New Theory could disprove Global Warming?

Great Debates
1

For veracity, please see the BBC’s http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2163646.stm

An Israeli astrophysicist has developed a peer-reviewed and published theory stating that "Ice ages may be caused by our Solar System’s passage through our galaxy’s spiral arms during our orbit around the centre of the galaxy. "

Now the immediate implications that I saw this having would be as evidence against global warming theory. If the movement of our planet is directly connected to its long-term temperature, surely this could explain a lot?

2

Corrected Link

My first thought was: why would our solar system move through the spiral arms? Isn’t it part of a spiral arm? The article says that the spiral arms are not fixed features, but rather are density waves. Is this an accepted theory, or is it part of what the physicist is positing?

Second, how do astrophysicists have a complete enough picture of our own galaxy to name one of the spiral arms? According to the article, we’re just leaving the Sagittarius-Carina arm.

3

Where, exactly, in the article, are implications for global warning discussed?

That the earth’s temperature can change for different factors is a no-brainer even without this study. To say, however, that GW could be so easily “disproved” or even damaged is ludicrous.

You would either need to show how buildup of heat-retaining gasses in the atmosphere wouldn’t actually heat the atmosphere (physically impossible alarm bell going off)

or

you could argue that the amount of such gasses has a negligible effect (done, but the results of tests only confirm what we already knew–that global warming is occuring and DOES have effects).

GW denial is akin to HIV-causes-AIDS denial, evolution-denial and holocaust denial. In each case, based on pseudoscience and sources with a definite agenda.

Make sure to read both sides of the issue, like Greenpeace and the oil companies, then check up on their scientific sources to see which one more often misrepresents the findings of studies and other things to further their agenda.

4

Winace: I assure you that there are plenty of agenda’s that would be aided if GW theory was even-more widely accepted. In any case, see this http://www.oism.org/pproject/

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.
Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled “Petition Project” and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

5

Amateur astronomer hat: ON

The “density wave” spiral arm theory was the theory I learned in one of my undergraduate astronomy classes. It appears to be the accepted theory as to the nature of the spiral arms. (Unless you count crackpots like Wilhelm Reich, who claim that the spiral arms are the physical manifestations of two superimposing orgone energy streams. :wink: )

Note that although the spiral arms are indeed regions of higher density than the space between the spiral arms, the difference in density isn’t very great. The number of kilograms of visible matter per cubic parsec in the spiral arms is only about 15% higher than in the spaces in between the arms.

Note also that there are just as many stars in the spiral arms as there are in the spaces between the spiral arms. However, more of the stars in the spiral arms are very bright stars (spectral class B or class O) than in the inter-arm gaps.

6

The spiral-arm ice-age theory isn’t applicable to the issue of global warming, for the simple reason that the time scales are way too small.

If you want to claim that galactic motion is responsible for ice ages, fine. But to leap from that to claim that it is responsible for measured temperature changes over a few decades seems quite a stretch.

But you don’t need to invoke galactic theory, because there IS no theory of global warming right now that needs debunking. All there is is a series of hypotheses, and some computer models that don’t work. As we gather more data and our understanding of the atmosphere grows, these models will get more accurate. But as of today, they cannot accurately predict anything.

There are new theories about planetary atmospheric dynamics arising daily. Sunspot cycles may be important. The sun itself is cyclical in energy output. There was a theory that came out just a few months ago that helped explain why the upper atmosphere is not heating the way global warming theory suggests.

We still don’t have a good understanding of how ocean currents work to change temperature patterns around the globe. We still don’t know why the jetstream moves around. We understand so little that scientists aren’t even sure if the amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic should be increasing or decreasing if the Earth heats up, and that unknown puts errors around our temperature predictions almost as great as the predicted warming over the next 100 years.

We need a lot more research. There is no solid, predictable model of the atmosphere to debunk. Just a lot of correlation and supposition.

7

The petition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine which circulated it have an interesting and somewhat deceptive history.
http://www.prwatch.org/improp/oism.html

8

Ah, I see. The phallacy here is in assuming that “ice age” = “global warming.”

It doesn’t.

9

Thanks, WinAce and Squink for injecting some reality into the relationship to the larger issue of the global warming science. Indeed the Oregon Petition is an embarrassment. When you post on the internet and otherwise widely disseminate a tract filled with half-truths on a subject which many scientists are unfamiliar with the state of peer-reviewed science on (or at least were when most of this occurred, circa 1998), I guess it is perhaps not surprising that you can get some thousands of people with vaguely-defined scientific credentials to sign on.

Here, by the way, from the link that Squink gave, is the summary of how the National Academy of Sciences responded to the deceptive Oregon petition drive:

The state of the peer-reviewed science of global warming has been summarized in the reports of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) and an NAS (National Academy of Sciences) report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ and http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument for those who want to learn about the actual state of scientific knowledge on global warming rather than having it fed to them by groups like the wacky Oregon Institute or the coal industry. [To say “fossil fuels” industry is now to paint with too broad a brush since many of the oil companies, BP being one notable example (and ExxonMobil being the last remaining major counterexample), accept the basic science of global warming…For all I know, at this point saying "coal industry might even be painting things too broadly.]

Here is a thread from several months ago where we talked about global warming, the Oregon Petition, etc. in gory detail: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=104877

10

I have to admit that that petition is a hoot.

The very first name on the list is: Earl Aagaard, PhD.
For those who aren’t familiar with him, he’s a fan of intelligent design.

Number two on the list: Roger L Aamodt, PhD
He’s with the National Cancer Institute, who we know is deeply involved in GW research.

Third: M Robert Aaron
He’s a telecommunications expert.

Fourth: Ralph F Abate
Structural engineer

Fifth: Hamed Abbas
He’s a weed control expert

No one seems to have heard of the next three, then we move on to number nine: David M Abbott Jr
Petroleum geologist. Color me surprised which side he comes down on.

I was actually expecting to find a relevant name on the list at some point, but I quickly realized that the list was BS, and stopped looking.

11

Indeed? :confused:

What is the Next Logical Conclusion that one can go to if one believes this? That someone who does not believe in Global Warming as currently presented is a Nazi? A homophobe? A Biblical literalist?

This is “injecting some reality into the relationship to the larger issue of the global warming science.”? Wow. I guess I’m too disreputable to know the difference. :rolleyes:

One serious problem is that the lay person cannot possibly make any sort of judgement on the following:

  1. Whether the science on either side is sound from a fundamental basis.

  2. Whether the specific science pertinent to the issue is valid or credible.

  3. Whether the sides pushing either issue are “reputable and unbiased” or not. As we can see here on the SDMB every day, even a PhD in a pertinent field does not mean that the person making an assertion does not have a political cause and agenda of their own, to the point of skewing facts, witholding data, and using every propagandists trick in the book.

I think my thought process on GW is much more representative of most real scientists who study the issue. I believe neither side until I can understand the basics and the specifics, and find that the research done is sound, and that the researchers doing it are fair and unbiased. This last bit is the hardest one, but doable. It is not easy to do for the average person who sits and wonders how all those little people get in their TV set every night.

I’ve posted my views before on this. I do not think GW as touted in the Popular Press is proven. I do think there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that it needs to be taken very seriously and that, based on the evidence available, we should go ahead and enact measures to slow and reverse GG production, while putting much, much more effort into determining the true measure and scope of the problem.

So…I don’t think it’s proven - that is, I “deny” that it is proven, but I think the evidence is enough that efforts should be made to curtail emissions and dramatically increase energy conservation, while continuing to research. Does this make me the Nazi, the homophobe, or the Biblical Literalist now?

I’ve been accused of having been a “tool” of the industry because I work with coal and coal power plants almost exclusively. I’ve been accused of being “anti-conservation” and “pro-planet raping” based on nothing more than my freaking name. But I’ve also posted that somewhere between 50-80% of my work is in reducing power plant emissions through any and all means, and, for those idiot-savants out there, this includes CO2. If stringent CO2 emissions were passed, or Kyoto was ratified and legislated into reality in the US, I would have money in the form of consulting work flowing to my doorstep like fucking trained pigs. I would take up the un-ladylike art of cigar smoking just so I could have the arch-conservative pleasure of lighting a cigar every afternoon with the proverbial $100 bill. I would buy not one but two Dodge Vipers just to piss off Scylla. I would start tearing Armani dresses up to use as dustrags.

So, you could say I’m actually biased in favor of GW being proven to be 100% true as presented.

That is, if one was going to be fully honest and present a balanced viewpoint.

12

It is interesting how the pattern of data on cosmic rays matches the broad pattern of earth climate change (not global warming).

My bet is that many of the meteorites are quite old and that there is a low frequency of samples for the given amount of time. Afterall, meteorites are pretty rare. The articles is certainly only stating that climate is changed or influenced by the flux of cosmic rays on a geologic time scale. By this we are talking in the millions and billions of years. Of course I could be wrong about this, since I have not read the “real” article.

When scientists talk about global clmate change (not global warming), often they are speaking about the last million and a half years. And more often than not, for about the last 200,000 yr or so. For this period of time, there is a good record of climate change.

These records come from layers of ice from the Greenland Icecap and Antarctica, from stacks of ocean sediment, from lake records and loess deposits etc. Scientists analyze the changing ratios of stable isotopes and trapped gasses. They look at different types of organisms and plant remains. This gives a more or less continuous picture of how global ice volume and climate has changed.

The reigning theory of climate change for the last million or so years is based on the earth’s orbit (eccentricity), tilt (obliquity) and axis of rotation (precession) all of which change through time. It is called the astronomical theory of climate change. When curves for these different aspects of the earth’s orbital features are integrated, we have a pattern that matches the changes found in the geologic record.

I wonder why the article did not talk about this, especially if the author is predicting that we will not see another ice age, the opposite prediction of the astronomical theory of climate change.

13

Anthracite,

I don’t think I would strongly disagree with your assessment of where the science is. (We might quibble slightly over exact wording…but not over the essentials.) At the same time, I don’t think the analogy to, say, evolution vs. creation is a bad one. Yes, the analogy is not perfect…it is true that climate change is a younger science and less is understood than in evolution. However, the methods of those who try to distort where the science currently is and what is understood and what remains to be understood better (which I will re-emphasize I absolutely do not count you among) shares remarkable similarity with those who deny evolution.

As I noted, the best sources of information for where the science is at the current time are those that review the entire body of refereed literature with no particular axe to grind.

14

The Government doesn’t want me to speak out on this… and all the supporting documentation has been cleansed and burned. Witnesses have been killed or disappeared. The truth is… brace yourself…Aliens…

They are out there. They are slowly cooking our planet to make humans easier to crack open like boiled lobster. It’s only a matter of time. The talking heads all know this, but they deny it because they are cut in on the deal. I know it’s hard to believe and even harder to accept.

Please, there are underground action groups already formed in your neighborhoods to combat this horrible…

15

THE ABOVE POST IS COMPLETELY BOGUS. I MADE IT UP DURING A DRUG INDUCED EPISODE. THERE ARE NO ALIENS. YOU ARE NOT BEING COOKED. THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING. IT IS ALL LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA.

This post was brought to you by the Federal Government.

16

OK, I can agree with that.

Let me ask you an honest question, not an argumentative or rhetorical one - what, in your opinion, is the chance/ability of the hoi polloi to properly understand complex issues such as this? It greatly concerns me on many issues, of course, but this one is one where the stakes are quite high. And when so much of the population is still watching their VCR flash “12:00” at them, what chance do they have of understanding what science to believe?

The reason that I think this is on-topic is that even if scientists agree 99% that GW is real, it’s here, and it’s going to get worse - how does one convince the rest of the World of that? Because, this issue, more than many others, is one which will succeed only if the People want it to. What I’m saying is - GW is often seen as one of the more “Governmental” issues, but I think it actually is one of the more “Populist” issues of our time.

And if that is the case, it therefore comes down to, in part, who has the best PR engine, doesn’t it?

Or, and now this is a speculative question here, are we rapidly approaching a point where it simply is impossible for non-scientists to be able to make decisions based on Science? :confused:

17

I was merely pointing out the disturbing similarities between ALL stripes of pseudoscience. Selective presentation of data, political rhetoric, etc.

Argument from authority in particular is used to impress the layman–“look, we have a list of Ph.D’s who aren’t really familiar with the most up-to-date research and the field in general but agree anyway!”.

BTW, I’ve read some of the research and both sides of the argument–back when I thought global warming was an exaggeration.

Once you familiarize yourself with the evidence (and see a couple of claims by GW-deniers soundly and PAINFULLY refuted as easily as those made by HIV-deniers), well… :o

The important thing for an informed public is to present the issue in more than a sound bite. Otherwise, it does, unfortunately, break down into who has the better PR and debating skills.

18

To get back to one of the earlier hijacks… the Milky Way arms are surprisingly well mapped out. For more on that you can read here. The rotation associated with spiral galaxies are not indicated necessarily by the arms which are mostly leading the rotation (unlike swirling water in a basin).

My $0.02 on global warning are as follows: there is a a current trend measured on recent time scales of significant warming. Whether this is a statistical abberation (global temperature is a very noisy phenomenon) is almost impossible to say at this point. There is, however, more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere today than there has been in millenia. As to whether this actually is contributing to the warming trend we are seeing or not is uncertain. We know infrared light is scattered better by greenhouse gases better than visible light, but the models are still pretty vague as to whether the theory and the observations are in line. There are a lot of things about climate and climate-change as well as temporary variability that we just don’t understand.

19

Eee gads, Anthracite. You save the easy questions for me, eh? :wink: I think that is a really good question that a lot of people seem to be trying to grapple with. Actually, the even harder question is when, as now, there are certain aspects that are known with a fair degree of certainty and other aspects that are known with considerably less certainty (e.g., the magnitude of the effects, particularly for different geographical locations, …), how does one communicate this complex message to the public and to policymakers.

I think it is a very difficult question. It seems that the whole IPCC process and the corresponding political process through UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has focussed more on dealing with getting a consensus of where the science is, communicating that to policymakers, and having them decide what should be done. It seems that educationg the public at large has been left more to the responsibility of the individual nation’s leadership (although IPCC and UNFCCC clearly has things at their web site geared to the public as well). Even this part is quite an undertaking and there has been much discussion (I’ve seen some in Science and Nature, for example) about how best to communicate the message.

So, given that, is it hopeless that the public will understand, particularly in the face of well-orchestrated PR campaigns? Well, I think the evidence on that is mixed…but there is some reason for optimism. On the one hand, as the Oregon petition shows, even many people with some sort of scientific credentials are not very well-versed in the science of climate change. And, to be fair, I find that it is a hell of a lot of work for me to try to become and keep myself somewhat well-versed. On the other hand, I think the weight of various reports by IPCC, NAS, and others does make an impact and that the public does begin to get an inkling of where the science really is even if there is somewhat of a delay time…I.e., people think that there are things that are still under debate several years after that is not really the case. (And, to be fair, in some cases, people may think that some things are more settled than they are.) I think PR can be an effective delaying tactic, but it is hard to keep “the truth” under wraps indefinitely.

It is interesting that you see this as a “populist” issue because it seems that the world community has handled it somewhat the other way. I.e., while the IPCC and UNFCCC process are open, it is hard for the masses to keep up with exactly what is going on. On the other hand, because the current U.S. administration has opted out of the process, in the U.S., response to the issue is beginning to blossom at a more populist level…Well, actually at a lot of different levels (e.g, grassroots, state and local governments, businesses, …) In this regard, see this special section in Grist Magazine: http://www.gristmagazine.com/maindish/powershift073102.asp

Anyway, those are my random thoughts.

20

All right, then, since you obviously believe we have “all” the relevant data, lemme ask you: What percentage of the CO[sub]2[/sub] dumped into the atmosphere each year is the product of human activity (fossil fuel usage, slash-and-burn deforestation, etc.)? I’ve never seen so much as a ballpark estimate on that figure that was based on real measurables – from eco-alarmists, from GW-deniers, or from anybody in between.