The Coming Ice Age

namaarie said:
Good post, Munk.

Also very hard to dispute is the correlation between the amount of atmospheric CO2 and the global (especially polar) temperatures. Essentially a direct relationship, and that is historical, based on ice cores drilled at the poles. Another fact is that humans today are pumping out remarkable amounts of greenhouse gasses.

Chris
Click to expand...

Several sources have documented that there is no long term historical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures.

-Our current warming period began around 1850 as the earth came out of the Little Ice Age. Most of our current temperature increase came before 1940 when there was far less human generated CO2. Then for 35 years the temperature decreased when there was a far greater amount of atmospheric CO2.

-It was at least as warm during the Roman Warming (200BC-600AD) than it is today, and also there was an abrupt warming during the Middle Ages. Too many chariots and ox carts I guess.

-This is a quote from the Singer & Avery book: "CO2, for at least 240,000 years has been a lagging indicator of global warming, not a causal factor. Within the last 15 years, the ice cores have revealed that temperatures and CO2 levels have tracked closely together during the warmings after each of Earth's last three ice age glaciations. However, the CO2 changes have lagged about 800 years behind the temperature changes. Global warming has produced more CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This accords with the reality that the oceans hold the vast majority of the planet's carbon, and the laws of physics let cold oceans hold more CO2 gas than warm oceans."

It would be very arrogant for humans to claim we understand everything about climate change. Humans have definitely affected local climates due to building cities and deforesting jungles. However, there is a much bigger picture here that many choose not to see. It is much easier to blame someone for our problems. During peaks of glaciation when sea levels are 400feet below current levels, whose fault is it when the water rises as the earth enters an inter-glacial period? Of course, the media, professors, and anyone who benefits from hysteria-driven funding and grants have a vested interest in silly science.
 
aproy1101 said:
Blah blah blah. These enviro-libs exaggerate. Ignore them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure sticking our collective heads in the sand is the answer. I prefer to keep my mind open to multiple possibilities.
 
I'm not getting my information from a left-slanting media. I'm getting it from scientists who have devoted their life to studying the topic.

Look, what I'm saying here is that it is wrong to ignore this. This will have profound effects on us and future generation, and there is significant evidence that we are changing the climate. Yes, the causal relationship between global temperature and greenhouse levels is unclear. It is clear that there is a correlation, but it's true that temperatures and CO2 tend to trade places while roughly matching each other.

But the fact that, since 1750, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 31% and methane levels have increased 149% cannot be insignificant. It's also known how much carbon we put into the atmosphere--it's a lot. It's also well-proven that the causal relationship between temperatures and greenhouse gasses CAN be driven by the gasses. And while it is not well-known whether we could impact the trend by reducing our emissions, when one considers how devastating the changes will be to us, our environment, the socio-political structure of the world, and our economy, if there is even the slightest chance that we can change the trend, it would seem irresponsible not to try. Or to at least be open-minded to possible solutions.

I don't mean to rant. And the fact of the matter is that this IS a politicized topic. I want to emphasize, Andy (and everybody), that I also respect your viewpoint. It's hard to convey tone over the internet, so I want to be clear that I'm in no way saying you don't have valid arguments--the amount of debate clearly shows that you do. I also sincerely hope I have not come across as uncivil, as that is not my intent. I have always just been one for a good, thoughtful debate, and it is an honor to be able to discuss this and all topics with such well-articulated, insightful people. Thanks, and please know that I hold you all (and your arguments) in the highest regard. No flames here! :)

Chris
 
Chris,
I think we all can respect your position. Everyone here can agree that nobody really can know all the answers on this subject. We are reacting to those who claim to be infallible on this subject and ignore facts that don't fit their agenda. There is no question that world temperatures have been here before. The issue is how much of this is part of the natural cycle and how much has been accelerated by human activity - Will we level off at moderate temperatures as in past cycles or have we introduced factors that will cause an unnatural and harmful spike? May this be one of those areas where humans have much less impact than they think they do when compared to volcanos, sunspot cycles, global tilts and wobbles, and things we haven't even discovered yet? To cast a blind eye to the subject would be foolish, as would panicking over media hype. We don't mean to gore anyone's bull:)
Lloyd
 
Guyon said:
I'm not sure sticking our collective heads in the sand is the answer. I prefer to keep my mind open to multiple possibilities.
Click to expand...

Nobody's head is in the sand. Keeping your head open to multiple possibilities is well and good. But swallowing a hard sell that ignores history and is purely speculative is silly.

You, Chris, make a good argument. And it did not come off as uncivil. I hope mine didn't either. It is, however, based on speculative science. We have absolutely no data on how we've affected this natural process. But, these fad scientists (yes this is fad science, try to keep your job at a university while opposing it) are demanding that everyone see it their way. I try not to swallow fad science, and, it turns out that the world isn't flat.

I'm not arguing for heedlessly increasing emissions. But, I'm not going to go around guilting people into buying my position with these kinda "back the fad science or else" remarks:

HD said:
Don't worry. If we alter the climate too much the earth will wipe the human race out and it will be the children and grandchildren that get wiped out not us. But hey look at the bright side they won't have to pay off the deficit we charged up either
Click to expand...

No offense to you either, HD.
 
So many factors one of which nature is not consitant.

i live at the edge of a penertrating pinnacle of were the last ice age glaciers stopped. Its amazing to see what they did. I love the contrast.

I hope its 10,000 years away.

Perhaps the intial problem is sea level not ice? & I admit dont know what basis its on but UK police & county councils are informed by British goverment to expect 15ft see level rise in next 20 years & plan accordingly.

So peraps if your not gamblers ,Dont live by the water edge folks! :D

Spiral
 
...on San Padre island on the gulf coast of Texas, huge hotel complexes are being built. I think the entire strip of 'land' is something like 6 feet above sea level...but, I'm sure the Federal Government will pay back the investors if it disapears into the ocean, right?



munk
 
:D Especialy if they or there friends are selling it in the first place! ;)

& after all if it all goes wrong insuarance will cover "Acts of God" Im sure....:rolleyes:



Spiral
 
I saw a disaster program where London got wiped out. Storm surge, high tide. The new sea wall is inadaquate for the largest surge possible.



munk
 
Thames Barrier,{London.}

barrier10.jpg



New orleans Flood Barrier.

levee_break.jpg


i guess British poloticians owned companys making or connected to the thames barrrier?

& Id guess US politicians didnt have contract for New Orleans one?, unless they are more even blatant thieves than the Uk politicians.?

But some would say I am cynical...;)

Spiral
 
I remember reading about some bunch of really obscure astronomicial scientists asking why no one was worried about the fact that the sun had thrown off a couple of layers or shells ( their words ). They mentioned that it would probably cause a net increase of temperatures around the world. This was in the mid eighties if I remember rightly. Being cynical I suppose you can't get money off the masses if they think they can't do anything about the situation - however with Global Carbon pollution and the evil industrial world causing Global warming ...and lo and behold there be money to be made...
 
Poor Al Gore, scientists are dropping from his ludicrous theory faster than popcorn pops. Hehe.

This scientist has noted in Natl Geographic that Mars is experiencing a warming trend too. Now, explain to me just how America caused that one Mr. Gore.

Oh the laughs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
 
Just read that Natl Geo link. Sorry Munk, let the duck do his worst.... Blahahahahahaha!!!
Seriously, the fact that these enviro-nuts were yelping the same yelps re global Cooling 30 yrs ago should be sufficient warning that we're looking at a scam here.
 
Funny how that story on Mars has not been covered in the mainstream (Gore) media.
 
Whereas I feel sorry for the scientists, the genuine ones, embroiled in this debate.:(

A computer simulation, no matter how complex and comprehensive, is just that -- a simulation. It is not reality. Miss a few key variables, produce an accidental imbalance in the governing equations, mis-estimate the initial conditions or boundary values, or worse -- miss an important process -- and everything goes awry. Computer calculations are also subject to error -- the inevitable accumulation of small round-off errors being only the best well-known. Trying to pluck reliable answers and predictions from something as complex (and, if I understand properly, inherently sensitive and unstable) as a world weather model is an incredibly formidable task. It grows worse with cycle time.

Add human emotion to all this. No one wants to see the world 'decline and fall.' That produces stress and emotion. No one wants to make incorrect predictions or be proven wrong in their conclusions. That produces stress and emotion. No one wants to watch their grant money dry up. That definitely produces stress and emotion. Push all of this into the world stage -- what do you think you'll get?

It is impossible, but it would be far better if all this preliminary work could proceed in an objective fashion. Complex simulations take many, many years -- maybe lifetimes -- of trial and error followed by measurement and correction to get anywhere. It ain't easy!!

In the meantime, there is no reason to stop people's efforts to live a little more gently on this earth. We, especially we Westerners, do consume a great deal, without much concern for the consequences.;)

Back to the top. I feel sorry for the scientists embroiled in this debate.:(
 
OldPhysics said:
In the meantime, there is no reason to stop people's efforts to live a little more gently on this earth. We, especially we Westerners, do consume a great deal, without much concern for the consequences.;)
Click to expand...

This is good wisdom IMO. I'm not arguing for living harder on the earth. Just don't think we caused this particular cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top