New Ice Age? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

wallace1 · 06-02-2004, 11:31 AM

I live in the tri state area, did I experience a differnet winter than you? We had very little snow and relatively moderate temps. Besides the idea is that things get warmer before the big chill.

DelayedReaction · 06-02-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
In general, one attempts to survey the field and draw some tentative conclusions on the basis of proposed hypotheses rather than supposed facts. When the results of research span a broad spectrum of possible hypotheses and interpreted results, we simply don't have sufficiently reliable information. The correct conclusion is further study is necessary.

You'll always find people who demand more study is necessary when the results hurt their argument. You'll also find the opposite; if results support their side then people will say we have to act before it's too late.

When is the decision made that we have sufficient data? Who makes that decision? We live in a world where theories are law and new findings can change the way we percieve our universe. When do we act on what we think we know?

onetime2 · 06-02-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tecoyah
You are correct....my apologies.

There is at this time, much debate as to the validity of research pointing towards climate change on our planet. The science, by its very nature is difficult to prove, and therefore is but mere hypothesis. There is however, enough evidence (IMO) to merit consideration of the data. As the implications of this data could have a detrimental effect to the population at large, it falls into a category of seriousness that few other issues can.
To ignore the possibility of climate change would be, irresponsible at best. The entire world and all who dwell here have a stake in understanding this, and preventing as much damage as possible should the data pan out.
If the data are indeed flawed, for whatever reasons, we can at least breath a sigh of relief. We would then have a more defined comprehension of the way our planet regulates itself. Scientific research will never be perfect, and is in a constant state of revision, that is how it works. That should never be a reason to turn away from the possibilities, and is in fact what makes advancement possible.

In my opinion, Climate change is one of the most important issues facing the human species, as it may very well be damaging to us all......or perhaps not. But, we really should find out , one way or another.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

The rest of your statement is very thoughtfully expressed and extremely cogent.

IMO, there is far too little information to say for sure that global warming is occurring and even less information about man's contribution to it, if it is. While it may be wise to limit what some believe are the instigating factors, there just isn't enough evidence that we need to drastically change our practices at this time. I'm all for more money towards renewable energy sources and less pollution. I am not for strict laws with dubious effects. As we all know, once regulations and departments are formed there is little chance we will get rid of them in short order should they be proved ineffective.

Ripp3r · 06-03-2004, 02:04 AM

I find the study on geological evolution fascinating at the least, However I do believe that we have too little facts to accuratly predict the effects of our current actions.

The Earth seems to be in a cycle of heating up and cooling down, a lot of this has to do with the Coaxial rotation of the planet. meaning that certain parts of the earth will in fact be further from the sun and receive less sunlight at certain years within the secondary revolution. This could explain the changes in climate and the occurance of Ice ages and even explain Global Warming in part.
I think we can all agree that our increasing pollution causes the decay of the ozon layer, which causes more lethal and harmful radiation from the sun to penetrate our atmosphere ... but I don't think that causes global warming as such. It just causes more deseases like skincancer and the likes imho.

All in all, we can speculate all we want, and trust or distrust the findings of our scientists... but reality is, that none of us will be around to experience the end of the world ... coz we'll all be long dead by then.

tecoyah · 06-03-2004, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripp3r

All in all, we can speculate all we want, and trust or distrust the findings of our scientists... but reality is, that none of us will be around to experience the end of the world ... coz we'll all be long dead by then.

Most likely true.....however, my children could very well feel the effects of todays actions, good or bad.

ARTelevision · 06-03-2004, 03:23 AM

DelayedReaction, yes.
You've just delineated the line between science and politics.
This is why humans live in a world dominated by politicians and not scientists.

DelayedReaction · 06-03-2004, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ARTelevision
DelayedReaction, yes.
You've just delineated the line between science and politics.
This is why humans live in a world dominated by politicians and not scientists.

The fact that our world is run by poli sci majors scares me to death every time I think about it.

onetime2 · 06-03-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
The fact that our world is run by poli sci majors scares me to death every time I think about it.

Don't forget the lawyers.

Superbelt · 06-04-2004, 06:25 AM

Quote:

To paraphrase George Carlin, "Humans should never be so smug as to actually believe
that our puny actions could destroy the earth. Before that would happen, the earth would shake us
off like a bad case of fleas."

Exactly. And when you really dig into it Environmentalism is extremely selfish. Carlin is a
smart guy and, I think a typical environmentalist. He realizes that we are fucking
ourselves over. It's not REALLY about saving the earth, for the earths sake. It is about
saving ourselves. We are a fragile species, and to keep us dominant and successful we need to
harness nature. Not just to profit off of it but to preserve it in a suitable way for our survival.
That means healthy ecosystems that contribute to the overall health of the planet.
Climate Change is now the biggest hurdle that we have to find a way to "control" In a sense we
are controlling it by creating the sharpest warming streak in observable scientific history. Now
we need to learn how to harness it correctly so that the changes we are creating don’t kill us out.

Global Warming and Ice Age predictions at the same time do not discredit each other. Both can
exist at once. For instance, the world will see a real warming overall. Most of the warming is
and will happen at the poles though. At the same time the warming of the ocean will eventually
shut down the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is the only thing that keeps the British Isles from
looking like Greenland. The heat that they absorb from the Gulf of Mexico by way of that
current is amazing. Disruptions of ocean currents and wind patterns can and will create similar
disruptions across the planet.

Climate Change is too cumulative of an effect and too much of a behemoth to disregard while
waiting for more proof. The proof is really there, it’s simple physics. Carbon is a heat absorber.
We are pumping tremendous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and it is accumulating. The
earth has increased it’s temperature at a rate that coincides with the carbon accumulations.

If we want to continue to survive like we have for thousands of years we need to take the
initiative now and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels of all types. The technology and ability
is there it just takes leaders with vision to take us down that path.

DelayedReaction · 06-04-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Climate Change is too cumulative of an effect and too much of a behemoth to disregard while
waiting for more proof. The proof is really there, it’s simple physics. Carbon is a heat absorber.
We are pumping tremendous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and it is accumulating. The
earth has increased it’s temperature at a rate that coincides with the carbon accumulations.

The problem is that you really have no idea whether or not what you say is true. There is no "proof" out there; all people have are theories. Nobody out there has ever performed an accurate study that can link temperature with carbon accumulation, because neither one of them have been measured for a geologically significant period of time. And you forget that carbon doesn't just stay up in the atmosphere; it accumulates and falls back onto the ground as a result of rain and other weather phenomena.

Should we study climate change? Of course. Should we go out and make doomsday statements based on initial research and insufficiently supported theories? No.

Quote:

If we want to continue to survive like we have for thousands of years we need to take the
initiative now and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels of all types. The technology and ability
is there it just takes leaders with vision to take us down that path.

It takes a lot more than that. The technology to produce clean, cheap energy is not there (unless you want to go with nuclear energy, which is not politically feasible), and the cost of replacing our current infrastructure would be astronomical. Cars (another major source of greenhouse gas emissions) also require significant advances in technology before they'll be able to compete with standard vehicles. For example, hybrid vehicles in real-world testing are no more fuel efficient than many cars (news article ).

The leader whose vision takes us down the environmentalist path is going to have to make severe compromises in other areas. To make a reduction in fossil fuels a priority would require billions (if not trillions) of dollars in research and expenditures, and where would that money come from?

You can't justify a major shift in policy based on the scientific evidence presented thus far. Obviously we should take initial findings into consideration when beginning policy, and compromises should be made between the environment and other concerns. But a dramatic policy shift is simply not feasible at this time, and would hurt our country more than it would help the planet.

Superbelt · 06-04-2004, 08:34 AM

Yes I do know that much of what I say is true. There are studies that attribute carbon to temperature accumulation. It's called general physics.
Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years.
For your own experiment, Fill one tube with a normal mix of air, fill another with the air plus an increasingly larger mix of CO2. Train heat lamps over both and see that the one with higher CO2 gets warmer.
It's the same thing on the macroscale.

We can measure CO2 levels over a geologically significant timeframe. There are many ways to do this, two of the most common are to discern CO2 levels from ancient trees like the Sequoias and Joshua trees. We can also get CO2 levels from ice bores in the antarctic.
At normal levels the CO2 can be reabsorbed by the earth, but at the rates and levels we have it at now it cannot. Atmospheric measurements have shown the excess carbon remains.

Finally about science grants. Those who do the science could have a reason to skew the data. That is why we have peer review and duplication of results. We don't start believing anything until the rest of the scientific community has had their chance to test the theories and results from these studies. And the Global Warming theories have stood up to all of these tests. It is well accepted in the scientific community now and those who believe climate change to not be a human created problem are on the extreme fringe of science.

DelayedReaction · 06-10-2004, 05:18 AM

Interesting article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm

Quote:

Ice cores unlock climate secrets

By Julianna Kettlewell
BBC News Online science staff

Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports.
Analysis of the ice proves our planet has had eight ice ages during that period, punctuated by rather brief warm spells - one of which we enjoy today.

If past patterns are followed in the future, we can expect our "mild snap" to last another 15,000 years.

The data may also help predict how greenhouse gases will affect climate.

Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years.

Nobody quite knows how this will alter our climate, but researchers hope a detailed picture of past fluctuations will give them a better idea.

Distant worlds

A large team of scientists, from 10 different countries, has spent most of the last decade extracting the mammoth column of ice from a location called Dome C, on east Antarctica's plateau.

The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) aims to unlock the climatic secrets of our past - and in doing so gain a better understanding of what we can expect in the future.

This is not the first ice core project - but it ventures much further back in time.

Dome C contains 800,000 years worth of snowfall, allowing Epica to obtain a climate record two times longer than its nearest ice core rival.

"We think this project will really change the way we look at climate," said co-author Eric W. Wolff, of the British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK.

Each slice of the ice core tells tales about the distant world it came from.

For instance, scientists can work out climate by looking at the ratio of different types, or isotopes, of hydrogen atoms.

Different colds

Deuterium is a heavy isotope of hydrogen. If a sample of ice has a lot of it, that means the temperature was warmer - and vice versa.

"At very cold temperatures a great deal of the heavy isotopes have rained out," explained Jerry F. McManus, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, US. "So all that is left is what we would call isotopically depleted or lighter. That is how we know how cold it was."

He added: "You might say Antarctica is always cold - and you'd be right. But there is great variation in the degree of cold."

Another important thing that scientists can 'read' in the ice is the relative concentration of atmospheric gases.

That is because minute bubbles pock mark the core, within which tiny pockets of preserved air lie.

"That is the wonderful thing about ice cores," said Professor McManus. "There is air from three-quarters of a million years ago and it is still locked in these bubbles - it's incredible."

Epica is still busy analysing the ice core's atmospheric gases, but preliminary results suggest that present CO2 levels are remarkably high.

"We have never seen greenhouse gases anything like what we have seen today," said Dr Wolff.

Predicting the future

Over the last 800,000 years the Earth has, on the whole, been a pretty chilly place. Interglacials - or warm spells - have come every 100,000 years and have generally been short-lived.

Over the last 400,000 years, interglacials have lasted about 10,000 years, with climates similar to this one. Before that they were less warm, but lasted slightly longer.

We have already been in an interglacial for about 10,000 years, so we should - according to the pattern - be heading for an ice age. But we are not.

The Epica team has noticed the interglacial period of 400,000 years ago closely matches our own - because the shape of the Earth's orbit was the same then as it is now.

That warm spell lasted a whopping 28,000 years - so ours probably will, too.

"The next ice age is not imminent," said Dr Wolff, "and greenhouse warming makes it even less likely - despite what The Day After Tomorrow says."

Epica scientists hope that after they have fully analysed the ice core's atmospheric gases, they will gain a deeper knowledge of how climate relates to them.

"We will double the timescale over which we can study greenhouse gases," said co-author Thomas F Stocker, of the University of Bern, Switzerland. "We will be able to show what the natural variability is in relation to gases like CO2."

By understanding what greenhouse gases did to global temperature in the past, scientists might be able to predict the effect of humankind's enthusiastic CO2 belching.

"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible."

He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."

It looks like pretty cool research, and may ultimately help us get to the bottom of whether or not our production of greenhouse gases is having a significant effect on the climate.

Superbelt · 06-10-2004, 06:30 AM

Actually that kind of stuff is dying out in importance. It will still have it's place for certain measurements but it's relative youth is going against it. The new hotness are studying speleothems (stalactites, stalagmites and flowstones). They are limestone deposits, the oldest of which date back to the Middle Triassic (~230 million years ago) They are formed when calcium carbonate precipitates from degassing solutions seeping into limestone caves

That is much older than any ice cores we can get now. And it remains much more stable.

Speleothems grow in rings just like trees on a fairly steady basis, though not as steady as trees do.

They are important for climate change because periods of rapid deposits denote wetness intervals. Oxygen ratios in the composition reflect regional precipitation. Their annual laminations are also climate related.

There are a bunch of other things you can do with speliothems that even I don't fully understand and I have been on and off doing study with them for the past several years. The science for them isn't perfected but it's progressing quickly.

06-02-2004, 11:31 AM	#41 (permalink)
wallace1 Tilted Location: Princeton,NJ	I live in the tri state area, did I experience a differnet winter than you? We had very little snow and relatively moderate temps. Besides the idea is that things get warmer before the big chill. __________________ Midway in the journey of our life I came to myself in a dark wood, for the straight way was lost.

06-03-2004, 02:04 AM	#44 (permalink)
Ripp3r Tilted Location: Dublin, Ireland	I find the study on geological evolution fascinating at the least, However I do believe that we have too little facts to accuratly predict the effects of our current actions. The Earth seems to be in a cycle of heating up and cooling down, a lot of this has to do with the Coaxial rotation of the planet. meaning that certain parts of the earth will in fact be further from the sun and receive less sunlight at certain years within the secondary revolution. This could explain the changes in climate and the occurance of Ice ages and even explain Global Warming in part. I think we can all agree that our increasing pollution causes the decay of the ozon layer, which causes more lethal and harmful radiation from the sun to penetrate our atmosphere ... but I don't think that causes global warming as such. It just causes more deseases like skincancer and the likes imho. All in all, we can speculate all we want, and trust or distrust the findings of our scientists... but reality is, that none of us will be around to experience the end of the world ... coz we'll all be long dead by then. __________________ We All Have Questions What Seperates The Men From The Boys Is The Ability To Use Google To Find Our Answers

06-03-2004, 03:23 AM	#46 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	DelayedReaction, yes. You've just delineated the line between science and politics. This is why humans live in a world dominated by politicians and not scientists. __________________ create evolution

06-04-2004, 08:34 AM	#51 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Yes I do know that much of what I say is true. There are studies that attribute carbon to temperature accumulation. It's called general physics. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. For your own experiment, Fill one tube with a normal mix of air, fill another with the air plus an increasingly larger mix of CO2. Train heat lamps over both and see that the one with higher CO2 gets warmer. It's the same thing on the macroscale. We can measure CO2 levels over a geologically significant timeframe. There are many ways to do this, two of the most common are to discern CO2 levels from ancient trees like the Sequoias and Joshua trees. We can also get CO2 levels from ice bores in the antarctic. At normal levels the CO2 can be reabsorbed by the earth, but at the rates and levels we have it at now it cannot. Atmospheric measurements have shown the excess carbon remains. Finally about science grants. Those who do the science could have a reason to skew the data. That is why we have peer review and duplication of results. We don't start believing anything until the rest of the scientific community has had their chance to test the theories and results from these studies. And the Global Warming theories have stood up to all of these tests. It is well accepted in the scientific community now and those who believe climate change to not be a human created problem are on the extreme fringe of science.

06-10-2004, 06:30 AM	#53 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Actually that kind of stuff is dying out in importance. It will still have it's place for certain measurements but it's relative youth is going against it. The new hotness are studying speleothems (stalactites, stalagmites and flowstones). They are limestone deposits, the oldest of which date back to the Middle Triassic (~230 million years ago) They are formed when calcium carbonate precipitates from degassing solutions seeping into limestone caves That is much older than any ice cores we can get now. And it remains much more stable. Speleothems grow in rings just like trees on a fairly steady basis, though not as steady as trees do. They are important for climate change because periods of rapid deposits denote wetness intervals. Oxygen ratios in the composition reflect regional precipitation. Their annual laminations are also climate related. There are a bunch of other things you can do with speliothems that even I don't fully understand and I have been on and off doing study with them for the past several years. The science for them isn't perfected but it's progressing quickly.