rambot
Senior Member
- Apr 13, 2006
- 24,731
- 13,291
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Greens
I think you mean Milankovitch cycles. And no one should ever question such an appeal to authority. Oh, wait....
Quote
"One of the fundamental tenets of palaeoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch theory, is called into doubt by isotope analysis of a calcite vein, just reported in Science by Winograd and colleagues. The theory, which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages determined, with unprecedented accuracy, in the new record cannot be reconciled with the planetary cyclicity. . .
Winograd and colleagues' evidence also turns on oxygen isotope data, this time from vein calcite coating the hanging wall of an extensional fault at Devils Hole, an aquifer in southern Nevada. In 1988, the authors published a date, 145,000 years, based on 234U-230Th dating for the end of the penultimate ice age (Termination II), marked by an increase in the 18O to 16O ratio, a change taken to mirror an increase in local precipitation. Although the date was only 17,000 year earlier than the previously accepted date of 128,000 years, if correct, this change is enough to bring Milankovitch mechanism into serious doubt. . .
I remain confused. The geochemist in me says that Devils Hole chronology is the best we have. And the palaeoclimatologist in me says that correlation between accepted marine chronology and Milankovitch cycles is just too convincing to be put aside. . .
One side will have to give, and maybe - just to be safe - climate modellers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch."
Source Upset for Milankovitch theory
Also, if we are a few thousand years late into our next ice age, I can see where that would be a problem. How can the ignorant masses who dare to question science while still buying gas and fiddeling while Rome burns be responsible for that?
As I haven't read either of the articles, I'm not 100% certain this is, in fact, related, but here is a 5year old article from Nature:
Links between annual, Milankovitch and continuum temperature variability : Abstract : Nature
Panzerkampfwagen
Nope. If you want to read how Hansen explains things:You mean like James Hansen?
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2007/09/27/201916/james-hansen-ice-age-myth/
It's pretty simple really. Some other scientists did a paper on the effect of aerosols in the atmosphere (back when CFCs were a big worry). The study said that with a 4x increase in aerosols and all other things being equal, the earth would cool. Note: He was NOT involved in the publication of this work in any capacity.
He developed a modelling program that was used by the two scientists who ACTUALLY did the paper. It wasn't developed SPECIFICALLY for this research.
That is a VERY brief summary. Read the article for more detail.
But I am sure you now understand the facts of the matter and would not make the misguided implication (or statement) that Hansen was involved in the global cooling hooha again. I'm glad that's been put to bed.
Note: He didn't write his first climate based research paper until 5(!!) years after the WP reporter accused him of being pro-cool
Last edited:
Upvote
0