The Earth's Tipping Point

[The Esotericist]

You're treading on thin ice with statements like this. I generally regard them as inflammatory and insulting and respond to them as such. Especially the bolded portion. This isn't an argument, it's a blatant dismissal. I showed you the courtosey of actually taking the time to respond to your points and you repay that with what amounts to a dismissal. Do you have any proof that the same 'establishment' that controls science now was around in 1660 to indoctrinate Robert Hooke and 'Encourage' him to research elasticity?

My apologies. I see Hooke's law as an oversimplification of a very complex problem. Like I told you before, where you see causation, I see correlation. If one goes out with a confirmation bias, one will have their data conform to what they have predicted. Galactic bodies and their behavior are far to complex than to be governed by this simple equation and this one gas. What percentage of the atmosphere does all the CO2 make up? Is that percentage greater than the water vapor in the atmosphere?

Yes, Robert Hooke was deeply involved in the City of London establishment. If you know that establishment, you know it controls international policy throughout the world, as well as the foundations and organizations which control nearly all universities, colleges and media on the planet.
http://www.masonslivery.co.uk/html/news-library/featured-articles-archives/archive/view/RobertHookeMemorials.html?ContentID=4&

http://www.academicapparel.com/caps/College-University-History.html

[Trippy]

My apologies. I see Hooke's law as an oversimplification of a very complex problem.

So you have some sort of verifiable, repeatable evidence that Hooke's law is wrong? That the entire field of Simple Harmonic Motion is wrong? That when a spring is extended, the force applied is not proportional to the amount of extension?

Like I told you before, where you see causation, I see correlation.

At no point have I discussed correlation, what I have discussed is basic physics. It's an observation that chemical bonds behaves like springs with masses attached to them. The hypothesis that Hooke's Law can be applied to a molecules of carbondioxide has been experimentally verified by the measurement of the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide. Which step, precisely, is it that you're contesting? Do you even know?
1. The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation as a black-body.
2. The Earth intercepts some of the electromagnetic radiation, a percentage of it is reflected back into space, the remained is absorbed.
3. The Earth emits electromagnetic radiation as a grey-body.
4. Greenhouse gasses warm the Earth, and keep it warmer (I think it's as much as 20K warmer - but I forget the exact figure) than a grey-body with Earth's characteristics otherwise would be.
5. This warming occurs because a portion of the blackbody radiation emitted by the Earth is of a frequency that excites vibrational and rotational modes in greenhouse gasses. This has the effect of storing some portion of the energy that would otherwise be lost into space as kinetic energy in the atmosphere.
6. The kinetic energy of molecules is how we define temperature and is available to do work doing things such as lifting masses and evaporating water. Which we call weather and climate.

If one goes out with a confirmation bias, one will have their data conform to what they have predicted.

There is no confirmation bias. The reason there is no confirmation bias in what I said is because I have been discussing the causal mechanism that is believed to lead to the correlation, not the correlation itself.

If you have some kind of proof that disproves simple harmonic motion and hooke's law, then please, feel free to present it.

Galactic bodies and their behavior are far to complex than to be governed by this simple equation and this one gas.

Argument from Ignorance - You don't believe it can happen and so you assert that it is impossible. Not only that, but it's a straw-man hypothesis, because as I, and others, have said, carbondioxide is but one greenhouse gas. There are others, they all have an influence, and all of their influences are calculated and taken into account. There are a number of reasons why carbondioxide is the main focus, but it is not the only focus.

What percentage of the atmosphere does all the CO2 make up?

I think carbondioxide currently sits at around 350-360ppm, which is less than 1%, and about one tenth of the amount of water which makes up about 0.4% of the earths atmosphere.

Is that percentage greater than the water vapor in the atmosphere?

No, but then this question is a non-sequiter, or a straw man. The prediction that the carbondioxide released by humans does not rely on the levels of carbondioxide will ever exceed those of water.

But then again, water vapour only , and most of that is concentrated near the surface. It's 1% to 4% near the surface, and 0.4% if you consider it across the whole atmosphere - which is what we do with carbondioxide,,

Yes, Robert Hooke was deeply involved in the City of London establishment. If you know that establishment, you know it controls international policy throughout the world, as well as the foundations and organizations which control nearly all universities, colleges and media on the planet.
http://www.masonslivery.co.uk/html/news-library/featured-articles-archives/archive/view/RobertHookeMemorials.html?ContentID=4&

http://www.academicapparel.com/caps/College-University-History.html

The only thing that you're convincing me of here is that I am wasting my time in this discussion with you. I keep trying to talk provable, verifiable facts, and you keep diving on tangents of rumor, speculation and conspiracy.

[The Esotericist]

Honestly Trippy, if that is your belief, you are welcome to it. I don't see the Causation of CO2. You can crunch your numbers all you want, but I think something else is causing the net warming and that is causing the correlative rise in CO2 to be released above what humans release into the atmosphere. If we and our future generations are lucky, we will continue to see nice, warm weather, but I don't think we will. It isn't what geological data has shown us to be the case. As long as Antarctica is where it is, things will be cool.

Other than that, yeah, as long as you want to see things in a very dogmatic, black or white way, I don't think there is much for us to discuss. I am open to the possibility that humans may have upset the Earth's climate equilibrium, but you would have to present to me some data on the Gaia theory before I would be convinced. I have seen too much other data to know it is a much bigger and complex system then something puny little humans could every hope to affect. Tell you what, if you get all ten questions of the following Global Warming quiz right, maybe continued discussion would be fruitful, otherwise, you are probably dogmatically sticking to your guns on this one.

Global Warming Test

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ic...#anchor2108263

Athough there appears to be a correlation between increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere and global temperature, it has not been proven that the small amounts of CO2 added by humans has raised or will raise global temperatures. Rising global temperatures caused by changes in solar activity may simply allow earth's oceans to surrender more CO2 to the atmosphere-- similar to a warm bottle of soda pop which burps and fizzes when opened because cold liquid can hold more CO2 than warm liquid.

[Trippy]

I don't see the Causation of CO2.

Let's get this straight.

NOTHING. Not one SINGLE thing I have said is reliant on the observed correlation between rising Carbondioxide and rising temperatures. Do you understand that? What I am talking about here is an approach from first principles. Do you understand what that means?

As I have said, SEVERAL times now, I AM NOT ADDRESSING THE CORRELATION. I am addressing the physical mechanism that leads the scientific community to attribute significance to the correlation in the first place.

I'm talking about the way masses behave on springs, nothing more.

Your source illustrates precisely the fallacy I am attempting to address.

Are we clear? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CORRELATION.

The only person bringing the correlation into the discussion, instead of focussing on the physics, is you and your understanding is suffering because of it.

[The Esotericist]

Let's get this straight.

lol. I know, I know. We are talking over each other. You are ignoring me, I am ignoring you. You are telling me that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature, and the CO2 is caused by man. You are ignoring me. I am telling you that something else is causing the rise in temperature, and it coincidentally is releasing from the earth the amounts of CO2 that more or less come close to fitting your scientific "laws." You also would like to claim that all that CO2 is the result of civilizations activities. Right Right. We're clear.

BTW, yours is the fallacy.
Correlation does not imply Causation is the formal fallacy.
i.e. Pirates have disappeared as the Earth has warmed. Therefor, the disappearance of pirates causes global warming.

[Trippy]

You are ignoring me, I am ignoring you.

No. I am not ignoring you, I have explicitly addressed your points at every step - except where they delve into conspiracy theories. I have made my opinion of conspiracy theories abundantly clear in the past.

You are telling me that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature, and the CO2 is caused by man.

On the one hand, if you're ignoring me, how do you know what I am telling you?

On the other hand, I'm not 'telling' you anything. The only thing I have tried to do is address your points by explaining to you the actual physical causal mechanism that leads scientists to believe that anthropogenic carbondioxide in the atmosphere causes warming. Do you understand the difference between what I am actually saying, and what you claim I am saying?

You are ignoring me.

No, I am not ignoring you, I am attempting to address your points. You yourself have said that you can not understand how carbondioxide could cause warming. I am attempting to address this point by explaining to you the actual physical causal mechanism behind the prediction that increasing the amount of atmospheric carbondioxide will cause warming.

This mechanism, incidentally, is the exact same mechanism by which atmospheric water vapour causes warming. So if you accept that water vapour causes warming, you must also accept that carbondioxide causes warming, and then the discussion can only be a question of how much, and what follow on effects are likely.

I am telling you that something else is causing the rise in temperature...

And I am explaining to you (or trying to anyway) that so far, every factor you have cited is either already accounted for in climate change models (eg water vapour feedback, solar variability) or lacks useful causal mechanisms at crucial steps (for example Svensmarks GCR work), and that even if Svensmarks GCR work can be demonstrated, it represents another factor that can be included in climate models and tested, but it doesn't in and of itself disprove anthropigenic global warming.

...and it coincidentally is releasing from the earth the amounts of CO2 that more or less come close to fitting your scientific "laws."

In other words, you're suggesting a 'God of the gaps' approach. In making this statement, you miss the mark so widly that I literally don't know where to start.

You also would like to claim that all that CO2 is the result of civilizations activities.

No. This is another strawman hypothesis. At no time have I, or anyone else made this claim. This is statement is made by denialists, but it's right up there with claiming that all oil is made from dinosaurs. This assertion is dishonest and misleading, and that's being polite about it.

Right Right. We're clear.

That you're a dishonest, disingenuine troll with a grudge against windmills? Sure.

I've been patient, I've been polite, I've put great effort into my posts, I've tried to explain things in language that anybody can follow, and for you to repay that with this kind of dishonest bullshit is frankly insulting.

[Trippy]

I see you edited your post either after I replied, or while I was replying.

lBTW, yours is the fallacy.
Correlation does not imply Causation is the formal fallacy.

There is no fallacy on my part. I have presented you with a causal mechanism, several times now, and explained to you how it works.

1. The sun emits electromagnetic radiation as a black body.
2. The inverse square law attenuates this radiation.
3. The Earth intercepts some of this radiation.
4. Some of the radiation the earth intercepts is reflected by the earth, the remainder is absorbed as thermal energy.
5. The Earth re-emits the radiation as a black body.
6. Because of its low surface temperature, the earth emits its radiation at long wavelengths.
7. Hooke's Law predicts that carbon dioxide, water, methane and every other greenhouse gas absorb long wavelength infra-red radiation and that they all have absorption features in the region were the Earth emits.
8. The energy absorbed by gasses is stored as translational, vibrational, and rotational energy, what we call heat.
9. The Beer-Lambert law predicts that as the partial pressure of CO₂, so does the amount of IR radiation it absorbs.

All of these nine points have been experimentally verified.

When we perform the calculations based on 1 to 4, we find that the we predict the earth should be colder than we observe it to be.
It is on the basis of 5 to 9 that we conclude that the atmosphere makes up the difference in temperatures. It is also on the basis of 5 to 9 that we predict that increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses, we increase the temperature of the planet.

None of the above is reliant on the observation of a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.

li.e. Pirates have disappeared as the Earth has warmed. Therefor, the disappearance of pirates causes global warming.

Disingenuity at its finest.
There's a formal fallacy that describes what you've done here, but its name escapes me for the moment.

Have fun with those windmills, Garcia.

[FTLinmedium]

I don't think it's ever 'too late' to address the problem- carbon can always be captured. The question is how many ecosystems will be destroyed, and how many people in second and third world (and possibly first world if we find plague to be an issue) countries will have to suffer before it is solved.

It's an unfortunate situation, but it probably won't be solved until it gets bad enough that people make it a priority.

[The Esotericist]

No. I am not ignoring you, I have explicitly addressed your points at every step - except where they delve into conspiracy theories. I have made my opinion of conspiracy theories abundantly clear in the past.

That you're a dishonest, disingenuine troll with a grudge against windmills? Sure.

I've been patient, I've been polite, I've put great effort into my posts, I've tried to explain things in language that anybody can follow, and for you to repay that with this kind of dishonest bullshit is frankly insulting.

How can you say you aren't ignoring my point of view, when you only wish to discuss the issue from your own epistemological view point, as if that is the only valid paradigm? When I wish to try to engage in any other way to view the world or the problem, you lash out with libelous statements and nasty name calling. And THEN you have the audacity to maintain in the same post you are patient and polite while calling me a "troll?" Look in the mirror buddy. When you rule out data a priori, and rule the opinions and ideas of those presenting such with a blanket label, it frees you from the responsibility of having an open mind and using your intelligence to think critically to investigate problems. I think we are done here.

[Trippy]

How can you say you aren't ignoring my point of view, when you only wish to discuss the issue from your own epistemological view point, as if that is the only valid paradigm?

The only claim that you have made, that I have no addressed is that some shadowy uber-organization see all, knows all, hears all, and controls all. You're proof was a chart that showed the interconnectedness of some of the biggest companies. I was aware of the interconnectedness already I still do not believe in the conspiracy theory you have forwarded and I have yet to see any evidence presented by you that would suggest otherwise. More-over, no amount of conspiracy will ever change the basic experimantaly verified physics behind the predictions.

When I wish to try to engage in any other way to view the world or the problem, you lash out with libelous statements and nasty name calling. And THEN you have the audacity to maintain in the same post you are patient and polite while calling me a "troll?"

I have invested significant amounts of time into my post, to make sure that anybody who reads this thread can understand them, regardless of their level of knowledge.

I have been patient, I have compiled well thought, and well reasoned posts, in which I have endeavoured to address the specific points that you have raise and you have dismissed with comments like:
"Yes, Robert Hooke was deeply involved in the City of London establishment. If you know that establishment, you know it controls international policy..."
Which do nothing, not one thing, to address the actual arguments that have been presented.

What else did you expect to happen when you explicitly state that you're ignoring me? Did you even think that one through? Here you are, interjecting in a thread discussing the basic causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming, and your self admitted SOLE PURPOSE is to proselytize your pet theory.

Your reaction has been absolutely typical of every denialist I have ever met who has been backed into the corner of having to admit the possibility that carbon dioxide could cause warming. That feeling, that niggling in the back of your skull is called cognitive dissonance. That embaressment that your feeling, it's the same thing. Don't ignore it, embrace it. You never know, you might learn something new today.

You seem to have a problem with it being labled as a conspiracy theory. What else would you suggest we call it?

You presented an assertion, that the theory of anthropogenic global warming was an example of post hoc, ergo, propter hoc. I addressed that point, by illustrating the method by which the conclusion was reached and you lash out with emotional diatribe such as " you only wish to discuss the issue from your own epistemological view point, as if that is the only valid paradigm..." What did you expect? To be able to make bogus claims without them being challenged?

When you rule out data a priori, and rule the opinions and ideas of those presenting such with a blanket label...

The only thing I have ruled out is the idea of a conspiracy. If you're that emotionaly attached to the idea that it is some global conspiracy to enslave the population and force communism on us all, maybe you should unsubscribe from the thread.

...it frees you from the responsibility of having an open mind and using your intelligence to think critically to investigate problems. I think we are done here.

Well, you'd know all about that, wouldn't you?

I've explained the physics in basic language, I could probably delve into the math. I've asked you several direct questions, none of which you have been able to answer.

You've admitted that your only purpose in participating in this thread was to proselytize your conspiracy theory. You've admitted that you have no interest in trying to understand what I am trying to communicate. The best you have managed so far is to re-iterate the same disproven claims.

Incidentaly, I aced your little quiz, even though at least some of the questions are loaded, and presented in misleading frames.

[Trippy]

If anybody is wondering why my temper is fraying so quickly, it's because when I see comments like these:

Do I think that the past hundred and fifty years of heavy industrial production of humankind has the ability to produce more CO2 than is stored in all the oceans and all the permafrost of the planet?

The sun is causing the warming, water vapor from the oceans is trapping it in.

But research into this area has been stifled, and any information into this area has been systematically buried in to press.

I see Hooke's law as an oversimplification of a very complex problem.

What percentage of the atmosphere does all the CO2 make up? Is that percentage greater than the water vapor in the atmosphere?

You can crunch your numbers all you want, but I think something else is causing the net warming and that is causing the correlative rise in CO2 to be released above what humans release into the atmosphere.

It isn't what geological data has shown us to be the case. As long as Antarctica is where it is, things will be cool.

I am open to the possibility that humans may have upset the Earth's climate equilibrium, but you would have to present to me some data on the Gaia theory before I would be convinced. I have seen too much other data to know it is a much bigger and complex system then something puny little humans could every hope to affect.

I am telling you that something else is causing the rise in temperature, and it coincidentally is releasing from the earth the amounts of CO2 that more or less come close to fitting your scientific "laws." You also would like to claim that all that CO2 is the result of civilizations activities. Right Right. We're clear.

BTW, yours is the fallacy.
Correlation does not imply Causation is the formal fallacy.
i.e. Pirates have disappeared as the Earth has warmed. Therefor, the disappearance of pirates causes global warming.

It tells me that my interlocutor appears to have misunderstood what the mainstream actually has to say, and is effectively addressing strawman arguments. It is not the position of the mainstream that the sun does not caused warming. It is not the position of the mainstream that water vapour does not cause warming. It is not the position of the mainstream that Humans have produced more CO2 than has been stored in the oceans and permafrost. It is not the position of the mainstream that all CO2 is produced by civilization and so on and so forth. And so when I see my interlocutor present these arguments, I naturally come to the conclusion that my interlocutor doesn't understand the topic being discussed. Unless my interlocutor and myself are talking about the same thing, meaningful communication can not occur, so naturally I address these errors by trying to illustrate how these assertions are erroneous. Doing so can only be done within the mainstream framework, not becuase I am hesitant to step outside it, but because that is the framework within which the topic is formulated in the first place.

And so when I see my interlocutor making dismissive statements such as some of those above, and these:

How can you say you aren't ignoring my point of view, when you only wish to discuss the issue from your own epistemological view point, as if that is the only valid paradigm? When I wish to try to engage in any other way to view the world or the problem, you lash out with libelous statements and nasty name calling.

Especially after having made this statement:

I guess where I am confused on the whole AGW global warming debate is on this point. I have been told, and I have read, that water vapor is a far greater green house gas than CO2.

An admission of a degree of confusion and ignorance of the topic. Yes, I start getting irritated, and labeling what I see as trolling behaviour, trolling behaviour.

[KilljoyKlown]

Temper, what are you talking about? You have more patience than I do, but then I have a feeling you are writing more for all the other people reading this thread than you are trying to convince The Esotericist.

When you are looking for reasons why the Earth is warming. You only need to look at those things that are changing. Sure the Sun has cycles, but from what I know they are 11 year cycles. Water vapor in the atmosphere does fluctuate with temperature, however white clouds reflect light and heat into space. It seems very naive to believe 7 billion people are not causing major changes to the Earths biosphere. We know that CO2 levels are rising because we have measurements over time that tell us.

No solution is going to be easy or quick, and humans may only be a part of the problem. I agree that we need to know a lot more, but when people feel the need to threaten and falsely discredit scientists for doing their job, I consider that to be criminally irresponsible and a very dangerous trend for the future prospects of human well being.

When we talk about a tipping point exactly what do we mean? IMO that's the point from which the changes taking place will negatively impact the entire world population for decades and maybe centuries into the future. Also, from what I understand after warming cycles we usually move into an iceage. Sounds like challenging times to me. Those kind of disruptions will cause wars all over the world and life will not be good for the survivors.

[Trippy]

Temper, what are you talking about? You have more patience than I do, but then I have a feeling you are writing more for all the other people reading this thread than you are trying to convince The Esotericist.

It is one of the things I have considered, yes. For every person that asks a question, there are generally at least ten other people wondering the same thing but unwilling or unable to ask it.

When you are looking for reasons why the Earth is warming. You only need to look at those things that are changing. Sure the Sun has cycles, but from what I know they are 11 year cycles.

There are the eleven year cycles, however, there are also longer term cycles superimposed on top of this.
There's the eleven year Schwabe cycle, during which the solar activity peaks and then declines.
There's the 22 year Hale cycle - consisting of two Schwabe cycles, during which the polarity of the solar magnetic field reverses and returns to its previous state.
There are also several hypothesized cycles, based on observations of long term trends using proxies.
There's the 87 year Gleissberg cycle, which is interpreted as a modulation of the amplitude of the Schwabe cycle.
There's the 2300 year Hallstatt cycle.
Xapsos and Burke published evidence for a 6000 year cycle in 2009.
Damon and Sonnett have presented evidence for 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, and 2241 year cycles (see page 360).

There are currently two hypothesis as to how the solar cycle may affect the climate. The one that is incorporated into the current climate models is essentially that as the number of sunspots increases, the number of solar plages increases. Sunspots are dark, but plages are bright, and the total contribution by plages outweighs the deficit caused by sunspots, and so during solar maxima, solar irradiance increases, the solar constant increases, and the temperature goes up. By this theory, changes in periodicity will also result in changes in temperature - think of it being the same as the duty cycle of any heating appliance. Short duty cycle = more efficient heating.

The second hypothesis, which has been alluded to in this discussion is that as solar activity decreases, so does the strength and speed of the solar wind. Because the solar wind is partially responsible for reducing the number of galactic cosmic rays reaching the earth, a decrease in its strength means more GCRs will reach us during solar minima. The hypothesis continues that these GCRs seed the formation of clouds in the atmosphere by causing ionization and nucleating the formation of nanometer scale seeds for crystal growth and cloud droplet seeding. So by this mechanism, the hypothesis goes, during solar minima the global cloud cover increases, increasing the albedo of the planet resulting in it cooling. While these nanometer scale crystals have been observed to be formed in a laboratory, there is currently no evidence supporting the transition from these nano-crystals to aerosols capable of seeding cloud formation. It also, on the face of it, appears to neglect to consider the fact that which direction clouds force heating is dependent on latitude, altitude and composition, and is something that is not straight forward. I don't know if this effect is currently considered in climate modles, but given that climate modles already account for solar variability, including this hypothesis and its effects should be trivial - should the hypothesis find itself on firmer scientific footing.

Water vapor in the atmosphere does fluctuate with temperature, however white clouds reflect light and heat into space.

It's not quite that straight forward. Low altitude clouds force warming, but high altitude clouds force cooling. Ice absorbs Infrared differently from water vapor, and above a certain latitude clouds might actually have a lower albedo than the surface they're covering.

It seems very naive to believe 7 billion people are not causing major changes to the Earths biosphere. We know that CO2 levels are rising because we have measurements over time that tell us.

Agreed.

No solution is going to be easy or quick, and humans may only be a part of the problem. I agree that we need to know a lot more, but when people feel the need to threaten and falsely discredit scientists for doing their job, I consider that to be criminally irresponsible and a very dangerous trend for the future prospects of human well being.

Agreed - that's one reason I would advocate the approach I mentioned earlier in the thread, about making small changes when and as you can afford them.

When we talk about a tipping point exactly what do we mean? IMO that's the point from which the changes taking place will negatively impact the entire world population for decades and maybe centuries into the future.

My understanding of the usage of the phrase "tipping point" is that it's to do with irreversible changes. It's a reflection of the fact that the climate appears to behave as a chaotic system being driven in a bimodal state. The idea is that, essentially, when you're dealing with such a system, as you keep driving it harder and harder it eventually changes state. When it changes state, it does so by accumulating small deviations, and those small deviations reach a certain critical value and drive rapid change. It's almost like when you titrate a buffered system and add that one drop too many. I have a feeling that it refers to the scenario where only the small changes have been observed and the point where the large and sudden change becomes inevitable.

Also, from what I understand after warming cycles we usually move into an iceage. Sounds like challenging times to me.

That depends. Ordinarily that is the case, yes. That is what we see in the record, both recorded and through proxies. I've raised this point in the discussion as well, that if one considers the Milankovich cycles, we should be heading into a period of prolonged cooling - another ice age. I've also seen it suggested that if you take anthropogenic global warming and peak oil into account, and burn your fossil fuels in the right way at the right times then it might be possible to forestall the onset of the next iceage by tens of thousands of years.

Those kind of disruptions will cause wars all over the world and life will not be good for the survivors.

I generally refrain from speculation such as this, and hold out some hope that a solution other than carbon taxes, or carbon credits will be developed, or that maybe the implementation of carbon taxes and carbon credits might lead to some innovative thinking on the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. After all, it it's set up just right, it might be possible to make pumping carbon back into the ground a profitable enterprise and trading with such a company more profitable than simply dumping the carbon into the atmosphere.

[madanthonywayne]

That depends. Ordinarily that is the case, yes. That is what we see in the record, both recorded and through proxies. I've raised this point in the discussion as well, that if one considers the Milankovich cycles, we should be heading into a period of prolonged cooling - another ice age. I've also seen it suggested that if you take anthropogenic global warming and peak oil into account, and burn your fossil fuels in the right way at the right times then it might be possible to forestall the onset of the next iceage by tens of thousands of years.

I've heard this argument as well. What if we impoverish ourselves thru carbon taxes and strict regulation of energy production only to bring on an ice age?

I think research into alternative energy is fine (I support scientific research anyway), but schemes like cap and trade or the Kyoto protocol are simply too expensive to implement and are not likely to accomplish anything anyway.

Ironically, the US is currently doing a better job of reducing it's carbon output than most of the rest of the world not because of any government policy such as cap and trade, but because of the boom in fracking and natural gas production which has brought down the price of natural gas and allowed many coal fired power plants to be replaced with natural gas.

[Trippy]

I've heard this argument as well. What if we impoverish ourselves thru carbon taxes and strict regulation of energy production only to bring on an ice age?

You're missing the point.

The next ice age is inevitable. It's unavoidable. The best we can hope to do is to postpone it, and that will only work IF we start cutting our hydrocarbon consumption now.

[FTLinmedium]

The next ice age is inevitable. It's unavoidable. The best we can hope to do is to postpone it, and that will only work IF we start cutting our hydrocarbon consumption now.

Why would you say the next ice age is unavoidable?

Climate control is expensive, but technologically achievable.

[Trippy]

Why would you say the next ice age is unavoidable?

Climate control is expensive, but technologically achievable.

Resources are finite, atmospheric carbondioxide has a half life, there's only so much hydrocarbon can be burned and limestone can be baked.

On the other hand, the earths tilt and orbital eccentricity will continue to change, and its axis will continue to precess.

I don't think there's a lot we can do to reduce or prevent the sequestration of atmospheric carbon, which leaves us with ideas such as changing the albedo of parts of the earths surface (deserts, for example), and I'm not sure how smart that is, because doing so is almost certainly going to change weather patterns.

[FTLinmedium]

Resources are finite, atmospheric carbondioxide has a half life, there's only so much hydrocarbon can be burned and limestone can be baked.

Ah, the carbon doesn't really go anywhere, though. When dissolved in the ocean, it ultimately becomes sedimentary rock- which can be quarried/dredged out and cooked. Same as when it's incorporated into stone in the Earth.

Wherever it tries to hide, we can find it- the issue is energy resources to do so- and nuclear energy isn't so limited.

However, there are also more effective greenhouse gases than CO2- and probably some we'll yet invent.

On the other hand, the earths tilt and orbital eccentricity will continue to change, and its axis will continue to precess.

What does that have to do with anything? I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

None of those things cause ice ages; it just moves the hot and cold areas around, and creates larger yearly extremes.

There are two things that could cause an ice-age: Sequestering of too much carbon from the atmosphere without compensating for it. Diminished output from the sun itself (not likely). We can deal with the first as long as we have energy resources and industry.

I don't think there's a lot we can do to reduce or prevent the sequestration of atmospheric carbon

Sure there is. We can capture and channel rainwater, for one, to prevent the carbonic acid from leeching into the soil and being integrated into stone. The rain cycle is a huge part of sequestration. We can also create massive algal blooms in tracts of empty ocean to capture dissolved carbon before it becomes rock. And that's just with the technology we have today.

We only have to reduce it slightly for the geological carbon emission to keep up.

which leaves us with ideas such as changing the albedo of parts of the earths surface (deserts, for example), and I'm not sure how smart that is, because doing so is almost certainly going to change weather patterns.

Yes, that would definitely change weather patterns- but it would also prevent an ice age (which is a much bigger change in weather patterns). I'd say it's a pretty good option if we've nothing else to do.

It strikes me as bizarre that you'd be more concerned with small changes in the weather patterns than an all out ice age.

Also: don't forget about orbital mirrors.

[spidergoat]

You're missing the point.

The next ice age is inevitable. It's unavoidable. The best we can hope to do is to postpone it, and that will only work IF we start cutting our hydrocarbon consumption now.

I think you have it backwards. It's only if greenhouse gasses increase or remain the same that we will not experience an ige age. If we cut hydrocarbons, then the natural cycle of ige ages might continue.

[Trippy]

Ah, the carbon doesn't really go anywhere, though. When dissolved in the ocean, it ultimately becomes sedimentary rock- which can be quarried/dredged out and cooked. Same as when it's incorporated into stone in the Earth.

Wherever it tries to hide, we can find it- the issue is energy resources to do so- and nuclear energy isn't so limited.

However, there are also more effective greenhouse gases than CO2- and probably some we'll yet invent.

Ultimately, yes, but that generally happens over a time scale on the order of 10ka to 100ka. We would be better off exsolving the carbon dioxide from the oceans in desalinization plants, but there again is the potential for unforseen environmental effects. What of the hot brine? What of the fresh water? What about the pH balance of the oceans?

What does that have to do with anything? I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

None of those things cause ice ages; it just moves the hot and cold areas around, and creates larger yearly extremes.

There are two things that could cause an ice-age: Sequestering of too much carbon from the atmosphere without compensating for it. Diminished output from the sun itself (not likely). We can deal with the first as long as we have energy resources and industry.

No, make no bones about it. The natural variation of Earths orbital parameters has in the past played as much of a role in driving changes in earths climate as any other single factor. Milankovich Cycles on Wiki. Variation in solar insolation due to natural changes in earths orbital paramaters has its role to play. Think of it this way - the spatial distribution of Albedo variations on Earths surface is not uniform, so changing which part of the earth recieves peak insolation, when that peak insolation occurs, and how much the insolation varies is going to affect climate. Just the same as changing the axial tilt influences the distribution of the icecaps.

Sure there is. We can capture and channel rainwater, for one, to prevent the carbonic acid from leeching into the soil and being integrated into stone. The rain cycle is a huge part of sequestration. We can also create massive algal blooms in tracts of empty ocean to capture dissolved carbon before it becomes rock. And that's just with the technology we have today.

We only have to reduce it slightly for the geological carbon emission to keep up.

Only that's not what happens. The carbonic acid doesn't leach into the soil, the carbondioxide either dissolves directly into the oceans or it reacts in the presence of water with freshly exposed silicates. The amount of carbonic acid in the ocean is in dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbondioxide in the atmosphere, according to le chatteliers principle. The reaction between silicates and carbondioxide is one of the damping mechanisms in Earths climate.

Yes, that would definitely change weather patterns- but it would also prevent an ice age (which is a much bigger change in weather patterns). I'd say it's a pretty good option if we've nothing else to do.

It strikes me as bizarre that you'd be more concerned with small changes in the weather patterns than an all out ice age.

Also: don't forget about orbital mirrors.

You apparently haven't stopped to consider what those changes in weather patterns might be, how many people might be affected, what those effects like be, or indeed if they might accelerate the onset of the iceage.