Are we wasting money for something that is impossible to measure properly?
Does the Nature has its own auto-regulatory mechanisms that make our efforts fruitless?
We do not have direct measurements for earlier centuries but we do have the proxy data for atmosphere-ocean-ice conditions. Uncertainties are large when you look at proxy data compared to direct measurements. The proxy record shows periods with a direct relationship between changes in CO2 and temperature (the greenhouse effect). This is indeed evidence of auto regulatory mechanisms in nature. What we do not know is if the climate system will be able to cope with the huge increase of CO2 in recent decades.
Dear Alberto Marcelo Mestas-Nunez it is exactly this uncertainty about the proxy data that could result in fruitless efforts and even useless panic. We are not sure how Earth conditions and dynamics will be in the near neither in the far future. An example of this is the panic about the Ozone Hole.
Abdul Rahman Mahmud , it was always in the earth geological history a warming-cooling pattern.
Exactly. It is impossible to know, at least at the present stage of scientific knowledge the dynamics of earth self-regulatory mechanisms.
There is a clear reduction in earth tectonic plates activity, becoming more stable, which reduces their volcanic activity. One of the main products of volcanic eruptions is carbon dioxide. So less eruptions, less carbon dioxide. This brings us to the paradox that the levels of carbon dioxide are going down regardless of our efforts, panic and waste of money.
There are certain misconceptions peppered in this discussion. Granted there is uncertainty w/r to any future state especially in estimating future anthropogenic and natural greenhouse gas emissions.
However:
(1) The greenhouse effect of CO2 (& other GHG's) is very well understood scientifically including the residence time of GHG's in the Atmosphere and Ocean.
(2) CO2 measurements record (not proxy) extends now for a period longer than several "climate norms" (30 years).
(3) Proxy records (with higher error bars) from geological records tree rings, etc. extend for much longer. The fact that the error bars are larger does not invalidate them.
(4) Volcanic activity emits more than just CO2. In fact, it has a shorter term cooling effect, whereby aerosol particles reduce warming by reflecting and scattering direct sun radiation. This had been documented, observed and understood for example with major volcanic eruptions (e.g., 1978 Mt. St. Helen's in US, 1982 eruption of El Chichón in Mexico, 1991 Mt. Pinatubo in Philippines). However, the residence time of CO2 is longer, thus, other than shorter term periods of reduces warming, the longer term effects are still of warming.
(5) A similar effect to (4) has been recently observed w/r to anthropogenic effects - China's reduced it's aerosol and particulate emissions from coal burning plants, with a positive effects (reduced pollution & enhanced visibility & public health outcomes) but exacerbation of warming effect.
(6) Natural adjustment of the ocean atmosphere climate system theory (the "Iris effect") to increased CO2, had been discredited.
the statistical/probability approach to handling uncertainty is to quantify it and optimize solutions or scenarios based on this rather than take no action until everything is certain ("uncertainty is the only thing one can count on"); the scientific/physical/dynamical approach is to perform model simulation and test models through hind casting. How there are done deserve a separate discussion.
It is beyond any doubt that the humans are a great polluting actor in earth, but more than anything, what makes people skeptics about the global warming campaign(s) is the way that it is presented. Many green ways of energy production are not so green as usually assumed. In the Anthropocene and earlier of curse, the earth has gone through a succession of Ice Ages and Little Ice Ages, that would have had much more negative effects on life if there were not alternated with Global warming ages.
Natural variability and cycles exist, and climate science and models can and do resolve it (on shorter term these are, for example, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), ENSO (El-Nino Southern Oscillation)). On geological scale, those oscillations were on a much longer time scales, and in none of the warmings, was there so much input of anthropogenic GHG, and indeed, when normalized, the current trend is the fastest. The argument that because there are natural cycles one need not mitigate man-made once is akin to arguing that, if a house is on fired cause by lightening (other natural cause), than it is fine to pour fuel on it rather than try and put it down.
I agree that many ways of energy production that are presented as green, are not so green. This requires vigilance, scrutiny, and better communication of the public, but this is a different (and important) discussion.
Another misconception raise earlier, which I forgot to mention: The Ozone depletion and recovery (hole) was not a result of an alarmist non-problem that resolved naturally on its own. To the contrary, it was an rare example of mitigating and correcting the issue where most nations and industry recognized the problem, came together, signed a treaty (Montreal Protocol), and stuck together. It was easier, because there were less stakeholders who had a strong interest to profit from no change (pretty much DuPont the only heavy weight), and there were simpler effective alternatives.
For a different view-point on global warming mechanisms please read the book: "EVOLUTION OF EARTH AND ITS CLIMATE: Birth, Life and Death of Earth"
Website: https://www.elsevier.com/books/evolution-of-earth-and-its-climate/sorokhtin/978-0-444-53757-7
Dear G. Levy I agree that as one of the main polluters in earth we should take measures to reduce our negative impact on the environment. There is no doubt about this. What is questionable here is that many of the measures taken have negative or minimal outcomes. Wasting money in something on a planetary scale bears the risks of being a comparable loss to that of not taking any measure against the pollution. Most of green taxes that governments around the world impose are being wasted in the name of the global warming panic. Tax-payers money that is being wasted in such cases is itself a contributor to the pollution because there is no available money in nature, but it is generated through human efforts and energies.
I'm going to look at this from the perspective of transitions.
In 1915, we saw Peak Horse. That was a contributing factor in WW1, the Roaring 20's, the Great Depression, and to some extent, WW2. It took about 40 years for the transition to go from decision (in about 1900 for the US and Great Britain to move into internal combustion engines) to final outcome.
In 1972, we saw Peak US oil production. That caused stagflation, many ruinous middle-east policies, a fuel crisis in the US. It was short lived (only a handful of years), and an overall decline in oil availability of at most 5%, as international oil production ramped up, but the transition there still ripples - the quality of life of the average US citizen has not demonstrably increased since.
In 2008, we saw Peak World Conventional Oil production. That was a contributing factor in the US sub-prime meltdown and the European debt crisis. This transition is still in effect, but of lower magnitude due to alternatives to conventional oil.
In the next 4 decades, regardless of the policies we put into place, we will see (in approximate chronological order) the following transitions:
- Peak per capita Ecological Footprint
- Peak Conventional Agriculture Production
- Peak Natural Gas Production
- Peak Coal Production
- Peak Fossil Carbon Production
- Peak Usable Energy (production x efficiency)
None of the models are capable of predicting the 'why' of the peak, and thus the timing has fairly wide error bars. It could be we are smart, and voluntarily restrict production. It could be we're stupid, and suck everything out of the ground all at once and crash like lemmings. But the fact of the peak doesn't change.
So, regardless of the ecological impacts, we need to have a post-carbon economy working well within 40 years. No economic growth can come from a carbon-based culture after Peak Usable Energy - declines in world fossil energy production will be faster than all possible increases in energy efficiency.
So maybe we can focus on climate change, and the 60 million ecological refugees that it will produce per year (many being the same ones, continually being shifted). Or we can think a little farther ahead, and consider the 600 million economic refugees per year that we'll be seeing post Peak Fossil Carbon. It doesn't really matter. Fossil energy is a finite resource, and we have to have an economy that isn't based on it when production declines can not support our level of consumption.
By dropping our consumption voluntarily, we extend the time we have before a crisis occurs. By shifting to non-carbon sources of energy, we buffer the impact. By claiming that climate change isn't reason enough to plan for a future, you're preparing to repeat historical mistakes.
In 1930, the EROI on oil production was about 100:1 for the best oil fields in the US. In 2000 is was between 15:1 and 17:1 in Canada, and now it is about 12:1. Mathematical models suggest a stagnant first-world economy will occur if the EROI drops below 9:1. The EROI in Sierra Leone, for example, averages just over 4:1. Fracked oil has an EROI of about 3:1, tarsand has an EROI of about 6:1, nuclear as it is done today is near 10:1. If we depend on any of those to 'save' us, we're in trouble.
At the height of the Roman Era, one citizen could grow enough food to feed slaves and animals that could do the work of 17 people - effectively an EROI of 17:1. At the fall of the Roman Era, it was about 9:1. Unless we are a whole lot smarter than the Romans, and there is little to no evidence of that, we will see our empires fall.
If "pretending" that climate change is an existential threat, and by solving it, we happen to solve the looming reality of Peak Usable Energy, then I'm all for using the fiction. And, if it turns out, that Anthrogenic Climate Change is a real thing, too, then we will have inadvertently been doing the right thing for the right reasons, all along. Yea, us!
I appreciate very much your contribution to this discussion, Douglas. Everything that makes life easier, cleaner, greener, better is and should be welcomed. More efficient and environmentally friendly ways of energy production are needed not just because of the supposed global warming risks, but simply to feed the naturally growing population. The population growth and global warming are two totally different things. There is no casual link between them. Climate changes and has always changed. The impact of these changes are way beyond our reach.
Trying to avoid repeating myself, or the excellent analysis by Douglas Nutall, I would argue that there is a likely causal relationship between population growth and climate change. Formally, in statistical theory, a correlation never proves causation; there are automatic- (not auto-) correlations [which we may well have here]; and there is a difference between the dependent (population growth) and independent (accelerated climate change) variable. Both systems (the climate system and human demographics and economy) are very complex to simplify as a linear correlation system. Yet, population growth, as long as it is accompanied by increase in non-renewable energy use that increases GHG, is a non-negligible cause of accelerated climate change (automatic correlation, if you will, the independent variable being growth in GHG output rather than population growth per Se), and this causal effect can and has been shown in a non-statistical way (as formally required), by climate science and models (refer to my previous answers). The reversal of the dependent and independent variables can also occur, as climate change can modify demographic trends (more complex).
I also beg to differ on the counterproductive effect of carbon tax. Because of human and societal behavior and response, it is much easier to change through incentives and disincentives (e.g., carbon tax, and carbon credit trading) than trough rational arguments, and carbon taxes have been effective. I agree with the ineffectiveness of "panic" approach in the sense that panic, by definition, is a sudden strong fear that PREVENTS reasonable thought and action. Indeed, some carbon taxes can be used irrationally and counter-productively - we have agreed on that.
There are many precious truths in what you state. But, we are going (I mean we as humans) to the globalization of neo-Malthusian approaches, that basically lead to the reduction of anthropogenic negative impact on the environment through the reduction of population growth. This is not right, in my opinion. We should not reduce the population in order to "save" the earth. Exactly here is my argument.
China (as an example, because I looked the numbers up just a little while ago) has added 60% to it's population in the last 60 years. It has added 300% to it's per-capita Ecological Footprint, and per-capita Biocapacity has remained very steady. The impact on the world isn't primarily their growth of population, it's their growth of consumption per capita.
It is far easier to manage production (and thus consumption) than reproduction. China was able to manage reproduction so that their science could keep up with population and their BC/ca didn't change, at an ecological cost elsewhere. And that required a very authoritarian and disciplined governmental effort that likely can't be replicated elsewhere.
While there is a clear relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and population to date, it is not a strict 1:1 relationship. A decrease in population will not automatically produce a decrease in CO2, and a decrease in CO2 will not automatically produce a decrease in population. That's not what the numbers mean.
What has happened around the world in the last 100 years is we have increased energy output per capita (principally from fossil carbon), and that allows a higher population density, more specialization, and higher productivity. This in turn has allowed for more people to live on the planet. But the energy output comes first (not a chicken and egg problem).
It is not automatically true that reducing energy output means automatically a lower population. It does probably mean a lower population density is required, and a reduction therefore in specialization. Which in turn will mean a lower productivity (causing all of the economists in the world to roll over in their graves), but that's where the argument stops. It doesn't necessarily extend to quality of life.
There is no significant decrease in quality of life when people who have a Ecological Footprint vastly larger than the Biocapacity of their community reduce consumption. They live in the 'flat part of the curve', and they can substitute to less damaging alternatives (which adds time to how long it would take them to meet needs - in Canada, it is in the low single digits of minutes/day/capita per GHa for the richest decile). But that can be readily counteracted through Human Development. No net loss of quality of life with a reduced Footprint is entirely possible, if not easy to ensure.
Substituting energy to something other than fossil carbon by itself is insufficient - we still will impose larger demands on the planet than we can maintain in perpetuity. On a community-by-community basis, we have to bring our impact on the landmass we manage down to what the landmass can support in perpetuity, while at the same time, identifying and removing the obstructions in the self/family/and community that prevent us from meeting our needs.
ne in this discussion suggested actively reducing current population, and the complexity of controlling or slowing population growth was very well addressed by @Douglas Nuttall, so I have little to add here. NY Times reports today about US Carbon emissions surge and the underlying factors.
Another aspect that we normally forget to look at, is that we should question the right of reducing or limiting population growth of present generations in order to leave space for future generations. The now and the future have to have the same rights, theoretically. Second, limiting consumption would be a much more efficient and environmentally friendly approach than limiting the right to increase population. We should not forget that the pollution does not come from the poor countries with higher levels of population growth, but mainly from rich countries with low levels of demographic increase. A family in rich countries might have less children, but consumes the amount of energy of several families in poor countries.
EXCERPT FROM THE CHAPTER 13: "Adiabatic Theory of the Greenhouse Effect", Book title: EVOLUTION OF EARTH AND ITS CLIMATE, Birth, Life and Death of Earth
“…The average temperature of the entire Earth is approximately 288 degree Kelvin or +15 degree Сelsius, and its effective temperature by definition (13.6) is Te.
…Earth has relatively dense atmosphere. For this reason the heat transfer within its lower, densest layer (the troposphere), 12 km thick, occurs mostly through the air convection and not only through radiation as is represented by the proponents of the “classical” treatment of the greenhouse effect. In a dense atmosphere (with the pressure in excess of 0.2 atm), the dominating heat transfer in always by the air flows, that is, through the convective mass exchange where the warm air expands and rises up, and the cold air compress and goes down. The radiation heat transfer dominates only the tenuous layers of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere. A main inference from this is that the average temperature distribution in the troposphere must by close to the adiabatic distribution, that is, to such distribution that takes into account the air expansion and cooling when it rises and, conversely, its compression and heating when it goes down. It does not mean at all that a specific temperature distribution at a specific moment in time must always be adiabatic. What we mean is just average temperature distributions over the time intervals on the order of 1 month. The adiabatic temperature distribution is controlled by the atmospheric pressure p and by the air effective heat capacity (Landau and Lifshitz, 1979) …
. From this we find that the contribution from the “greenhouse gases” into the convective heat transfer is just 1.8% whereas the humidity condensation is adding approximately 28.5% more. Remaining 69.7% of the convection processes are due to the direct heating of the air mass by the solar radiation or the heat reflected from Earth (see Fig. 13.4). To verify the correctness of Eq. (13.12) it was used to calculate the temperature distribution in the Earth troposphere based on the given pressure from the standard atmosphere model (Reference Book, 1951).
… The quoted examples show that saturation of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, despite the heat radiation absorption by it, under other conditions equal always results not in a rise but in a decline of the greenhouse effect and the average temperature within the entire thickness of the planet’s troposphere. The reason is simple: the molar weight of carbon dioxide is 1.5 higher and its heat capacity is 1.2 times lower than for the air. As a result, as it follows from Eq. (13.13), the adiabatic exponent for carbon dioxide atmosphere, with all other conditions equal, is about 1.34 times lower than that for a humid air of the nitrogen–oxygen composition.
...Physically, the explanation of this phenomenon is that the heat transfer from the troposphere mostly occurs through the air mass convection, which is much more efficient than the radiation heat transfer mechanism (see Fig. 13.4). It is understandable because, after the greenhouse gases absorbed the Earth’s heat radiation, its energy is converted into the energy of gas molecules’ heat oscillations. That, in turn, results in the expansion of the gas mixture and its rapid rise to the stratosphere (where the excessive heat is further lost through the radiation). To replace the risen warm air volumes, the cooled-down air descends from the upper troposphere, and the overall temperature changes very little.
One particular conclusion from this is that the convection mass exchange of the atmospheric gases must substantially accelerate in the troposphere with the elevated carbon dioxide content. Thus, it is possible that the intensification of the synoptic activity in the troposphere (not the temperature raise!) observed during the recent years is associated with the accumulation of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide in it. Thus, the commonly accepted idea of a global climate warming when CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere is a myth. In actuality, CO2 accumulation, under all other conditions equal, may result only in the climate cooling and in a somewhat increased synoptic activity in the Earth’s troposphere. An additional explanation is that when the anthropogenic carbon dioxide is released, oxygen is also absorbed from the atmosphere, and the result may be only a climate cooling.…”
Please read the chapters 13 - 15 of the above mentioned book for some more technical facts.
Thanks very much for bringing in this important excerpt Prof. Harizaj. It makes sense and is scientifically grounded.
Hugo, I agree in that we as humans are able and have the right to leave our footprints on this planet. On the other side, climate has changed and will change. The problem is that it is not sure if this change is positive or negative for humans. So if we don't know if the so called Global warming is bad for us we can not and we should not fight it.
Thanks
Ardian
Regarding the last two comments, the warming in recent decades in the observational record is not uniform in space (although generally globally averaged temperatures are used to discuss it). Thus, the impact of the warming will have a spatial dependence as well and, depending on what environmental variable we are considering, may result on a positive or negative local effect. Nevertheless, it would be useful to understand the system well enough to be able to predict with some certainty what the impact will be so we can better deal with it.
Hugo
the total amount of water on earth does not change because of the warming. Probably, a warmer climate implies an increase in precipitation, which might not be bad for human or wild life.
Lets imagine for a moment that there are 2 neighbouring countries - lets call them A and B for simplicity. A has 1 million people, and grows enough food for 1 million people. B has 10 million people, and grows enough food for 10 million people. The two countries have an open trading arrangement.
The climate changes in favor of A. It now can grow enough food for 1.5 million people, and B produces enough for 9.5 million. B has to import large quantities of food, stimulating A's economy. But it's a net zero game, and the 10 million people of B will notice the people in A getting rich, and the people in B suffering (albeit, only a little).
Lets see what happens the other way around. A can now produce enough food for 0.5 million people, while B can support 10.5 million. Still zero sum, but A becomes destitute, while B notices almost nothing. They put down their good fortune to responding appropriately to the climate crisis.
Both outcomes are problematic. If the change is happening faster than the people can relocate themselves, then there will be suffering. And currently, we know there is significant pressure to prevent human migration.
And that's if we are talking about a net zero sum, which we aren't really. 90% of the world's population has always lived within 100' vertically of sea level. For every 1' of sea level change, there will be something like 60 to 70 million people who will be displaced. Farmland within that 100' grows more per acre than farmland at higher elevations, so losing that foot of agricultural land near sea level also reduces the amount of food being grown disproportionately.
No, the amount of water on earth doesn't really change. Where it is changes, and if it goes from where people are used to having it, to somewhere else, then a significant portion of the world's population may find they are in the wrong spot.
If you're relying on melt-water from glaciers, for example, when the glaciers go, your river will flow seasonally. Unfortunately, you can't drink water only seasonally - we have to build dams that can hold back a comparable quantity of water. Calgary has that problem - in 20 years the glaciers providing a consistent flow will be gone, and the Bow River will be a bare trickle in the fall. The mountains to the west are not prone to earthquakes, so it may be rational to build dams, at some significant expense, and incurring some additional risk. In earthquake prone areas, such risk may be too high.
Article Global Warming Mitigation Through Carbon Sequestrations in t...
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows
Please everyone interested can find out more about the fact that global warming is a scam
Absolutely not - this is a gross misinterpretation - not the story, but the conclusion that climate change is not real. It actually supports the notion that anthropogenic activity can and does contribute to climate change. The argument is akin to saying that greening of Greenland support the fact that global warming is a scam.
G. Levy Yes. It is an misinterpretation the same as the global warming idea as a gross misinterpretation. Let the planet warm. Life will be better.
Sure. Life will be better for some. What do you do about the people whose life is worse?
Why we hear a lot about global warming but we forgot to talk about the pollution which is really global?
somehow, I am not able to convince myself on the idea of global warming because of various reasons. Firstly, whenever we see a hot day or month or year, the general reaction in scientific fraternity is its warmest day in 100 years or so. what that mean is bascially there had been a hotter days in the past or before the industrial revolution ( we blame that for the global warming problem). secondly, the glaciar melt, half of the north ameriaca and europe were actually glacier which melted at least or before 1000 years ago when the industry never existed.
I believe that the change in weather is a natural not sure though. but i am not sure of relation between global warming and industrialization either.
what i am sure is, global warming is creating a lot of opportunities in research and helping the scientific research industry run.
Hermann Gruenwald It is out of question that climate changes, like everything. And yes, I agree that exactly what we make of it probably might be a scam, even if the phenomenon is real.
from other similar threads I got that change is not in question, two views about the important factor in change: the interplay between the magnetic flow of the planet and its effect on the oceans temperature -El Ninõ, la Niña- distribution versus human engines in cars and planes and cattle farts producing gases that make a blanket around the planet. I think the first is consistent with all the changes whereas the second is good for politicians and saviors all around
sorry, forgot that the first hypothesis also adds solar circles in the release of EMG
energy, not one but several 11 years, 100000 years, these different scale overlapp
Questioner
Temperature and the increase in temperature is very precisely measured
The temperature in the past 40 years has increased by 0.8 C according to
3 institutes with temperatures at the surface
NOAA
Copernicus
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Measured with satellites the increase is the lowest BUT 0.14 C per decade
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/
We are not going through cooling base, it will be in the near future years an
mini ice age.
The weather you g through confusion due to Climate change. And odd occurrences.
Regards
Fatema Miah
Questioner
"Is Global Warming another big scam?" please write here
what the other scams are
The signs of climate-changing are everywhere.
Increasing hurricane activity, increasing growing season and pollen season, increasing melting of glaciers, sea level rising, etc. etc. etc.
How can it be a scam?
It is not the phenomenon, but what we make out of it. Europe, Northern America, Including Canada are a product of the global warming
Increasing climate variability is perhaps the biggest threat; more intense rainfall at some places which normally do not receive much. Droughts other places which are usually wetter. Snow in Texas, hot weather in northern Canada. The weather patterns are severely disturbed. We should try to stabilize the climate by limiting the anthropogenic radiative forcing. Simple as that. But difficult to apply in a society with high political inertia.
So we want a society in continuous change, but a planet frozen in time and that shouldnt change? Great idea.
solar wind variations drive climate, not CO2.
planetary tides drive both solar activity cycles and solar wind variations. ACRIM satellite has confirmed my model findings that TSI increased till about 2000.
planetary tides also explain the 22 year solar magnetic cycle and why it peaked around 1950's.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342573527_What_Is_Solar_Wind
Dimitris Poulos , TSI peaked around year 2000. You predicted temperature would peak and then decrease after year 2004 (model shown by the yellow line in your figure 3). Regardless of your conviction observed global temperatures continuously rose the latest two decades. What is missing in your model?
Henrik Rasmus Andersen my model is for long term variations. I hadn't included AMO variations at first, for short term variability...
We previously determined your model also fits poorly from 1000-1900.
It is obvious that you cannot see any effect of changing CO2 in this period as the concentration was very stable. A model fit requires data where the forcing variables actually vary.
Dimitris Poulos
The question here is
"Is Global Warming another big scam? Are we instead going through a Global cooling phase in earth history?
@ 1: There is global warming over the past 40 years is 0.8 Kelvin: in that period the sun has not changed a bit. Only the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is unprecedented over such a short period and (thus) explains it best
@ 2: COOLING? see the graph above by prof Rasmussen. Where can we see the cooling then?
Questioner
"Is Global Warming another big scam?" please write here
what the other scams are
a little help: the Amazon forest is the lung of the world, the chinese and the russians are going to dominate the world in no time if NATO is not here to save same world.
A new report of IPCC released today calls for warming which is accelerating
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/08/IPCC_WGI-AR6-Press-Release_en.pdf
Big scam ? How can someone say that?
QUESTIONER
How dare you to use this subtitle
"How do we measure the magnitude of global warming if we don't have data for earlier centuries?"
Google for temeprature anomalies over the past century
Study the temperature records
YOU have to STUDY before you make such subjective personal unjustified statements and then the term SCAM? What expertise do you have to say this?
"How do we measure the magnitude of global warming if we don't have data for earlier centuries?"
Methods to estimate temperature and precipitation from previous centuries have been validated and are numerous. Dedicated branches of science focus on that: paleoclimatology; palynoclimatology, dendrochronology, etc. etc.
Just look on wikipedia...:)