Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future

Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.

Gamul1 wrote:
Hi All,


Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback.

Glenn

Gamul1 wrote:


As I said, its sort of a very brief history of climate change as it relates to ice ages.....
..... Theorize about 3 possible outcomes for our future, regardless of if humans are impacting climate change......

James___ wrote:

...Hi and Welcome.
..Your 2 graphs on page 6 shows that we might have peaked with warming and are now starting to cool. The last 3 or 4 inter-glacial periods had short periods of warming comparatively speaking. From what I've seen we should be near the peak warming for an inter-glacial period.
..If your graphs are accurate then we're actually in a cool down which could last 70 or 80 thousand years.
..Something like that would mean a discussion with reference material made available. I snipped a picture of them so everyone can see what I'm on about.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/YQmaXdYZbTHbpvPH7

still learning wrote:

Near as I can tell your short treatment of paleoclimate is mainstream science.

Some of it is sort of new, or at least poorly known by the media and the public at large, as in the view that today we're in an interglacial period within an ice age that began about three million years ago.

still learning wrote:
I think you have more or less the opinion of the work of mainstream media on the topic of climate change as I do: At best, incomplete and shallow and oversimplified. But that is true of all technical topics and many nontechnical subjects too. And most politicians get what they know on technical subjects from the media and they get that mixed up besides. There are exceptions, but not enough.

still learning wrote:
A major difference between paleotemperature changes and the expected business-as-usual temperature changes is the rate of change. With the possible exception of the PETM spike, it's thought that past changes were pretty gradual, not much in any year or century, but the changes went on for a very long time, in human terms anyway. A rate of climate/global average surface temperature similar to what has happened in the past would be easy for humans and human institutions to adapt to. An change as rapid as what may happen in the next century or so will/would be a challenge.

still learning wrote:
Irrelevant aside: You wrote of the hockey stick graph that media and politicians have used it as proof that humans are causing global warming. Maybe so, but I don't recall it. It does show a rapid rise in temperature, but not the why of it. The word "proof" is rarely used in science anyway, more in courtrooms.

So why the hockeystick upturn? In your enumeration of causes of past climate change, the only one that has changed much in the hockeystick period is
the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. From fossil fuel burning. A lot of effort has been expended trying to find another cause of warming or another source of CO2, but the numbers don't work out.

still learning wrote:
Try to keep the climate in your "goldilocks" zone? No not really, just stop the inadvertent atmospheric experiment. Let natural climate change happen, just slow the ill-advised dumping of exhaust gasses ito the atmosphere.

Gamul1 wrote:

The problem is made more difficult by a variety of problems.

First, there are mixed signals in recent data. On the one hand there is data to suggest that some cooling may be happening. On the other hand there is also data, and personal experience by millions of people, that things are hotter than average. This summer in my area we have had far more days above 90F than we can remember. It has pretty much stayed hot for 2 months.

James___ wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

The problem is made more difficult by a variety of problems.

First, there are mixed signals in recent data. On the one hand there is data to suggest that some cooling may be happening. On the other hand there is also data, and personal experience by millions of people, that things are hotter than average. This summer in my area we have had far more days above 90F than we can remember. It has pretty much stayed hot for 2 months.

...Gamul 1,
..I'll give you my hypothesis on why Cape Cod is becoming a shark magnet (sharks are now common there).

James___ wrote:
..Cape Cod and to it's north Boston is warmed by a recirculation gyre from the Gulf Stream. And since the Gulf Stream is slowing it's dumping more heat in this manner.

James___ wrote:
The slowing of the Gulf Stream also increases temperatures in Great Britain as well as France.

James___ wrote:
..Myself, I think the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is heavily influencing this.

James___ wrote:
This is where I usually say we need more research because there is just too much heat on the Greenland Sea sea floor to think it stays there.

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream isn't slowing.

The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near the UK or France.
[
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland either.

Gamul1 wrote:
Hi Into The Night,

Thanks for joining the conversation. Some of the push back you had has me confused. You replied to James:

Into the Night wrote:

The Gulf Stream isn't slowing.

The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near the UK or France.
[
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland either.

I Just want to share these:
...deleted numerous Holy Links...

Gamul1 wrote:
By every scientific account I have seen the last 10 years,

Gamul1 wrote:
they show the gulf stream slowing,

Gamul1 wrote:
most likely as a result of fresh water melt from Greenland Glaciers.

Gamul1 wrote:
And every science book/paper I have read always tells me the gulf stream goes up into Greenland and the UK.

Gamul1 wrote:
Can you share the science sources where they show recent data that shows the gulf stream not slowing?

Gamul1 wrote:
Also, I assume you and I might be on different pages about the gulf stream.

Gamul1 wrote:
Maybe you meant a different flow location

Gamul1 wrote:
or maybe you're thinking of a different aspect.

Gamul1 wrote:
Can you double check and maybe post a link explaining your view?

Into the Night wrote:

A whole bunch of BS......

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A whole bunch of BS......

Let me guess - When Rudy Giuliani said the other day "Truth is not Truth" - your head was nodding right along with his and your mouth was making some noise that sounded like "right on".

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But stupidity just can't be reasoned with. You either get a perverse pleasure from playing the antagonistic contrarian - or you're truly among the dumbest people on Earth.

Either way, the pile of dog excrement in my back yard has far more purpose and value than your pathetic existence.

Into the Night wrote:

So instead of actually taking the time to learn about this stuff you decide to throw a bunch of insults. *yawn*

Into the Night wrote:
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland either.

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

So instead of actually taking the time to learn about this stuff you decide to throw a bunch of insults. *yawn*

Honestly - your response was not worthy of spending any more time on. When someone throws established scientific facts out the window and disputes them with as much gusto as the idiots who still think the Earth is flat, then its time to disengage from the ignorance and move on.

Unless you can respond with more intelligence, I'm done with responding to you.

Gamul1 wrote:
Unless you can respond with more intelligence, I'm done with responding to you.

James___ wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

So instead of actually taking the time to learn about this stuff you decide to throw a bunch of insults. *yawn*

Honestly - your response was not worthy of spending any more time on. When someone throws established scientific facts out the window and disputes them with as much gusto as the idiots who still think the Earth is flat, then its time to disengage from the ignorance and move on.

Unless you can respond with more intelligence, I'm done with responding to you.

..In my opinion itn is Native American and hates everyone. If you have Netflix watch Longmire. There was a movie where a woman died from exposure and her boyfriend killed for trying to protect her. It happened on a reservation. https://www.refinery29.com/2017/08/166625/wind-river-review-indian-reservation-sex-crime-drugs

..I've tried to explain to itn that the world couldn't stop changing to appease Native Americans.

Into the Night wrote:
More random statements that are flat wrong. *yawn* You can't even define what 'change' IS.

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.

Oh - and I would agree if the amount of change ends up "only" being a couple degrees, I think we'll be fine and for some, maybe even better off. But I do think our best hope is maintaining around the status quo for only a relatively short time.

Eventually - either the Earth will return to full ice age conditions, or it will return to its historic norms of 17F higher as a global average. Either of those conditions would be much more catastrophic. Are the current changes we're seeing a warning sign that it will tip one direction or the other?

Gamul1 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

A whole bunch of BS......

Let me guess - When Rudy Giuliani said the other day "Truth is not Truth" - your head was nodding right along with his and your mouth was making some noise that sounded like "right on".

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But stupidity just can't be reasoned with. You either get a perverse pleasure from playing the antagonistic contrarian - or you're truly among the dumbest people on Earth.

Either way, the pile of dog excrement in my back yard has far more purpose and value than your pathetic existence.

James___ wrote:
...This will border on too much information.
For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle


..We probably have lots of time to get this figured out. Why 80,000 to 90,000 years cold and only 10,000 to 20,000 warm ? And until we understand this we can't know how we're influencing our environment as far as natural glacial cycles goes.

James___ wrote:
...This will border on too much information.
For the past million years this has occurred over and over again at approximately 100,000 year intervals. About 80-90,000 years of ice age with about 10-20,000 years of warm period, give or take some thousands of years.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle


..We probably have lots of time to get this figured out. Why 80,000 to 90,000 years cold and only 10,000 to 20,000 warm ? And until we understand this we can't know how we're influencing our environment as far as natural glacial cycles goes.

Tim the plumber wrote:
This situation of our present ice age will not go away untill the continents move away from their present positions. Humanity will be long gone by then.[/color]

Gamul1 wrote:
Oh - and what makes you think we have lots of time to figure it out?

James___ wrote:
...deleted usual off topic rant and random statements...
..@All,
..With climate change, I think how warm the Arctic gets matters. This is because the orbit of the Earth around the Sun will change. And that would be the prime mover of climate change between glacial and inter-glacial. How will things work out ? Not sure. If ice core samples give any indication then a warmer planet cycles 2 1/2 times faster. That means divide 15,000 by 2.5 = 6,000 years. Under normal interglacial cycles (approx. 100,000 years) we'd have a couple of thousand (3,000 or 4,000) more years before cooling starts. But no one is looking at what happens after inter-glacial warming spikes.

James___ wrote:
...I'll give ya'all my opinion about the Earth's orbit. When the glaciers in the Arctic have reached peak melting the Earth's orbit will go from circular to elliptical. This is because in a sense it will become "top heavy". This means the weight is away from the axis of rotation and causes the earth and the Moon to wobble at their maximum. When this happens the circular orbit will be gone and cooling could start.
..If you consider the mass of the Earth 5.9736 x 1024 kg and it's moment of inertia http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MomentofInertiaEarth.html that's a lot of weight/force to be moving around. This could give us an idea how much inertia (rotational velocity) the earth would need to lose before an elliptical orbit around the Sun would start compensating for it. Who knows, if the Earth's velocity around the Sun increases then that could help to cool our planet as well. Just roll down your windows when you're driving somewhere. Wind chill factor might be overlooked with climate change because it's be on an astrnomical scale. Just throwing out some thoughts here.

..About the Earth's orbit. https://www.windows2universe.org/?page=/the_universe/uts/earth3.html

Tim the plumber wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.

Oh - and I would agree if the amount of change ends up "only" being a couple degrees, I think we'll be fine and for some, maybe even better off. But I do think our best hope is maintaining around the status quo for only a relatively short time.

Eventually - either the Earth will return to full ice age conditions, or it will return to its historic norms of 17F higher as a global average. Either of those conditions would be much more catastrophic. Are the current changes we're seeing a warning sign that it will tip one direction or the other?

The reason we are in an ice age, having glacial ice at sea level anywhere on earth, is that the South pole is land and the North pole is a land locked.

If the normal state of the ocean being over the pole with free circulation happens the temperature there will rise and there will be no ice at sea level. thus the reflecting of much of the sun's heat will not happen and we are back to normal service as far as the climate is concearned.

This temperature rise of 9c will not be even. The equitorial regions are at 30-32c because the effect of more heat energy going into that situation is simply more rain. That is what is limiting the temperature of those regions where the incoming sun's radiation is strongest.

That the deserts either side of the equitorial regions exist is a result of not enough heat energy. There air is sucked into the equator zones and since it is warming up as it passes over the deserts it sucks up moisture rater that dropping it as it has to as it moves upwards at the equator.

This situation of our present ice age will not go away untill the continents move away from their present positions. Humanity will be long gone by then.

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
This situation of our present ice age will not go away untill the continents move away from their present positions. Humanity will be long gone by then.[/color]

There have been several ice ages with the continents in their current position and several with the continents in different positions. While I would agree continent position probably plays some role in how Earth's climate plays out, I have not seen any studies that definitely tied the two together and came to any conclusions. Can you point me to some?

Thanks!

The climate in Africa began to grow periodically colder and drier
about 2.8 million years ago,

..The drier periods, which would have dramatically affected the
region's plant and animal life, further intensified between 1.2
million and 800,000 years ago

Gamul1 wrote:
.....There have been several ice ages with the continents in their current position and several with the continents in different positions. While I would agree continent position probably plays some role in how Earth's climate plays out, I have not seen any studies that definitely tied the two together and came to any conclusions. Can you point me to some?Thanks!

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.

Oh - and I would agree if the amount of change ends up "only" being a couple degrees, I think we'll be fine and for some, maybe even better off. But I do think our best hope is maintaining around the status quo for only a relatively short time.

Eventually - either the Earth will return to full ice age conditions, or it will return to its historic norms of 17F higher as a global average. Either of those conditions would be much more catastrophic. Are the current changes we're seeing a warning sign that it will tip one direction or the other?

The reason we are in an ice age, having glacial ice at sea level anywhere on earth, is that the South pole is land and the North pole is a land locked.

If the normal state of the ocean being over the pole with free circulation happens the temperature there will rise and there will be no ice at sea level. thus the reflecting of much of the sun's heat will not happen and we are back to normal service as far as the climate is concearned.

This temperature rise of 9c will not be even. The equitorial regions are at 30-32c because the effect of more heat energy going into that situation is simply more rain. That is what is limiting the temperature of those regions where the incoming sun's radiation is strongest.

That the deserts either side of the equitorial regions exist is a result of not enough heat energy. There air is sucked into the equator zones and since it is warming up as it passes over the deserts it sucks up moisture rater that dropping it as it has to as it moves upwards at the equator.

This situation of our present ice age will not go away untill the continents move away from their present positions. Humanity will be long gone by then.

Deserts do not occur because equatorial air is sucking up moisture as it pass over them. You should read up on Hadley cells.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hadley cells are exactly what I was refering to.

Deserts do occur generally because the air over them is warming, thus taking in more water. The wind is blowing towards the places with even more heat input, the equatorial zones, where all that moisture falls out of the air as it rises, becoming colder and reducing in pressure. Thus the equator is always wet and hot.

Increasing the heat in this will just widen the zone of rain.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Personally I see no problem with the most extreme predictions of the IPCC. A slightly warmer and wetter world is a good thing as I see it.

Oh - and I would agree if the amount of change ends up "only" being a couple degrees, I think we'll be fine and for some, maybe even better off. But I do think our best hope is maintaining around the status quo for only a relatively short time.

Eventually - either the Earth will return to full ice age conditions, or it will return to its historic norms of 17F higher as a global average. Either of those conditions would be much more catastrophic. Are the current changes we're seeing a warning sign that it will tip one direction or the other?

The reason we are in an ice age, having glacial ice at sea level anywhere on earth, is that the South pole is land and the North pole is a land locked.

If the normal state of the ocean being over the pole with free circulation happens the temperature there will rise and there will be no ice at sea level. thus the reflecting of much of the sun's heat will not happen and we are back to normal service as far as the climate is concearned.

This temperature rise of 9c will not be even. The equitorial regions are at 30-32c because the effect of more heat energy going into that situation is simply more rain. That is what is limiting the temperature of those regions where the incoming sun's radiation is strongest.

That the deserts either side of the equitorial regions exist is a result of not enough heat energy. There air is sucked into the equator zones and since it is warming up as it passes over the deserts it sucks up moisture rater that dropping it as it has to as it moves upwards at the equator.

This situation of our present ice age will not go away untill the continents move away from their present positions. Humanity will be long gone by then.

Deserts do not occur because equatorial air is sucking up moisture as it pass over them. You should read up on Hadley cells.

Hadley cells are exactly what I was refering to.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Deserts do occur generally because the air over them is warming, thus taking in more water.

Tim the plumber wrote:
The wind is blowing towards the places with even more heat input, the equatorial zones, where all that moisture falls out of the air as it rises, becoming colder and reducing in pressure. Thus the equator is always wet and hot.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Increasing the heat in this will just widen the zone of rain.

James___ wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

Hadley cells are exactly what I was refering to.

Deserts do occur generally because the air over them is warming, thus taking in more water. The wind is blowing towards the places with even more heat input, the equatorial zones, where all that moisture falls out of the air as it rises, becoming colder and reducing in pressure. Thus the equator is always wet and hot.

Increasing the heat in this will just widen the zone of rain.

...You might consider that tropical depressions and hurricanes form around the Great Rift Valley in Africa. It seems that the prevailing winds follows the Atlas Mountains south from Asia Minor (dry air). The winds follow just south of the Sahara Desert and carry the moisture out over the Atlantic Ocean. And then if the ocean is warm enough (84° F.) a hurricane can happen.

James___ wrote:
..I used to live in Jacksonville, Fl. and one hurricane season there was a record 33 or 34 tropical depressions and hurricanes. They started following them from their point of origin. It was pretty cool in a way.

James___ wrote:
At 5 pm one thunderhead would release a downpour and then about 2 or 2 1/2 hours later the thunderhead that was on top would release it's rain.

James___ wrote:
It was normal that summer.

Into the Night wrote:

Thunderstorms don't stack on top of each other. Are you referring to a following storm cell?

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Thunderstorms don't stack on top of each other. Are you referring to a following storm cell?

..@All,
..Ignore the halo out in front. And this is in Florida. Super cells in the Midwest will behave differently. The 2 lower parts are 2 different thunderheads. Stop it once in a while and take a close look. It's easier to understand this if you're there when it happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a7W0Hm006Y