Climate, weather??

I have been keeping up with the weather and some of the extremes thats been happening lately along with threads in this forum. Whats the real deal with the weather and the climate, what I mean is look at the record hurricanes this year and record tornados, typhoons and floods all over the world, now there activity at Mtn St Helens and another Volcano in Iceland that’s erupting along with numerous others either on land or under water. What would the signs be of the start of a ice age? I know that alot of the ice core studies have indicated volcanic activity when the onset started due to deposits of ash and sentiments by no means am I predicting here or assuming Just kind wonder if that’s not what we are seeing. any ideas or thoughts?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can state just about any theory as to why the current state of the climate and weather is the way it is today and you'd most likely be correct just as long as you can support it. However, the most logical and leading reason to the current state of the climate tends to lean towards global warming.

Now I won't say what is causing this planet to warm up as there are dozens of threads here which tries to explain it. All that can be said is that there is indeed a warming trend (by whatever means that we don't fully understand), and this warming trend leads to an increase capacity for the atmosphere to hold water and which in turn leads to greater occurances of storm systems. The correlation may not be exact but it's close enough to get an idea of why there is more hurricanes, floods, and such occuring then they were in the past.

Let's also keep in mind that we are heading into another El Nino event ... which is only minor compared to stronger El Nino's from the past.

As for the ice age dilemma, I don't think anyone has an idea of what the true signs are for the beginnings for an ice age. Some say that the melting of the ice caps will eventually lead to the stoppage of the ocean conveyor belt while others say that large volcanic eruptions will blanket the atmosphere so that it reflectes most of the incoming solar radiation.

Most of what we have gathered from ice core data is that there are periodic occurances of glaciations after periods of global warming. Some are coincidental to volcanic eruptions (by the discovery of sediment layers within certain time periods) whereas some glaciations have no sediment layers that indicate a volcanic eruption.

This may mean that right now we may be heading into another ice age but again, we don't understand the mechanism for it and it's not fully agreed that a warming trend does lead to a glaciation.

It really depends on how you interpret the data.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thats excactly what I mean is there anything or hard data out there to support such findings. I have looked at alot of data but no one has really looked at the big picture of whats going on. I mean looking at the sun, clouds, volcanos, temps, greenhouse gases, ocean temps, and the circulation of the oceans. they sem to stick with one theory wheither there right or wrong.

Yes I do agree that we are warming in a certain way and in certain areas, but cooling in others.

As for the warming leading to more moisture in the air I fully agree, just like the past few days the pan handle of texas received over 13 inches of snow in one day with drifts over 6 feet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's almost futile trying to find hard data that supports one side over another. Everywhere you go, there is some data that will contradict another source of data. Also, two opposing datas may be correct since they may be able to both explain a phenomena according to what we see ... that's the way it is. It would be wrong to pick one set of data out of a handful and say that this is the main reason why the climate is acting the way it is ... you can't do that.

In order to look at the "big" picture, you would need to take into consideration every single variable which affects climate and formulate a model. As far as I know, that's impossible as we don't know every single variable that affects the climate. Even if we did, we don't have the computer power to formulate a precise climate model with every variable considered to show us what will happen 10 years down the road. The climate is a chaotic system and many variables (such as the sun, volcanoes, and the likes) are rarely ever constant for extended periods of time.

The best we can do is "guess" what may happen based on what we know and what we can theorize. If you want absolute, hard facts, then meteorology/climatology is not the best place to look for it.

 

I think I may have some more information, some more analysis and some alternative ideas based on all the evidence about this subject. But I'm out of time right now.

A few remarks. The Milankovitch cycles (precession - 22,000 years - obliquity 43,000 years, eccentricity 400,000) imposed on the orbit and spinning of the Earth are supposed to change the effect of solar radiations. When all effects weaking the solar radiation an ice age is supposed to start. When those are all positive, the ice age is supposed to end. Now what would be the frequencie of the ice age. Correct, 100,000 years, with no clear correlation to the Milankovitch cycles.

Therefore the ice age is officially still a mystery, unless you want to look at all the evidence, which include clathrate and mammoths.

The book will probably be ready in five years or so.

 

"A ice age is caused by a change in the electromatic feild of earth, which effects the atomic distance of the chemical water H2O, the result is a change in the tempiture at which water freezes, a slight differencre in 1 degree changes the amount of water that becomes ice, with a decreasing magnetic feild the freezeing tempiture of water increases, as the atoms in the chemical water are more tightly bound. A increase in the magnetic feild strength will increase the rate of water that becomes ice.

At the beging stages of a magnetic pole reversal the polar caps and ice on earth will melt, as the magnetic feild returns the water on earth freezes causing a mass ice age, carving out new terrain in the land mass created during the magnetic pole reversal."

Very eloquently put. Shame the idea is worse even than the syntax.

 

well, yes it is definitely heating up, what i want to know however is how the weather guy doent reasise this, its barely even summer and we havent had a single day below 25degC, yet he says that the whlo country is sitting at about 15degC

wahts worcse is tha with wind patterns, all the US pollution and stuff is drifting over to the pacific and cutting up our ozone so it gets even hotter than the global warming trend

 

The meteorologists do realize the extent of global warming but just because a country is experiencing a large increase in temperature doesn't neccessarily mean the whole planet is warming up at the same rate. Like here where I live, we had one of the coolest and wettest summers in the last decade ... but that doesn't say anything about the state of the global climate.

Global warming is a global trend ... not a regional trend ... what you see in your neighbourhood is just a local effect, it doesn't give you the whole story.

Considering wind patterns, a large portion of the atmospheric circulation over the US is controlled by the Westerlies, so most of their pollution would be transported towards the Atlantic and not the Pacific. Only the most southern part of the US and Mexico have the NE tradewinds in which their pollution is blown over the Pacific.

 

heres something interesting I found

One reason is that something strange has been happening to warming trends in the past couple of decades. While ground-level temperatures around the world have gone up, the warming has failed to penetrate the atmosphere. The atmosphere has actually been cooling in some large areas three kilometres above the Earth. According to computerised climate models, the warming should spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so of the atmosphere. Sceptics argue that if the models are wrong about how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they are also likely to be wrong about the movement of water vapour between the surface and the upper troposphere. That in turn may mean they are wrong about water-vapour feedback - one of the vital mechanisms behind global warming.

 

The period of these shifts are related to changes in the tilt of Earth’s rotational axis (41,000 years), changes in the orientation of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun, called the “precession of the equinoxes” (23,000 years), and to changes in the shape (more round or less round) of the elliptical orbit (100,000 years). The theory that orbital shifts caused the waxing and waning of ice ages was first pointed out by James Croll in the 19th Century and developed more fully by Milutin Milankovitch in 1938.

I suppose thats what your talking about not sure. But not all ice ages match up to this theory. about the only way I can think of this to work is if our orbit got changed by a large astroid or comit at one time or another to account for the ice ages that don't match up but who knows I don't I wasn't there lol.

 

If you're going to correct his spelling I think I shall correct your diction, as well. Dwayne's syntax is fine.

 

“ Originally posted by Catastrophe"
"Very eloquently put. Shame the idea is worse even than the syntax. ”

If you're going to correct his spelling I think I shall correct your diction, as well. Dwayne's syntax is fine.

It is quite possible for the idea to be worse than perfect syntax so you have committed a logical error.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No... you committed a categorical error.
Gawd.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is not a categorical error to say something is less than perfect.

 

Apart from which, the syntax is not perfect:

Syntax. 1. The grammatical arrangement of words, showing their connection and relation.

Are you saying that "a ice age" is good grammar?

Grammar. The study or rules of a language's inflections or other means of showing the relation between words, including its phonetic system.

God indeed.

 

Touche.
(somecharacters)

 

Roman. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does anyone have any idea as to what change in freezing point is being suggested? I would have thought much much less than the difference between water (0.0 deg C) and Deuterium oxide (3.82 deg C).

 

"water in a high electromagnetic feild will lower the freezing temperture or water, as the internuclear distance of hydrogen from oxygen is increased."

If the freezing point is lowered the ice will melt. Water at -0.1 deg C is frozen. If the freezing point is lowered to -1 deg C -0.1 deg C is above the freezing point so will melt.

You would need a lower temperature for it to re-freeze. Thus electromagnetic field would not cause a lower temperature - just change the freezing point. If it increased the freezing point that would be different.

 

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap11/Image52.gif

From what I can tell it is just variable. There is a slight decreasing trend but 20 years is a very short time to draw conclusions.

 

"but in real time terms i understand that the artic circle has decreased by 100 ft?"

Can you reference that please? Do you mean 100 ft height loss?