Ok ive been reading alot of articles from many websites and all evidence proves that we are heading into a ice age because of global warming. Alot says earth will balance itself out. What do you all think about this? Ill post some links and resources tommorow morning when im more awake
There has been several discussions on this topic ... I've only posted a few here but I'm sure there are more somewhere. As a suggestion, you should read these and see if any are helpful in better understanding the topic. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34939 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=36046 http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35675
I particularly hope for the ice age because I prefer cold and like to wear fur, boots, and warm things in general. Also, I like snow a lot. Let's all root for the ice age!
I dont think it matters that much, by the time this happens itll be the generation down the line that will have to deal with it. Until then, we can keep guzzling oil and chopping down the rainforests, what does it matter because we wont have to deal with the consequences anyway.
For the record, there are so many controversies about the "ice age" in general you could even doubt the mere occurence of an ice age. A few statements: The Milankovitch cycles fail to explain the ice ages. There are many geologic field explorations that contradict ice age climate assumptions. The sea level - ice sheet balance is fake, too much contradicting evidence, like anomal sea level behaviour and system sequence problems with deep sea proxies. The apparant link between carbon dioxide and temperatures has a cause - effect problem. The ice sheet on Antarctica appears to be thicker than ever before. But we have been here before. I say, what we think that were ice ages was something completely different, and much much more complicated. (second much intented). So, no, we are not heading for another ice age. We are still in an ice age (when defined with the presence of polar ice sheets). We have still no idea what an ice age actually was.
Ok i have read all the articles. I read one on discovery a few weeks ago saying that within 6-8 months when an ice age starts it could drop 20-40 degrees all around the earth. Then it would take the hundreds of thousands of years for the ice sheets to cover up the northern part of the world. I think a drop in temperature would be the biggest threat to all species on this planet? What do you all think?
It's almost funny, all those chicken little stories. I repeat, our real knowlegde of the alleged ice ages is way short from doing all those kinds of predictions. About the web page of Robert Felix, it's nice to have somebody who accumulates global cooling events instead of the opposite. But his ideas are a bit oversimplified. On a scale of 0-10 he scores 9,5 for sensation level, 5 for accuracy of facts and 0,5 for scientific back up. Take for instance the alleged magnetic reversals and ice ages: http://www.iceagenow.com/Magnetic_Reversal_Chart.htm The only true magnetic reversal in there is the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary at 780,000 years (not 730,000 years as shown, that has been fine tuned). The upper one, the Gothenburg flip, is a hoax, actually a entertaining story (some other time perhaps). All the others are mostly local Palaeo Magnetic Excursions. Only some are of global level. For comparison perhaps check some real scientific work about the same subject: http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/publications/Related_pubs/Guyodo99.pdf especially figure 1 on page 250. The conclusion of this work: no correlation between Earth magnetic field behaviour and climate.
Email Robert Felix at rwfelix@juno.com and let him know your "truths" Andre. I've done so concerning some technical snafus at his site and he was quite appreciative. I notice he has a link to some data at Edufer's site on his home page. Edufer and I agree a lot on some of that stuff but disagree as to the meritable alarm, as Mr. Felix obviously does too. Robert Felix apparently believes that undersea volcanic activity is the major set of events that trigger ice age starts. Mr. Felix does not find the Hamaker hypothesis to be of much value. I find the latter hypothesis to explain why the volcanic activity increases, basically due to the changes in crust stresses due to shifting moisture from atmospheric gas concentration fluctuation. The thing I like about the Hamaker hypothesis is that there is real experimental results that support the idea, basically the amazing increase in biota mass remineralization facilitates. You can read some detail about the Hamaker hypothesis with the free books available at the first site I list in this thread. Unlike Robert Felix, there is really no profit being made from the dispersal of the Hamaker hypothesis books. Oh, Andre, every time you mention "Chicken Little" as a criticism of opinions that call for concerted efforts to avoid calamity concerning atmosphere influencing human activities, I see evidence of an attempt at character assasination by yourself. I find such detracts from the trust of your altruism to communicate rather than postulate. If you would like people to take you more seriously, you might avoid the name calling or not.
Fair enough, I will switch to "alarmists". And I do not have the intention to present others the results of my work. Curiously enough Felix has an excellent point about the correlation between global volcanic activity in general and the alleged glacial periods. But both are the mere effect of something we have no notion of yet. The hunt of cause and effect is very tricky. For instance CO2 is not causing the climate change. It's effect of something totally different.
Andre: "CO2 is not causing the climate change." I guess you consider this a fact with no possibility of any measure of validity. I don't know the truth but I do know there is evidence that things are not as you state. I graphed the oxygen isotope ratios found on deep underground cave wall crystals (a study designed to avoid possible errors in ocean sediment samplings for ice age occurence mapping) with the well dated carbon dioxide concentation fluctuations from ice cores and found the amazing adjustment of the time scale by ten thousand years over ocean sediments (more likely in error than the isotope sampling) placed carbon dioxide peak concentrations squarely at the start of glaciations over the entire period covered by these ice cores. I see the latest ice core samplings are still being mapped to ocean sediment cycle times findings for presentation to the public, stating that a new ice age may not occur for another ten thousand years, exactly what the error in these samplings appears to foster. The Hamaker hypothesis is not complex and there is hard core experimental results that denote its possibility. Here it is in a nut shell as I understand it: Plant life depletes its soils of trace elements becomes weak and burns or decomposes increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. Greenhouse effect leads to more moisture being driven into the atmospheric cycle. The moisture leads to more cloud cover as well as high altitude ice crystals that increase the earth's over all reflectivity. The shifting masses of moisture create stresses on the crust increasing overall volcanic activity increasing the carbon dioxide and reflectivity of earth more in a a cascading bringing on of ice age conditions. For the next 90,000 years (virtually like clock work for the last million years or so, 10,000 years for interglacials and 90k for glaciation) glaciers grind rock. Winds carry these dust particles to most of the globe. Soils become remineralized. Plants grow more profusely with all trace elements once again available, removing carbon and providing a buffer of water, slowing the hydrological cycle from land to sea. The decrease of carbon dioxide and fast paced hydrological cycle leads to the next interglacial. The hard core evidence for the Hamaker hypothesis is the amazing results found for field, garden and desktop analysis of the effects of remineralization. I think this theory fits more of the observed situation than any other. Again, I refer to where you can find an in depth exploration of these ideas at http://www.remineralize.org/ But then, if you already know what the truth is, don't bother looking or at the least, use your greatest skepticism in approaching and assessing this data.
The only calcite oxygen ratio analysis studies I find available on the web are ones done on stalagmites from China that are not selected to minimaize weather fluctuation paramaters. They corroborate, or seemingly do, the ocean sediment cycles demonstration. Appears that within their study, they decided to base their time scale on the ocean sediment studies correlation with the cycles found in the stalagmites. The studies, for I know of two, that I refer to above were reported under the title "Milankovich Takes a Dive in the Desert" and I believe the study was reported in Science News and/or Science magazine. I remember seeing a follow up with more of the same research, involving oxygen isotope ratio analysis of deep pristine cave walls in areas where weather did not incorporate extremes (open to the atmosphere). The regular deposition of minerals in such conditions was thought to give the most accurate record of past glaciations, time and frequency of occurence. Guess I got to hit my files and find my study of about a decade ago to find that reference or maybe, I can find it at a major local library. I should. Sorry, I can not provide a direct reference to this data at this time.
Well we are at least on speaking terms now. Done some studying too. Recognize the major problems in these graphs? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You should read the whole story: http://jlevine.lbl.gov/BenStackconstruct.html and Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now black is the benthic deep sea stack, red carbon dioxide in the Vostok ice core and blue the heavy hydrogen (deuterium dD) ratio (Petit et al 1999). Maybe you'll notice that something is very wrong here. Something is very wrong here too: http://www.yukonmuseums.ca/mammoth/abstrmol-mor.htm scroll 1/3 down too: and there is plenty more where this is coming from.
I went to that site iceagenow.com i dont think that guy has any grip on reality. Ice ages do not happen over night.
Sure, for the first graph, the system response characterists of a linair higher order system is totally off. Bottom line is: cause and effect are totally out of line. It looks like the deep sea started warming first, or the melt water of the melting glaciers got there first after all the ice ages. The second graph shows that the ice sheets melted first, then the temperature rose and finally the CO2 got up four times in a row. Cause and effect? The third story shows that in the middle of the last glacial maximum ice age, somewhere very close to the North Pole, where now the average yearly temperature is way below freezing, there was a large lawn, crowded with grazing animals. In the middle of the ice age?
In 15,000 years starting shopping around for a good warm insulated winter coat and boots.......You'll need them! Yob Atta
IM just saying if earth is heading into a ice age which i think it is it will still be a very slow process.
