backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Mar 30 at 5:59 PM


  (Source: img.wendmag.com)
Study blames human activity for climate change

NASA and international university researchers claim that humans have thrown off the balance between the Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and movements in its molten core through our contribution of greenhouse gases.

Those included in the study were Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with Olivier de Viron, from the Universite Paris Diderot and Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris in France.

It is well known that an Earth day consists of 24 hours, which is the time it takes for the Earth to make one full rotation. Over a year's time, seasonal changes occur due to energy exchanges between fluid motions of the Earth's atmosphere, the oceans and solid Earth itself, which changes the length of a day by about 1 millisecond. In addition, the length of a day on Earth can vary over longer timescales such as interannual timescales (two to 10 years) or decadal timescales (10 years).

But Earth’s oceans or motions of its atmosphere cannot explain the variances in the length of day over longer timescales. Instead, longer fluctuations are explained by the flow of liquid iron within Earth's outer core, which interacts with the mantle to determine Earth's rotation. This is also where the Earth's magnetic field originates, and because researchers cannot observe the flows of liquid iron directly, the magnetic field is observed at the surface.  

Studies have shown that this liquid iron "oscillates in waves of motion that last for decades," and have timescales that resemble long fluctuations in Earth's day length. At the same time, other studies have shown that long variations in Earth's day length are closely related to fluctuations in Earth's average surface air temperature. 

In this study, the NASA/university team of researchers has linked Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and the movement in its molten core. They did this by mapping existing data on yearly length-of-day observations and fluid movements within Earth's core against "two time series of annual global average surface temperature." One dated back to 1880 from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, and the other dated back to 1860 from the United Kingdom's Met Office.  

According to the study, temperature changes not only occur naturally, but are also affected by human activities. So researchers used computer climate models of Earth's oceans and atmosphere to generate changes made by humans. Then, these temperature changes caused by human activities were removed from the overall total observed temperature records. What they found was that old temperature data coordinated with data on Earth's day length and movements of its core until 1930, but after that, surface air temperatures increased without corresponding changes in movements of the core or day length. According to the study, this deviation after 1930 is linked to increased levels of the human contribution of greenhouse gases.  

But the new temperature data that the researchers generated (which subtracted human activity from the equation) had a temperature record that coordinated with Earth's core movements and day length, showing how human activity has thrown the Earth's climate off balance. 

"The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," said Dickey. 

Dickey is unsure as to why these three variables correlate, but hypothesized that Earth's core movements might interfere with the magnetic fielding of charged particle fluxes, which may affect cloud formation. This affects how much sunlight the Earth absorbs and how much is reflected back into space. 

"Our research demonstrates that, for the past 160 years, decadal and longer-period changes in atmospheric temperature correspond to changes in Earth's length of day if we remove the very significant effect of atmospheric warming attributed to the buildup of greenhouse gases due to mankind's enterprise," said Dickey. "Our study implies that human influences on climate during the past 80 years mask the natural balance that exists among Earth's rotation, the core's angular momentum and the temperature at Earth's surface." 

This study was published in the Journal of Climate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Here we go again.
By drycrust3 on 3/14/2011 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One dated back to 1880 from NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York, and the other dated back to 1860 from the United Kingdom's Met Office.

The "Climategate" emails from the Climate Research Unit at the East Anglia University show they were changing the temperatures to suit themselves. Now people are trying to use that data for scientific research, and we don't know if the data they are using is credible or not.

As an aside, Einstein's theory of Relativity was used to explain the orbit of Mercury. I don't know what was unusual about Mercury's orbit, but if Mercury was behaving in a manner that wasn't according to Newtonian Law, then it stands to reason that maybe Earth is also behaving in a similar manner.




RE: Here we go again.
By cdwilliams1 on 3/14/11, Rating: -1
RE: Here we go again.
By drycrust3 on 3/14/2011 7:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
My thanks for the links.

My apologies to anyone I have offended by using the "Climategate" allegations.


RE: Here we go again.
By Belard on 3/15/2011 3:47:27 AM , Rating: 1
It doesn't offend anyone...

But learning from your mistakes is good for you, shows you have the ability to think.

There are people out there who don't understand how the tides go in and out, they maybe stupid enough to think the Sun goes around the Earth.

(Silly, everyone knows the Sun orbits the Moon)


RE: Here we go again.
By SPOOFE on 3/15/2011 1:24:23 AM , Rating: 5
"In his report, British civil servant Sir Muir Russell found that the climategate e-mails don't undermine the basic science behind man-made global warming."

The "exoneration" found only that A: the scientists involved couldn't be charged with a crime (probably because the statute of limitations on the violations of FoI had run out) and B: that the E-mails don't disprove anthropogenic global warming.

However, the "exoneration" also points out a wide swath of errors and flaws that, while not criminal, certainly don't speak well of the scientists in question.

But most importantly: The review did NOT examine their work. At all. Their work is still suspect. Their work is still just a bunch of claims from a bunch of grumpy guys that like steady paychecks. Their "exoneration" is only from irrelevant accusations; every real criticism of the CRU, based on the Climategate E-mails, stands.


RE: Here we go again.
By KIAman on 3/14/2011 3:53:20 PM , Rating: 2
As another aside, we still can't explain why the surface of the sun (photosphere) is a relatively cool 5,500C while the portion of the corona furthest away from the sun is 2,000,000C!!!

The point is that scientists have to be more careful about how they communicate their research and their findings. Reading this article leads me to believe that some objectivity has been thrown out the window and the vast amounts of unknowns are given only a slight mention.


RE: Here we go again.
By Azethoth on 3/14/2011 10:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, join some organization (any, not just a scientific one) then wait till a journalist does a story on it. Wow shocking: the journalist gets a lot of it totally wrong. This is simply the nature of reporting by someone on a topic they are not intimately familiar with. This will never change.

Now if you want to know what is going on, go read the sources. So for example the next time you read that substance X has been found to be Good / Bad for you, instead of gorging on it / stopping using it, go read the sources and make up your mind. Chances are more research is needed.

The point is, the scientific papers are quite specific and careful, but the journalism has no such requirement. In fact, the journalism usually needs sensationalism. So please blame the translator.


RE: Here we go again.
By Lexda on 3/15/2011 11:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell me that's sarcasm? My high school physics course was able to explain that to me.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki