turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 The entire continent of Antarctica is covered with ice, as well as the island of Greenland, totaling 6-7 million cubic km of ice. Ice sheets and snow spread from these regions in the winter down to sub-tropical latitudes. There have been times in Earth's history where there's been no ice sheets, so it's some perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Eh...Earth is very much NOT in an ice age by any measurement of the last several million years. Periods you are talking about had widely different CO2 levels (and possibly other important GHGs) not to mention different orientation of the landmasses which makes a big difference on climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Eh...Earth is very much NOT in an ice age by any measurement of the last several million years. Periods you are talking about had widely different CO2 levels (and possibly other important GHGs) not to mention different orientation of the landmasses which makes a big difference on climate. I'm referring to the actual definition. We are indeed in a warm period in a broader ice age. And of course things are different from era to era. "An ice age or, more precisely, glacial age, is a generic geological period of long-term reduction in thetemperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental ice sheets, polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WxUSAF Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Eh...ok. We're in an interglacial period. Semantics, but I conceed the point. I'm not sure if this thread is to make one of the more useless points that AGW skeptics/deniers make, which is, "the Earth has been warmer than now in the past, so what's the big deal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtlehurricane Posted February 6, 2012 Author Share Posted February 6, 2012 Current ice age started 30-40 million years ago it looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Current ice age started 30-40 million years ago it looks like. http://en.wikipedia....rctic_ice_sheet The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. From the wikipedia ice age article. Where are you getting the 30-40 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Hey, the Earth was also once a ball of molten rock and it will one day be absorbed in a red giant sun. Perspective after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Eh...Earth is very much NOT in an ice age by any measurement of the last several million years. Periods you are talking about had widely different CO2 levels (and possibly other important GHGs) not to mention different orientation of the landmasses which makes a big difference on climate. I am not a skeptic and believe strongly that the "rivers of shhhhht" (The Fugs) dumped into the atmosphere are impacting climate (and health) but I am also a geologist- the last period of glaciation ended approximately 10,000 years ago-known as the Wisconsin Glaciation- it covered central park and other noteworthy tourist attractions- Cheers ! http://en.wikipedia....inan_glaciation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downeastnc Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I am not a skeptic and believe strongly that the "rivers of shhhhht" (The Fugs) dumped into the atmosphere are impacting climate (and health) but I am also a geologist- the last period of glaciation ended approximately 10,000 years ago-known as the Wisconsin Glaciation- it covered central park and other noteworthy tourist attractions- Cheers ! http://en.wikipedia....inan_glaciation Must have been quite a sight a mile high wall of ice for as far as the eye could see...my hangup on all this global warming stuff is the globe is always warming or cooling to some degree or another. What is the desired rate of change? Hell for that matter whats the temp the globe suppose to be? Does anyone have a link to what the "normal" state of the climate is suppose to be and if so what is that based on. Some of you guys would **** yourselves with all the doom and gloom stuff had you been around at the end of the Younger Dryas period when sea levels rose 40mm or more a YEAR for a few thousand years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Must have been quite a sight a mile high wall of ice for as far as the eye could see...my hangup on all this global warming stuff is the globe is always warming or cooling to some degree or another. What is the desired rate of change? Hell for that matter whats the temp the globe suppose to be? Does anyone have a link to what the "normal" state of the climate is suppose to be and if so what is that based on. Some of you guys would **** yourselves with all the doom and gloom stuff had you been around at the end of the Younger Dryas period when sea levels rose 40mm or more a YEAR for a few thousand years. You are correct - Do you think civilization could withstand a period like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Must have been quite a sight a mile high wall of ice for as far as the eye could see...my hangup on all this global warming stuff is the globe is always warming or cooling to some degree or another. What is the desired rate of change? Hell for that matter whats the temp the globe suppose to be? Does anyone have a link to what the "normal" state of the climate is suppose to be and if so what is that based on. Some of you guys would **** yourselves with all the doom and gloom stuff had you been around at the end of the Younger Dryas period when sea levels rose 40mm or more a YEAR for a few thousand years. You could be right- I would've shhht myself. Personally, I am not gloom and doom. It's gloom and doom to the industrialists who will eventually be done in- perhaps not by science -YET- science needs to catch up with what we know intuitively. So, the question begs to be asked- do you think its ok to pollute?- is this a "God" given right that we as humans enjoy- ? What I see a lot of is people hiding behind the argument "science hasn't proved it, so it must not be so" I don't buy it. You can- we all have that right- as far I am concerned I will not get hung up in the argument of "science"- I don't need science to know you shouldn't crap in your own nest- my parents brought me up that way. But with the degradation of societal norms by the likes of television and their related bretheren- the human, in general, doesn't really give a shhht, right? . Will AGW stop the next ice sheet? Frankly, I don't think so. But that still doesn't make it OK to dump tons and tons of waste into the atmosphere. While it can't and won't be stopped immediately, it will stop. For that I am certain- By the way, when do you think the last period of glaciation ended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downeastnc Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You are correct - Do you think civilization could withstand a period like that? Well eventually were going to have too, just like eventually we are going to have to deal with sea levels 20-100 feet higher than they currently are. Just 12,000 yrs ago someone standing in lower Manhatten would literally be looking up the wall of a mile of ice that stretched from coast to coast. 130,000 yrs ago sea levels were 20 ft higher than they are right now and only 12,000 yrs ago they were 180-200 FEET lower than they are right now. Sorry if I am not all that concerned about it, its going to happen with or without mans influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I am not a skeptic and believe strongly that the "rivers of shhhhht" (The Fugs) dumped into the atmosphere are impacting climate (and health) but I am also a geologist- the last period of glaciation ended approximately 10,000 years ago-known as the Wisconsin Glaciation- it covered central park and other noteworthy tourist attractions- Cheers ! http://en.wikipedia....inan_glaciation Growing up in Michigan you learn several lifetimes of info on the last ice age in elementary school. 10,000 years sounds about right. I have glacial kettle ponds and boreal remnants within 10 minutes of my backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qaanaaq Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Growing up in Michigan you learn several lifetimes of info on the last ice age in elementary school. 10,000 years sounds about right. I have glacial kettle ponds and boreal remnants within 10 minutes of my backyard. I would love to see some photos- you are lucky! We have what is called "peri-glacial" landforms here in the Blue Ridge I have a piece of Red Spruce I found in a deposit that was radio-carbon dated ~36,000 years- But the poster is correct- we are in an "ice-age" like he said "it's interglacial"- I am not a glaciologist, but I am suspect that the earth will cool again- it's right there in the rock record- the fear,(well founded) is what effects are we having on the climate and our health- through (in my opinion) total disregard of the natural world and our environment. My own opinion is that extremist on both sides use tidbits of science to derail the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 [/font][/color][/size] From the wikipedia ice age article. Where are you getting the 30-40 million? Prior to 34 million years before present there existed no permanent ice caps on Earth for several hundred million years. When CO2 levels dropped below about 600ppm glaciation began on Antarctica which had drifted south after breaking away from Australia. So, the Earth has experienced at least one permanent ice cap for 34 million years and global temps have been on the decline for the better part of the past 100 million years. 100 million years ago CO2 concentration was over 800ppm and it was hot, as much as 10C warmer than today. Once that permanent ice cap formed over Antarctica the Earth is said to have entered an ice age. The last time CO2 level was as high as 400ppm was some 15-20 million years ago when global temp was at least 4C warmer than today. The past 3 million years has seen the northern polar cap become a permanent feature of Earth's climate with CO2 levels varying over 180ppm and 280ppm between glacial and interglacial periods triggered by Milankovitch Cycles (orbital). With CO2 concentration at 391ppm and rising rapidly we should be very concerned with this CO2 forcing/feedback potential in the decades and centuries of the future. This is not the kind of world human civilization has developed in. It is not what the biological world is currently adapted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I would love to see some photos- you are lucky! We have what is called "peri-glacial" landforms here in the Blue Ridge I have a piece of Red Spruce I found in a deposit that was radio-carbon dated ~36,000 years- But the poster is correct- we are in an "ice-age" like he said "it's interglacial"- I am not a glaciologist, but I am suspect that the earth will cool again- it's right there in the rock record- the fear,(well founded) is what effects are we having on the climate and our health- through (in my opinion) total disregard of the natural world and our environment. My own opinion is that extremist on both sides use tidbits of science to derail the discussion. With CO2 at over 400pmm there can be no chance of a return of glaciation. The Milankovitch Cycle which would alter the angle of northern hemisphere insolation is weak in comparison. In any case the axial obliquity of the Earth's tilt coupled with the orbit should not favor a return of glaciation for several 10s of thousands of years, which is unusually long for an interglacial. We could be very lucky if we can figure this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downeastnc Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 With CO2 at over 400pmm there can be no chance of a return of glaciation. The Milankovitch Cycle which would alter the angle of northern hemisphere insolation is weak in comparison. In any case the axial obliquity of the Earth's tilt coupled with the orbit should not favor a return of glaciation for several 10s of thousands of years, which is unusually long for an interglacial. We could be very lucky if we can figure this out. Most interglacial periods in the past are thought to have been periods of dramtic and extreme changes in the climate on short time scales. The Greenland ice cores show many examples or rapid and dramatic coolings and warmings over the last quarter million years during interglacials. The current interglacial is considerably more stable than the last several interglacials and this is what has most likely led to the rise of the human civilization. Seems I read that the last time a interglacial was this stable ( apparently its not the norm ) it lasted much longer than the other more normal interglacial with rapid dramatic changes in climate so I suspect we wont see a return to glaciation for awhile maybe even another 15,000-50,000 years which is a good thing overall for the human civilization I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I would love to see some photos- you are lucky! We have what is called "peri-glacial" landforms here in the Blue Ridge I have a piece of Red Spruce I found in a deposit that was radio-carbon dated ~36,000 years- But the poster is correct- we are in an "ice-age" like he said "it's interglacial"- I am not a glaciologist, but I am suspect that the earth will cool again- it's right there in the rock record- the fear,(well founded) is what effects are we having on the climate and our health- through (in my opinion) total disregard of the natural world and our environment. My own opinion is that extremist on both sides use tidbits of science to derail the discussion. I'll snap a photo of a black spruce swamp here soon. Black Spruce native range is about 175 miles North of here... It's probably a 10 acre spruce swamp. Also the kettle lakes are neat, but probably not as rounded as the farther north versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 With CO2 at over 400pmm there can be no chance of a return of glaciation. The Milankovitch Cycle which would alter the angle of northern hemisphere insolation is weak in comparison. In any case the axial obliquity of the Earth's tilt coupled with the orbit should not favor a return of glaciation for several 10s of thousands of years, which is unusually long for an interglacial. We could be very lucky if we can figure this out. Peak oil has past... Peak coal which I didn't even knon existed has just about come to. Read about that last night. We have expended our supply of high calorific content coal. The fossil fuel age will probably last another 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Peak oil has past... Peak coal which I didn't even knon existed has just about come to. Read about that last night. We have expended our supply of high calorific content coal. The fossil fuel age will probably last another 50 years. In those 50+ years humans will burn through most of the remaining easily extracted, low cost fossil fuel. As demand grows and supply decreases the price will escalate as it would for any non-renewable resource. In the process of burning all that carbon based fuel we will likely raise atmospheric CO2 concentration to more than 800ppm and increase ocean acidity dramatically. There is not much double about those two direct consequences. That's what will happen. Now, those who don't believe those consequences to be much of a problem can say "so what?". Science is painting a different scenario however, which we will ignore for to long it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downeastnc Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Peak oil has past... Peak coal which I didn't even knon existed has just about come to. Read about that last night. We have expended our supply of high calorific content coal. The fossil fuel age will probably last another 50 years. The planet is still going to warm possibly for the next few tens of thousands of years regardless, and prolly end up similar to the last stable interglacial period the Eemian.....which was warmer than now with sea levels 10-20 ft higher than right now as well, and it did this with CO2 levels at or LOWER than what they are now. Sea levels are most likely going to rise another 10-20 ft over the next thousand or so years its not a question of if but when and honestly its been happening since the last glaciation ended 10,000 yrs ago and its not gonna stop because man has decided he likes the climate the way it is now, climate has never been nor will it ever be static. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The planet is still going to warm possibly for the next few tens of thousands of years regardless, and prolly end up similar to the last stable interglacial period the Eemian.....which was warmer than now with sea levels 10-20 ft higher than right now as well, and it did this with CO2 levels at or LOWER than what they are now. Sea levels are most likely going to rise another 10-20 ft over the next thousand or so years its not a question of if but when and honestly its been happening since the last glaciation ended 10,000 yrs ago and its not gonna stop because man has decided he likes the climate the way it is now, climate has never been nor will it ever be static. The difference is this time CO2 levels will become much higher than the 280ppm during the Eemian interglacial which apparently attained a peak global temp about 1C warmer than our Holocene due to stronger orbital forcing. CO2 then acted entirely as a feedback to the warming caused by relatively weak radiative forcing (Milankovitch Cycles) which initiates the pulsing of climate change on a 100,000 year time frame. By the way, there is no reason to expect the Holocene to warm further due to orbital cycles. The phasing of the cycles favors a slight cooling rather than warming but not of the nature to initiate advancement of NH glaciation for many more thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 In those 50+ years humans will burn through most of the remaining easily extracted, low cost fossil fuel. As demand grows and supply decreases the price will escalate as it would for any non-renewable resource. In the process of burning all that carbon based fuel we will likely raise atmospheric CO2 concentration to more than 800ppm and increase ocean acidity dramatically. There is not much double about those two direct consequences. That's what will happen. Now, those who don't believe those consequences to be much of a problem can say "so what?". Science is painting a different scenario however, which we will ignore for to long it seems. You've made some pretty big assumptions here to drive home a gloomy scenario. Simple supply and demand forces will (in your scenario) drive up the cost so dramatically, that renewables will indeed become feasible and more cost effective....and energy source technology like nuclear, hydro and solar towers will be refined and much more efficient. Market forcing will drive what energy sources we use. And it surely will NOT allow for your above scenario. If we were to start ripping through that much of our remaining FF reservoirs, there is no way it would remain "low cost" relative to the other sources out there..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You've made some pretty big assumptions here to drive home a gloomy scenario. Simple supply and demand forces will (in your scenario) drive up the cost so dramatically, that renewables will indeed become feasible and more cost effective....and energy source technology like nuclear, hydro and solar towers will be refined and much more efficient. Market forcing will drive what energy sources we use. And it surely will NOT allow for your above scenario. If we were to start ripping through that much of our remaining FF reservoirs, there is no way it would remain "low cost" relative to the other sources out there..... When will we start with all these tech solutions. Carter put solar panels on the White House, squeezed much better economies out of autos and encouraged insulation using tax credits. Reagan trashed everything, and now 3 decades later, I'm asking when will we start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheetah440 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You've made some pretty big assumptions here to drive home a gloomy scenario. Simple supply and demand forces will (in your scenario) drive up the cost so dramatically, that renewables will indeed become feasible and more cost effective....and energy source technology like nuclear, hydro and solar towers will be refined and much more efficient. Market forcing will drive what energy sources we use. And it surely will NOT allow for your above scenario. If we were to start ripping through that much of our remaining FF reservoirs, there is no way it would remain "low cost" relative to the other sources out there..... not to mention that there is a vast supply of shale oil that is being mined today and will be even more economically feasible as gas becomes more expensive. The known shale reserves are huge and there is without question more reserves we don't know about. The idea that we have 50yrs left is laughable. More like 500yrs when you factor in the forces you correctly describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 not to mention that there is a vast supply of shale oil that is being mined today and will be even more economically feasible as gas becomes more expensive. The known shale reserves are huge and there is without question more reserves we don't know about. The idea that we have 50yrs left is laughable. More like 500yrs when you factor in the forces you correctly describe. I agree, but there will be a question of how fast the techology grows to extract that source vs. the demand. If the technology comes about slowly and demand soars, the more difficult to reach resources may end up never becoming cost effective, thus staying put in the ground as people/infrastructure will have moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 When will we start with all these tech solutions. Carter put solar panels on the White House, squeezed much better economies out of autos and encouraged insulation using tax credits. Reagan trashed everything, and now 3 decades later, I'm asking when will we start? It's happening now....but the implementation of such technologies cannot compete right now with the infrastructure in place for FF. I say build more nuclear plants!! I grew up 20 miles downwind of three of them....then proceeded to work there for a time and learned just how safe they are!! (from a risk assessment standpoint) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 not to mention that there is a vast supply of shale oil that is being mined today and will be even more economically feasible as gas becomes more expensive. The known shale reserves are huge and there is without question more reserves we don't know about. The idea that we have 50yrs left is laughable. More like 500yrs when you factor in the forces you correctly describe. It is so convenient and easy for you to dismiss global warming in your thought process. It's time to face reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It is so convenient and easy for you to dismiss global warming in your thought process. It's time to face reality. It seems like for some of you guys it's not enough for people to acknowledge that humans are causing some warming. You guys expect everyone to believe it's a catastrophe of biblical proportions in the making. That's the biggest problem I have with hardcore AGW proponents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It's happening now....but the implementation of such technologies cannot compete right now with the infrastructure in place for FF. I say build more nuclear plants!! I grew up 20 miles downwind of three of them....then proceeded to work there for a time and learned just how safe they are!! (from a risk assessment standpoint) I agree re. Nuke - but with China building a coal plant a week, India wanting more for it's people, Canada desperate to find someone to buy it's dirty muck and everyone drilling the Arctic... When will the turn around start - last year was the worst ever for GHG. This is like steering an aircraft carrier - takes a long time to turn her. Unfortunately the Titanic might have been a better analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.