientists have contributed to the voluminous IPCC reports since 1995 (see Beverly's reply above). Reid Bryson, Univ. Wisconsin, was also a contributor to CLIMAP, although skeptical of many of the CLIMAP interpretations, which turned out to be true.

It appears that Petr Chylek left Dalhousie for Las Alamos a few years ago, although he has continued to be a leading global warming skeptic. But, I think that Chick Keller has it pretty much correct, as quoted at the end of the blurb at the Los Alamos link noted above.

" Chick Keller, a retired Los Alamos lab climate modeler, said the scientists invited to the conference are honest scientists raising serious questions.
But, he said, while the questions are legitimate, they are not sufficient to undermine the vast evidence for greenhouse gas-caused global warming.
"The trouble with the Chyleks and the Pielkes and to some extent Christy is they're nitpickers," Keller said in an interview. "You can always find something wrong." "

 

[prino]

A lot of good posts thankyou...
I'm too tired to write much, but found these Gaia books quite enlightening. Well worth a read.

 

[forestgnome]

Dr. Stephen Shneider of Stanford University and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, and Dr.Reid Bryson, Director of Environmental Studies at University of Wisconsin, were leading voices of the scientific community warning about global cooling. The theory actually blamed dust and particles, not CO2, for blocking sunlight and freezing the planet. The dust effect was adding to natural astronomical forces. Greenhouse effect from CO2 was supposed to help, but could not overcome the problem.

Important quote from Dr. Shneider..."We need to get broadbased support to capture the public's imagination, which entails getting loads of media attention. We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have". Sound familiar?

Scientists get their income from the government, directly or indirectly through research corps. Billions of dollars are on the line every year. The idea that "big oil" pays hush money is dubious black-helicopter stuff, and it is contrary to the assertion that 99.75% of scientists are on board. Surely "big oil" has more money than that! On the other hand, the billions of tax dollars that become paychecks for scientists to live comfortably and travel the world to make observations is a matter of public record. If the public was not hypnotized by the doomsday science, the $$$ would not flow.

Global warming may be completely wrong, partially corrrect, or 100% correct. The scientific observations are one thing, but to forecast what will happen in the future is educated speculation, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

 

[DougPaul]

Dr. Stephen Shneider of Stanford University and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Colorado, and Dr.Reid Bryson, Director of Environmental Studies at University of Wisconsin, were leading voices of the scientific community warning about global cooling. The theory actually blamed dust and particles, not CO2, for blocking sunlight and freezing the planet. The dust effect was adding to natural astronomical forces. Greenhouse effect from CO2 was supposed to help, but could not overcome the problem.

Global temps are the result of many competing factors. One must look at the entire situation to reach an accurate conclusion--looking at only one factor or a part of the situation can easily lead to an inaccurate conclusion.

Scientists get their income from the government, directly or indirectly through research corps. Billions of dollars are on the line every year. The idea that "big oil" pays hush money is dubious black-helicopter stuff, and it is contrary to the assertion that 99.75% of scientists are on board. Surely "big oil" has more money than that! On the other hand, the billions of tax dollars that become paychecks for scientists to live comfortably and travel the world to make observations is a matter of public record. If the public was not hypnotized by the doomsday science, the $$$ would not flow.

Government funding is hardly unbiased. The government funds what it thinks is interesting, useful, or supports some agenda. And there have been a number of recent reports of scientists being muzzled if their reports do not follow the political party line, including on the topic of global warming.

The oil industry's approach has been a FUD campaign to prevent action on this issue. (FUD = fear, uncertainty, and doubt.) Clearly, they have been very successful...


You have questioned Dr D's credentials, do you have any? Dr. D. has established that he is an expert in the field. Are you? You have requested that he quote references, do you have any legetimate references for your contentions? I, for one, place much more weight on the opinions of an expert in the field that one who is not.

Global warming may be completely wrong, partially corrrect, or 100% correct. The scientific observations are one thing, but to forecast what will happen in the future is educated speculation, which is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

When the scientific community is in general agreement, they are usually right. Ignoring this issue is a bit like playing Russian roulette with 9 out of 10 chambers loaded...

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

There was a review of the status of global warming in the Apr 3, 2006 issue of Time magazine. A worthwhile read, IMO. http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101060403,00.html

Doug

 

[Gris]

political comments deleted by moderator

 

[forestgnome]

You have questioned Dr D's credentials, do you have any? Dr. D. has established that he is an expert in the field. Are you? You have requested that he quote references, do you have any legetimate references for your contentions? I, for one, place much more weight on the opinions of an expert in the field that one who is not. doug

Huh? Please reread. I said his credentials were quite impressive. The credentials of the champions of global cooling theory of the '70's are superior, yet they were wrong. Yawn... This is getting tedious and boring.

Global warming has become a religion.

Over and out

 

[SherpaKroto]

Probably time to lock this thread. Much good information has been brought to the surface. Best to keep it from becoming another personal beliefs attack forum.

I wonder what the impact to global warming would be if everyone simultaneously got into a heated debate?

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator Warning!
Many people have asked that this thread be kept open because they are learning from it, and I agree. But keep personal comments, attacks, and politics out of it. If you are a concerned about whether a post is appropriate or not, it probably isn't. Set it aside and come back later when you've had a chance to think it over.

Of course, I want to keep this thread open as long as it is adding light and not heat. If you have more information that adds to the discussion, please contribute it.

If you have questions about moderation, complaints about other users, or comments on the reputation system, do not post them. Instead, send to the moderators via PM or email. We can't please everyone, but we try our best.

-dave-

 

[jjmcgo]

Chemistry/Math question

Thanks for keeping the thread open, Dave. You're right, a lot of information has been imparted.
To scientists TeeJay, Dr. Dasypodidae and DougPaul, I want to question whether a burned gallon of gas (stated at 6.1 pounds) converts to 25 pounds of CO2.
By my math, two atoms of oxygen join one atom of carbon. So, 12 pounds of oxygen combines with 6 pounds of carbon to make 18 pounds?
No, because oxygen (atomic weight almost 16) is 25 percent (or is it 33 percent?) heavier than carbon (atomic weight of 12), so that would be three (or four) more pounds of oxygen, giving a total weight of 21 (or 22) pounds.
However, that assumes all 6.1 pounds of gasoline is carbon, but there are percentages of hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen in the mix. Also, it assumes all the burned carbon combines with oxygen but some of the carbon would be produced as soot.
So, I think the total carbon dioxide produced by burning a gallon of gas would be less than 21 (or 22) pounds, not 25 pounds as stated.
You guys know better. Confirm or explain, please. Thanks.

 

[BrentD22]

Cooling Sun

I watched something on TV maybe National Geo Channel. It talked about how less of the suns raise are getting to earth because the polution in the air is relecting it away. Now science has a huge problem. Some say it's natural changes in the earths climate some say green house gases. If we attempt to decrease the amount of polution that is released we could be clearing out the sky enough to allow the more of the sun in and then heating up the planet even more. If it is green house gas can we safely clean-up the polution in the air with out spiking the temps of earth? We need to figure this crap out for sure!

 

[expat]

My final post on this.

1) Significant changes in the climate have occurred, sometimes very rapidly, during the past millions of years as a result of natural influences.
2) Current climate changes are only "bad" from a human standpoint (including determination of what's "bad" for the planet and other species), and humans tend to feel they are responsible for "managing" the earth.
3) Scientists have been mistaken in the past about how processes occurred. In the 1970's peer-reviewed climate scientists predicted that pollution would cause global cooling. Even the Milankovitch theory about climate cycles only predicts the past. We won't know for 100,000 years whether it can successfully predict the future.
4) Local pollution does cause problems related to public health, safe waste disposal, and wildlife impacts.
5) Although vast, the earth's natural resources are not infinite. Market forces will cause changes that will move the energy economy away from scarcity to cheaper, abundant resources without drastic governmental influence.
6) We can each help keep our part of the earth clean by reducing our consumption, reusing and recycling resources, and by using the funds at our discretion to guide markets in the way that we desire them to go.

 

[Gris]

Market forces will cause changes that will move the energy economy away from scarcity to cheaper, abundant resources without drastic governmental influence.

ROTFL - Just like market forces protected smokers from the tobacco industry? Just like market forces have protected the Buffalo or fish in the sea? Get real! Market forces = profit = exploit the resource as fast as you can while you can, then move on to something else. BTW, what is this cheap, abundant resource? I'd like to buy stock in it. It doesn't exist amigo.

 

[beverly]

There's no escape!

Alps Are warmest in 1,300 Years

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: December 5, 2006

Filed at 10:36 a.m. ET

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Europe's Alpine region is going through its warmest period in 1,300 years, the head of an extensive climate study said Tuesday.

''We are currently experiencing the warmest period in the Alpine region in 1,300 years,'' Reinhard Boehm, a climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics said.

Boehm based his comments on the results of a project conducted by a group of European institutes between March 2003 and August 2006. Their aim was to reconstruct the climate in the region encompassing the Rhone Valley in France to the west, Budapest, Hungary to the east, Tuscany, Italy to the south and Nuremberg, Germany to the north over the past 1,000 years.

Boehm said the current warm period in the Alpine region began in the 1980s, noting that a similar warming occurred in the 10th and 12th centuries. However, the temperatures during those phases were ''slightly under the temperatures we've experienced over the past 20 years.''

The bad news? No skiing so far and World Cup races cancelled. The good news? They are trying to attract tourists with alternative programs, such as hiking.

Alp-Imp Study

 

[Whiteman]

Wheat is on the move . . .

According to a piece at www.nytimes.com, in the next forty years (it is predicted) wheat production will move north to Canada, Alaska and Siberia, because it will be too warm to grow wheat down here. Interesting article with a pretty map too.

Since I will not quite be 100 years old yet, this does cause me some concern. I'm glad I got out of wheat a few years back.

 

[Neil]

I just read in my local Montreal newspaper that beef cattle produce more greenhouse gasses per animal than my car! The article cites the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and in addition to greenhouse gas lists land use issues, freshwater consumption to irrigate arable land used to grow livestock feed, water pollution due to pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotic usage and on and on. A rather distressing article.

That got me to thinking about how individual people can collectively make a difference. Supposing every member of this website and their families quit eating meat (or only ate meat once or twice a week) starting on Jan. 1, 2007. At an average of 250 lbs of meat per person per year multiplied roughly by 5000 people equates to 1 250 000 pounds of meat. Now that's gotta have an impact.

Who's game?

 

[Pete_Hickey]

That got me to thinking about how individual people can collectively make a difference. Supposing every member of this website and their families quit eating meat....

Beef. Chicken don't fart as much. Fish fart even less (Are fish meat?)

Who's game?

I suspect there are many who are already there.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Neil -

I believe the meat issue refers mainly to red meat, not meat in general. If you compare the resources needed to support the beef industry versus poultry the differences are huge.

Kevin

 

[Puck]

Beef. Chicken don't fart as much. Fish fart even less (Are fish meat?)

Yes and what is a good protien source beside meat?.....beans.

And ya need salt pork for a good batch of beans