Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[SIZE=2]The next ice age will come eventually. Will global warming happen so rapidly due to raised carbon levels that is drastically changes our current environment. I realize that ice ages a cyclical, and will happen again within the next few millenniums. I guess we have to worry more about our effects on the environment over the next 50 to 100 years. Seems like they have proven that little ice ages happen every 400 to 500 year cycles. Seems like the fall of the Roman empire was at beginning of a small age ice beginning, and the fall of the Mayan empire happened when the little ice age was ending in Europe around 900 A.D. and going into a 400 year warming cycle that ended in the 1300's in Europe. Maybe Europe and Central America are affected differently by the cycles. So in essence man really has no for sure way of knowing how to control the temperatures of the planet. If last little ice age ended in 1850's in Europe and the warm cycle last 400 years, then carbon levels we are putting out now may cause the temperatures to rise higher, but will it have reverse effects on other areas of the planet. Some areas warm up, but others cool to the effect that is my question? While others dry out or become moister. So what does reducing carbon really do? If you go back 50 million years ago there were no polar ice caps. Europe was lush dense tropical rain forest. I guess drastic changes in climate can kill off most of the current species in a area very quickly. So what are we really trying to do with the global warming bill. Is it just politics, or does carbon levels really effect the planet that much. Seems like carbon levels cycle around naturally anyways. I am all for cleaning up the pollution mess we have created, but is global warming just a political issue at the current time in our planets ever changing cycles.
Global warming can potentially be linked to a coming ice age. I know this sounds non-intuitive, as ice ages are linked to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but here is how: The Gulf Stream, which keeps our Northern latitudes, especially Northern Europe, from being totally covered in ice, is regulated by variances in temperature and salinity in the Ocean. Adding fresh water (melting glaciers) and heat (ever-so-slightly warmed oceans) to the system could potentially halt the Gulf Stream. If this happens, the areas on our globe that depend on the Gulf Stream to regulate their temperature will become very cold. So yes, warming is some places can cause cooling in others.
The Gulf Stream is, at the moment, slowing because of the recent changes. However, it is hard to say if this would happen soon, much later, etc. You made the good point that a new ice age is going to happen eventually anyway. And it is really hard to say: you can find scientists that say there is indication ice ages happen gradually, and you can also find scientists who say the new evidence in the ice cores shows they happen quickly, over just 2 or 3 years (which supports global warming as a cause). So could reducing carbon slow down an ice age? Maybe. We probably won't be able to tell for sure until it is too late anyway. Personally, I feel that treating the Earth well can only have positive outcomes regardless of whether or not the next ice age is around the corner.
This theory has the same problem as global warming and climate change: scientists know it is happening, but there is disagreement on what will happen and when. Unfortunately, this is not a concept that the public (or media) handles very well. A lot of people look at the fact that there is not a concrete plan or definition and take this to mean global warming is a myth. Add business and political interests to the mix, along with a dash of poor science education, and you have a really big mess. There are a lot of people who take advantage of the fact that the scientific community is still trying to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately, none of this has ever happened before in the modern age.
Global warming can potentially be linked to a coming ice age. I know this sounds non-intuitive, as ice ages are linked to lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but here is how: The Gulf Stream, which keeps our Northern latitudes, especially Northern Europe, from being totally covered in ice, is regulated by variances in temperature and salinity in the Ocean. Adding fresh water (melting glaciers) and heat (ever-so-slightly warmed oceans) to the system could potentially halt the Gulf Stream. If this happens, the areas on our globe that depend on the Gulf Stream to regulate their temperature will become very cold. So yes, warming is some places can cause cooling in others.
The Gulf Stream is, at the moment, slowing because of the recent changes. However, it is hard to say if this would happen soon, much later, etc. You made the good point that a new ice age is going to happen eventually anyway. And it is really hard to say: you can find scientists that say there is indication ice ages happen gradually, and you can also find scientists who say the new evidence in the ice cores shows they happen quickly, over just 2 or 3 years (which supports global warming as a cause). So could reducing carbon slow down an ice age? Maybe. We probably won't be able to tell for sure until it is too late anyway. Personally, I feel that treating the Earth well can only have positive outcomes regardless of whether or not the next ice age is around the corner.
This theory has the same problem as global warming and climate change: scientists know it is happening, but there is disagreement on what will happen and when. Unfortunately, this is not a concept that the public (or media) handles very well. A lot of people look at the fact that there is not a concrete plan or definition and take this to mean global warming is a myth. Add business and political interests to the mix, along with a dash of poor science education, and you have a really big mess. There are a lot of people who take advantage of the fact that the scientific community is still trying to fully understand the problem. Unfortunately, none of this has ever happened before in the modern age.
This just goes to show what a scam global warming is. They now change the terminologyto global climate change so any change in climate can be attributed to CO2. Please tell me a time in history when the climate hasn't changed. Perhaps someone can tell me what the ideal global temperature is.
This also exhibits an AL Gore tactic, global warming is settled sience. This simply isn't so. More an more scientists are changing hteir minds on global warming. It is also interesting to see what happens to funding and grants of those who don't support global warming. Global climate change has sprouted an entire industry that is fueled by special interest money.
This just goes to show what a scam global warming is. They now change the terminologyto global climate change so any change in climate can be attributed to CO2. Please tell me a time in history when the climate hasn't changed. Perhaps someone can tell me what the ideal global temperature is.
This also exhibits an AL Gore tactic, global warming is settled sience. This simply isn't so. More an more scientists are changing hteir minds on global warming. It is also interesting to see what happens to funding and grants of those who don't support global warming. Global climate change has sprouted an entire industry that is fueled by special interest money.
This illustrates the point I am trying to make quite nicely. Because someone saw something dissenting (from a botanist and a physicist) in the news, global warming is a myth. To begin with, neither of these are particularly good sources for scientific argument: new articles, especially tabloid articles (the first source) do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. To make an actual scientific argument, you need to back up your theory with a peer reviewed, journal published article.
The second article is at actually somewhat relevant. Freeman Dyson does have a lot of intellectual clout, and he makes some really great points, like that wind power isn't going to solve anything. But notice: Dyson admits human activity is increasing CO2 levels. He just disagrees on the impact. (Note, this actually disagrees with the first article.) However, Dyson also admits that he doesn't know what is going to happen. Dyson thinks things are being blown out of proportion. This isn't actually evidence for or against. Also, Dyson has done no experimentation on his own, nor is this his area of expertise. One mistake I think a lot of people make is that they look at all scientists as the same. A physicist is not a biologist is not a climatologist. When you concentrate in a science, you really do the vast majority of your work in your concentration. A physicist isn't required to have any background in things like biology. While Dyson clearly has a keen mind and has the right background to comment on the chemistry of what is happening, his background doesn't fully encompass the situation. What he says (admittedly by him) is just conjecture. It might be very good conjecture, but without experiment, it is nothing to build an argument against Global Warming on.
It is a decent place to build an argument that there are other pressing environmental issues that are getting the back seat to climate change, which I totally agree with. But of course with any issue you will run into the same problem: we don't fully understand how what we are doing to our planet is really affecting it. No matter what the issue, the public will drag their feet on the issue until it is too late as long as someone has a financial or political interest not to do the right thing.
This illustrates the point I am trying to make quite nicely. Because someone saw something dissenting (from a botanist and a physicist) in the news, global warming is a myth. To begin with, neither of these are particularly good sources for scientific argument: new articles, especially tabloid articles (the first source) do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. To make an actual scientific argument, you need to back up your theory with a peer reviewed, journal published article.
The second article is at actually somewhat relevant. Freeman Dyson does have a lot of intellectual clout, and he makes some really great points, like that wind power isn't going to solve anything. But notice: Dyson admits human activity is increasing CO2 levels. He just disagrees on the impact. (Note, this actually disagrees with the first article.) However, Dyson also admits that he doesn't know what is going to happen. Dyson thinks things are being blown out of proportion. This isn't actually evidence for or against. Also, Dyson has done no experimentation on his own, nor is this his area of expertise. One mistake I think a lot of people make is that they look at all scientists as the same. A physicist is not a biologist is not a climatologist. When you concentrate in a science, you really do the vast majority of your work in your concentration. A physicist isn't required to have any background in things like biology. While Dyson clearly has a keen mind and has the right background to comment on the chemistry of what is happening, his background doesn't fully encompass the situation. What he says (admittedly by him) is just conjecture. It might be very good conjecture, but without experiment, it is nothing to build an argument against Global Warming on.
It is a decent place to build an argument that there are other pressing environmental issues that are getting the back seat to climate change, which I totally agree with. But of course with any issue you will run into the same problem: we don't fully understand how what we are doing to our planet is really affecting it. No matter what the issue, the public will drag their feet on the issue until it is too late as long as someone has a financial or political interest not to do the right thing.
I am sure Dyson will be gratified you think so highly of him. It is interesting to note you dismiss the thoughts of a botanist but side with a former vice president.
I agree the global warming crowd has a financcial interest in perpetuating the canard. But with each passing day there are more and more scientistrs speaking up. Bottom line global warming is clearly not settled science.
Nuclear waste and contaminated water can kill you today
so who gives a ....... about the earth getting 5 degrees warmer in 50 years.
how about your kids and grandkids for thier sakes?
5 degree temperature change is HUGE.. and involves major global climate change.. europe becoming like siberia... inland north America becoming covered with snow year round, and the breadbasket of the midwest disappearing alltogether...
There's just so much to factor into it..
your response seems very ignorant.... in spite of what you might think.. there's more to the world than just YOU and YOUR time spent on it...
but thanks for considering the rest of humanity...
seems the only book u like to read is that disgusting jesus rag you like to reference....
believe me.. it shows...
how about your kids and grandkids for thier sakes?
5 degree temperature change is HUGE.. and involves major global climate change.. europe becoming like siberia... inland north America becoming covered with snow year round, and the breadbasket of the midwest disappearing alltogether...
There's just so much to factor into it..
your response seems very ignorant.... in spite of what you might think.. there's more to the world than just YOU and YOUR time spent on it...
but thanks for considering the rest of humanity...
seems the only book u like to read is that disgusting jesus rag you like to reference....
believe me.. it shows...
Sweet! That'll make Florida more temperate and we wont have to listen to the whiny poms anymore in the UK!
[SIZE=2]The next ice age will come eventually. Will global warming happen so rapidly due to raised carbon levels that is drastically changes our current environment. I realize that ice ages a cyclical, and will happen again within the next few millenniums. I guess we have to worry more about our effects on the environment over the next 50 to 100 years. Seems like they have proven that little ice ages happen every 400 to 500 year cycles. Seems like the fall of the Roman empire was at beginning of a small age ice beginning, and the fall of the Mayan empire happened when the little ice age was ending in Europe around 900 A.D. and going into a 400 year warming cycle that ended in the 1300's in Europe. Maybe Europe and Central America are affected differently by the cycles. So in essence man really has no for sure way of knowing how to control the temperatures of the planet. If last little ice age ended in 1850's in Europe and the warm cycle last 400 years, then carbon levels we are putting out now may cause the temperatures to rise higher, but will it have reverse effects on other areas of the planet. Some areas warm up, but others cool to the effect that is my question? While others dry out or become moister. So what does reducing carbon really do? If you go back 50 million years ago there were no polar ice caps. Europe was lush dense tropical rain forest. I guess drastic changes in climate can kill off most of the current species in a area very quickly. So what are we really trying to do with the global warming bill. Is it just politics, or does carbon levels really effect the planet that much. Seems like carbon levels cycle around naturally anyways. I am all for cleaning up the pollution mess we have created, but is global warming just a political issue at the current time in our planets ever changing cycles. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/when-will-the-next-ice-age-begin.html[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
There is a new theory called the "Big Freeze", i.e. another ice age brought on faster by Global Warming. As Greenland ice melts and the landmass is exposed the ground gains more heat from the sunlight and this accelerates the ice melting and an unstoppable and accelerating melting process is begun. The main ocean current is called the Thermohaline Circulation, the Gulf Stream is part of this current. It is driven by heat and salt differences within the oceans. If Greenland melts relatively fast in a geological timescale than the ocean will be flooded with FRESH and COLD water; this will change the temperature and salinity content of the ocean, dramatically near Greenland......and the Thermohaline Circulation(which warms Europe etc.) will collapse. This will dramatically change our weather and trigger another Ice Age.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
