Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future23-08-2018 14:35
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Hi All,

New to the group. Been reading several of the posts and have found them interesting. I wanted to get some feedback on a paper I put together around ice ages in Earth's history. It should be attached to this post. I put this together more as a way to gather my thoughts on the topic - to get it out of my head and put it on paper. Its about 15 pages of content (but a lot of graphs and short text) but considering the topic (which one could write a 1,000 page paper on if they tried) its more of a cliff notes.

As I said, its sort of a very brief history of climate change as it relates to ice ages. I am *NOT* trying to focus on climate change as it is discussed today in its highly politicized format, although one cant help but at least touch on it a little. If I were to very quickly sum up the paper I might make these points:

- Assert that we are technically still in an ice age (just that we're in the interglacial period)
- Note that Earth's natural normal temperature when not in an ice age is much hotter than today
- Theorize about 3 possible outcomes for our future, regardless of if humans are impacting climate change.

Would love to discuss the observations/opinions I make in the paper to find its flaws/weaknesses, and maybe expand/change from how climate change is currently discussed in todays political environment. I do hope the discussion can be constructive. I'm sure I have errors and/or my observations are flawed. I'm hoping to learn and make corrections. Note that this "paper" is just personal. It is not for any other purpose, it is not for publication or posting somewhere (beyond this forum and another like it), its not homework (I'm 54, not 15) and its not for work (I'm sure I'd be fired if this was meant for professional use). Just my thoughts and observations to fuel my interest in the topic.



Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback.

Glenn
Attached file:
climatechangehistory.docx
Edited on 23-08-2018 14:51
RE: Hoping this has the attachment23-08-2018 14:40
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
OK - figured out the file attachment issue. The name of the file had spaces in it. I removed the spaces and shortened the name a little. It should now be attached to the original post.
Edited on 23-08-2018 14:52
23-08-2018 19:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
Hi, welcome to the forum. It may be dominated by idiots here a bit. There are occaisional decent posters though.

I don't see anything wrong with it at a glance, but I also don't really see the point beyond a decent background intro to earth climate history.

The AGW argument is divided, I think into 2 camps;

1, The WE ARE ALL DOOMED UNLESS WE........

and

2, What are you talking about? THERE IS NO DETECTABLE HUMAN CAUSED CLIMATE EFFECT or THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT EVEN IF WE TAKE THE WORST CASE SCENARIOS!

and I suppose

3, Mad people. Flat earthers etc. There are plenty of those here.

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.

Edited on 23-08-2018 19:28
23-08-2018 20:00
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Thanks for the reply Tim. I very much appreciate the input and I get the "don't see the point" perspective.

I put this together because all I see in the media is the discussion focusing on these points:
- Is climate change even happening?
- Is it humans fault or natural?
- Predictions about a 2 or 3 degree C rise in temps
- And comparisons that only look back at most 1,000 years.

For the first bullet I dont think current discussions take enough of the climate history into account to even comprehend what it even means to say the climate is changing. Hence why I wanted to expand the horizon much further out.

For the second bullet - I dislike that discussion as a focus because I believe its probably not provable enough in the short term and only serves to paralyze any chance of taking actions. Again, understand that Earth is normally much warmer than even the dire prognosis of the alarmists should be a concern worth studying.

For the third bullet - If the normal global average is 17 F (about 9C) higher than today, I personally would like to see the focus be more around that than around a couple degrees. Would people living closer to the equator take it more seriously if you told them they might have summer highs of 130 F? I dont even know if humans can survive in a climate that is more to Earth's normal.

I guess the fourth bullet just wrap all this together (or wraps back to the first) by trying to expand the view. When we only look at the past 1000 years and all we have for data is Al Gore's hockey stick graph - I think that forces the discussion around a misleading perspective.

I think I started putting my thoughts into this paper simply to make sure I was thinking clearly. Prior to this I would voice my thoughts but people mostly think I'm nuts when I say things like "we are still technically in an ice age" or "normally Earth is so much hotter on average that its not even clear we could stop it from changing." Having graphs tends to help.

Again, appreciate your comment.
23-08-2018 20:05
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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?
23-08-2018 22:55
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Gamul1 wrote:
Hi All,


Thanks in advance for your thoughts and feedback.

Glenn



...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
24-08-2018 07:35
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
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......


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.

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 get what they know on technical subjects from the media and they get that mixed up besides. There are exceptions, but not enough.

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.

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.

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.
24-08-2018 13:07
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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


Thanks James for your reply. I agree we have reached peak warming for an interglacial. Which direction from here is the likely question of the day. Just using history for reference I would agree we are close to the tipping point to leave the interglacial and return to full ice age. All the timing is about right for that to happen.

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.

To me, the real problem is that we lack any true experience on how to fully comprehend the recent data. There were no modern humans recording precise data in any previous real event. Its one thing to get general temp data from ice core samples that cover periods of thousands of years. But how accurate was it for covering short periods like 100 years? We have also never had the influence factor of humans and the industrial period. This will be our first sample for that and its still happening. We can speculate all we want but until it is history we wont be able ot know how Earth responds to this kind of input.

To be clear, in my paper I'm not advocating one way or the other which I think will happen. I'm pointing out 3 possible scenarios that Earth's history indicates are likely to happen: 1) Much hotter than even the alarmists are concerned about, 2) Ice age conditions, or 3) Status quo.

I do think status quo is the least likely in the relative short term but do mention that it may be possible to maintain status quo indefinitely if we could learn to control the climate that precisely. But as long as the discussion remains as politicized as it does today I dont think there is much hope of that happening.
24-08-2018 13:47
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
Thanks still learning. Appreciate your thoughts.


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.


I would agree the pieces I have are mainstream science. I gathered and verified the data from multiple sources. I just chose the specific graphs because I thought they were the clearest to read.

As implied by what you said - yes, the problem is with mainstream media, the general public, and worse - the governments. Governments appear to be making policy (or not) based on media and public opinion, not science. My off the cuff estimate is 99% of the population has no real understanding of climate science or history but 50% of them seem totally willing to go to battle with their ignorance.

This really is the root of why I put on "paper" what I did. Somewhat to offer a short concise summary of what I think is the bigger issue. And somewhat so I can validate to myself I was not insane. Jury is still out on that second point...


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.


100% agree. And its the politicians being in this group that is most concerning, as it means at best little gets done and at worst nothing, or the wrong things, get done.

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.


Yes, I have heard a lot of discussion around rate of change. Figures 4 & 5 in my paper I think show rate of change pretty well for the past 4 or 5 interglacial periods. Both charts show that going from peak interglacial to peak ice - is a gradual process and never really flattens out. It just keeps getting colder, until it starts to warm up. However, it appears the rate of change to go from peak ice to interglacial is very rapid and sudden. The climb up appears to be short - maybe 100 to 200 years. The drop back down is tens of thousands.

However, the figures are suggestive that the initial drop from interglacial seems fairly rapid, along the same rate as the rise out of ice, and then settles into a slow/steady decline.

What none of the data I have found gives us is the rate of change from the larger ice age period to the Earth norm of no ice age and visa versa - from Earth norm to full ice age. I think that level of preciseness probably can't be gleaned with the limited tools we have and given we have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years - that is the only climate modern humans have ever known.

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.


The hockey stick graph may be an exposure bias on my part. Either because of age or because of my location. Or maybe just because of my long time interest, it stuck with me. But it was thrust in everyone's face in the 2000 USA Presidential elections between Al Gore and George Bush. Gore put that graph out there and the main stream media latched onto it as proof of climate change and proof of George Bush's ignorance on the topic. I personally dont label it proof of anything meaningful, unless only understanding climate over the past 1000 years is someones definition of meaningful.

I do agree that CO2 has risen the past 100+ years. And I do agree humans at least to some extent have contributed to that. To what degree I think remains to be seen. Figure 2 in my paper (again, not my data) clearly shows CO2 is not a stable measurement and has risen quite dramatically several times in the past all without human intervention.

I dont agree that there have not been other sources found. Warming oceans and melting perma frost have both been shown as major contributors to atmospheric CO2. As has declining rain forest. The real question under that is why those conditions are happening. Would those be happening in a natural cycle right now anyway? Or are those happening as a result of human intervention? I honestly have no idea.

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.


I think the implied result of trying to stop the CO2 experiment is to keep us in the goldilocks zone. People may not be aware that an interglacial period is only a small percentage of what Eartth's climate is and is most certainly not any sort of normal. I dont have data on this but just extrapolating from the various graphs in my paper I would take a guess that at best Earth being in an interglacial period has happened maybe in total about 1% to 2% of Earths total time history. And I think that might be generously too high.

If left to itself there is a 100% chance in the near future that Earth will either go back into the full ice period of the ice age we are in, or leave the ice age completely and Earth's average global temperature will probably hit around 75F - about 17F higher than the average over the past 10,000 years. If humans stop putting out CO2 all together, I will put out there that it is still a 100% chance we leave the interglacial and get hot or cold. Earth has proven over and over that this is its natural cycle without humans.

Neither condition of full ice or full heat will be good for humans. So why not try to change the discussion and do the research to see if we could possibly keep Earth in that goldilocks zone indefinitely? I for one would like to see us learn to control Earths climate and avoid either extreme if possible. I doubt we ever will but it's worth the effort.
Edited on 24-08-2018 13:54
24-08-2018 16:06
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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).
..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. The slowing of the Gulf Stream also increases temperatures in Great Britain as well as France.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/47iqM9TtHmTJUhRV8

.and

https://photos.app.goo.gl/LZ5SRSFNUQXZTfYz8


..Myself, I think the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is heavily influencing this. 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.
24-08-2018 18:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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).

Sharks are common there anyway. They're actually pretty common most anywhere.
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.
The Gulf Stream isn't slowing.
James___ wrote:
The slowing of the Gulf Stream also increases temperatures in Great Britain as well as France.
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near the UK or France.
James___ wrote:
..Myself, I think the warming of the Greenland Sea abyss is heavily influencing this.
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland either.
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.

How do you know?


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2018 19:50
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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:

https://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/2018/04/17/gulf-stream-change-spells-more-sea-level-danger-for-the-caribbean/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005084916.htm

https://scijinks.gov/review/gulf-stream/gulf-stream1.jpg

For a bunch more: https://www.google.com/search?q=gulf+stream&num=50&newwindow=1&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3xr2skIbdAhWCslQKHYd4AogQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=943#imgrc=_


By every scientific account I have seen the last 10 years, they show the gulf stream slowing, most likely as a result of fresh water melt from Greenland Glaciers. And every science book/paper I have read always tells me the gulf stream goes up into Greenland and the UK.

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

Also, I assume you and I might be on different pages about the gulf stream. Maybe you meant a different flow location or maybe you're thinking of a different aspect. Can you double check and maybe post a link explaining your view?

Thanks
24-08-2018 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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...

I am not interested in news agencies that just copy the same propaganda to each other.
Gamul1 wrote:
By every scientific account I have seen the last 10 years,

Science is not an 'account'. It is not a news story. It is not data. It is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' account.
Gamul1 wrote:
they show the gulf stream slowing,

The Gulf Stream isn't slowing. The same forces that drive it are still there and are still unchanged.
Gamul1 wrote:
most likely as a result of fresh water melt from Greenland Glaciers.

The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland. The maps of world currents you are depending on are wrong.
Gamul1 wrote:
And every science book/paper I have read always tells me the gulf stream goes up into Greenland and the UK.

It goes nowhere near these areas.
Gamul1 wrote:
Can you share the science sources where they show recent data that shows the gulf stream not slowing?

Science is not a 'source'. Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is nothing more. If you want information about the Gulf Stream and it's speed and current location, I suggest you study maritime charts and forecasts of the area.
Gamul1 wrote:
Also, I assume you and I might be on different pages about the gulf stream.

No kidding. Your page seems to come out the hilarious farce 'Day After Tomorrow'.
Gamul1 wrote:
Maybe you meant a different flow location

No. The location of the Gulf Stream has always been the same.
Gamul1 wrote:
or maybe you're thinking of a different aspect.
No.
Gamul1 wrote:
Can you double check and maybe post a link explaining your view?

Use actual maritime charts and forecasts. Not the propaganda you hear from these 'scientists'. You will find that these 'scientists', aren't. They are climate 'scientists', which deny both science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2018 20:34
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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.
Edited on 24-08-2018 20:35
24-08-2018 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


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


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2018 22:38
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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.
24-08-2018 23:36
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Greenland either.



...OMG itn,
..I think you got it. The next thing I know is that you'll say my brother isn't my mother. If that's the case then who is the "other" ?
24-08-2018 23:51
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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.
25-08-2018 02:45
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1052)
Gamul1 wrote:
Unless you can respond with more intelligence, I'm done with responding to you.

You might try posting with more intelligence.
25-08-2018 19:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


More random statements that are flat wrong. *yawn* You can't even define what 'change' IS.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-08-2018 19:13
26-08-2018 01:27
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Into the Night wrote:
More random statements that are flat wrong. *yawn* You can't even define what 'change' IS.



...itn, anymore you're a waste of time. I can define change. It's what happened around Native Americans. Because they chose not to be a part of change they were left behind to live on reservations.
..Before that the Native Americans took the land from the little people. Native American folklore there. And yet in Central and South America there are aborignes (Native Indians) that are short compared to Europeans and Native Americans.
..Many different peoples are in North America now. Change happened. I am surprised that you did not notice that.
..And then again there are tribes that mixed with Europeans and anyone else because they saw change happening.

..@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.
Edited on 26-08-2018 01:39
26-08-2018 04:13
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...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
Edited on 26-08-2018 04:36
26-08-2018 05:36
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
...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.
26-08-2018 12:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
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.
26-08-2018 12:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
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.


Yes, well spotted.
26-08-2018 13:15
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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.


One "thin" hypothesis in my paper is the 100,000 year cycle of earth's wobble along its orbit. It is merely an observation which could be coincidence but I'm not a fan of coincidence. Whether it feeds that cycle or not the wobble plays some factor with our Earth.
26-08-2018 13:18
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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.


Oh - and what makes you think we have lots of time to figure it out? We've had 12,000 years of relative warm and to some measurements the last ice peak was 20,000 years ago. I would argue if Earth was on a natural cycle we would be on the cusp of re-entering the ice part of this ice age.

Humans may very well have tipped the scales and caused Earth to break cycles that have been happening for hundreds of millions of years. If so, it remains ot be seen if that is good or bad.
26-08-2018 13:21
Gamul1
☆☆☆☆☆
(35)
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!
26-08-2018 17:11
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
Gamul1 wrote:
Oh - and what makes you think we have lots of time to figure it out?




...The glaciers on Greenland. I tend to believe that their "state of health" is like a barometer. This is because they can influence the effect that I believe the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges have in releasing heat from deep faults.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X98001587

https://www.columbian.com/news/2018/jul/05/arctic-sea-warming-up-to-atlantic-ocean/


...By the way, the warming mentioned by Columbian.com might influence the weather in Boston, Ma. both in summer (warmer) and winter (colder). It'd average out to be about a normal yearly average.


..p.s.s., with Greenland, as it's glaciers melt the North American tectonic plate will increase it's "rebound" influencing the deep faults of the ridges around it where the Eurasian tectonic plate meets the one we're sitting on. I think this is something that greatly influences ice ages and is why scientists have trouble understanding the natural cycle of climate change.
Edited on 26-08-2018 17:37
26-08-2018 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


Earth's orbit is not affected by its temperature.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2018 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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


The amount of ice does not affect Earth's wobble. There is no gravity trying to pull Earth 'down'. Earth spins in open space, not on a tabletop.


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2018 22:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2018 06:28
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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!



...I think you'll find this interesting because of the times it lists.
..This is when our current ice age started.

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


...The 2nd part of the quote is when ice ages went from a cycle of
1 every 40,000 years to 1 every 100,000 years.

..The article is about how climate change coincided with human evolution. What drove climate change ? With me, I consider an ice age when it's a glacial period. The current definition encompasses warm periods which most people would not consider to be an ice age. An example is the warm inter-glacial period that we are now experiencing.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/record/archives/vol19/vol19_iss13/record1913.13
27-08-2018 11:22
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(222)
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!


The subject is mentioned in chapter 1 of the textbook Principles of Planetary Climate (R Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press 2010)

This article refers to relatively recent (last 65 milllion years) tectonic motion affecting climate: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/292/5517/686

Looks like this volume is devoted to the subject: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/tectonic-boundary-conditions-for-climate-reconstructions-9780195112450?cc=us&lang=en&

Some of the content of the above reference is here: https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf


Not so much about tectonic configurations, but more relevant to your opening post in this thread is a recent PNAS article: http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
27-08-2018 13:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1260)
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.

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.
27-08-2018 15:56
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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.
..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. 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. It was normal that summer.
27-08-2018 20:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.

Apparently not. Go read up on it again.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Deserts do occur generally because the air over them is warming, thus taking in more water.

Nope. Deserts occur because of descending air.
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.

The lower air winds do not carry moisture from the desert to the equator. The part where air is rising and dumping it's moisture is correct, however. The upper air winds then carry THAT air northward. You also tend to forget the northern and southern Hadley cells, which do the same thing.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Increasing the heat in this will just widen the zone of rain.

Hadley cells ARE heat. They are convective heat.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2018 20:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6074)
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.

Hurricanes don't form because of warm ocean water. They form because of a difference in temperature, like any storm.
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.

The have done this since the 50's. Where have you been?
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.

Thunderstorms don't stack on top of each other. Are you referring to a following storm cell?
James___ wrote:
It was normal that summer.

Heh. It's fairly normal any summer in Jacksonville to have a high risk of hurricanes.


The Parrot Killer
27-08-2018 23:25
James___
★★★☆☆
(851)
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
28-08-2018 06:18
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1052)
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


Sure you posted up the correct storm? In the video you can only see 1/2 of ONE storm. There is NO view of the top to confirm two cells. I see one mature slightly outflow dominant supercell. What are you looking at?
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Brief history of ice ages, and how that might relate to our future:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
New Little Ice Age3726-11-2018 21:13
Arctic ice hit one of its lowest points on record1105-10-2018 22:22
Ice sat 2 launches2228-09-2018 03:17
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show3218-06-2018 22:14
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
Articles
Barack Obama: Securing Our Energy Future
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact