ice ages


Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: ice ages

  1. #1
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default ice ages

    who caused the ice ages to disappear?

    Similar Threads:


  2. #2
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    110
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    No one they get old and die like anything else!



  3. #3
    Member handlewanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6179
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    God?



  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oakland CA USA
    Posts
    4682
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    We could use one around now...

    [FONT=Verdana]Andrew Werby[/FONT]
    [URL="http://www.computersculpture.com/"]Website[/URL]


  5. #5
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    110
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    You could always do the snowbird thing and live here in the winter!



  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    70
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    We are in an inter-glacial period of an ice age right now. Many folks incorrectly think an "ice age" means what geologists call a glaciation.



  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oakland CA USA
    Posts
    4682
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    When all the polar ice and glaciers melt, wouldn't you say the "ice age" is over?

    [FONT=Verdana]Andrew Werby[/FONT]
    [URL="http://www.computersculpture.com/"]Website[/URL]


  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    70
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    Quote Originally Posted by awerby View Post
    When all the polar ice and glaciers melt, wouldn't you say the "ice age" is over?
    Let me know when that happens and I'll look up how geologists define one has ended. What "I would say" is irrelevant.

    since we are told that the Arctic sea ice is the "canary in the coal mine", can you tell me how last years summer Arctic ice minimum compared to that of the OMG minimum of 2007 ?

    I've heard it is melting much faster than models predicted.



  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    70
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    The relatively short ( in geological time-scales ) interglacial periods of which we are currently benefiting, stand out against the longer typical state of massive glaciation. That is why we are deemed to be in an interglacial period of an ice age now. There were periods in Earths history which were much warmer and no ice existed. Far from destroying the planet it was a green paradise.

    Glaciation kills and shuts down most of life on most of the Earth.

    We could use one around now...
    If you wish to die , that's your affair. Don't try to push that onto everyone else.



  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oakland CA USA
    Posts
    4682
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    What I wish for doesn't really matter; we're not going to die from excessive glaciation any time soon, although a counter-trend to the rapid warming we're currently experiencing would be welcome. Life on earth is quite adaptable to climate change - if it occurs on the very long time scale that geologists have traditionally assumed it would take. But the view that we're in an "interglacial period" of the Quaternary, and that glaciation will inevitably return on a cycle determined by variations in the earth's inclination (the Milankovitch cycle) is rapidly becoming obsolete. It's pretty clear that the changes wrought by the Anthropocene era we're now in have overwhelmed those relatively weak effects.

    The "green paradise" in which the dinosaurs roamed Antarctica was okay for them because they had millions of years to adapt to it. Rapidly warming the planet in a period of decades as we've been doing by radically changing the composition of the atmosphere is already destroying ecological systems all over the world, leaving most species of plants and animals no alternative but extinction. If you're really concerned with diverse forms of life on Earth continuing to thrive, you should be trying to stop atmospheric pollution, not cheering it on as you appear to be doing.

    [FONT=Verdana]Andrew Werby[/FONT]
    [URL="http://www.computersculpture.com/"]Website[/URL]


  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    70
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    Changing a trace gas from 0.032% to 0.040% is hardly "radical" change to the composition of the atmosphere. Your inclusion of politically charged , non scientific terms like Anthropocene does not convince anyone of anything. Saying "we could use a glaciation right now" is just silly.

    "The rapid warming we're currently experiencing" was no different to the warming of the early 20th c. which was before GHG emissions were supposed to be a factor. Until we can explain that earlier change and determine that the same thing is not now happening the usual certainty that the more recent warming was man made or even >50% man made is scientifically highly questionable. Sadly there is more dogma and alarmism that science going in to this.

    I'm not particularly convinced by the Milankovitch hypothesis but whatever causes glaciation is certainly not weak. One of the problems of Milankovitch hypothesis is exactly that, it is far too weak to cause the changes attributed to it. It needs some magical amplification. Neither do the climate cycles line up in a scientifically convincing way. They are very irregular for a response to such a clockwork forcing. It works some of the time and then you need to close one eye when it doesn't.

    Much of the claims of extinctions have been biases studies, like Parmisan's faked Monarch butterfly work and the run-away Pikas. Sadly this gets published without proper scrutiny because it fits the narrative. Once rebutted it never gets retracted and is already lodged in the public psyche. There may well be problem with insect populations but that is due pesticides and land use. The longer we remain obsessed with "toxic" CO2, the less likely we are to address real pollution issues and other problems facing humanity.

    You seem genuinely concerned, have you checked out the question I asked about Arctic sea ice cover?

    Last edited by reg.miller; 03-17-2019 at 05:48 PM.


  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Oakland CA USA
    Posts
    4682
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Default Re: ice ages

    > Changing a trace gas from 0.032% to 0.040% is hardly "radical" change to the composition of the atmosphere.

    [Extracting huge quantities of stored carbon that had been accumulating in the earth for millions of years and burning it in the atmosphere over a period of decades, while simultaneously deforesting vast areas of the planet is a radical change. Increasing the proportion of CO2 in the air by 25% or so may not seem like a big deal to you, but computer models show it has a big effect on the climate - and these models, have increasingly been shown to have erred by being overly conservative. Other gasses, like methane, while present in even smaller amounts, have a much bigger effect per ton, and vast amounts of stored methane are increasingly being released into the atmosphere as a result of previously frozen structures in which it was safely encapsulated melting down and releasing it (as well as the large amount of gas that routinely escapes from drilling sites, which give the lie to the assumption that natural gas is a clean fuel with less environmental impact than oil.)]

    > Your inclusion of politically charged , non scientific terms like Anthropocene does not convince anyone of anything.

    [That term seems more accurate as a description of what's actually happening now than claims of a continuing "ice age" in the face of a global melt-down. ]
    >
    >
    > "The rapid warming we're currently experiencing" was no different to the warming of the early 20th c. which was before GHG emissions were supposed to be a factor. Until we can explain that earlier change and determine that the same thing is not now happening the usual certainty that the more recent warming was man made or even >50% man made is scientifically highly questionable. Sadly there is more dogma and alarmism that science going in to this.
    [Are you really interested in what the science says? Or are you just looking for anything that seems to support doing nothing? Because something happened before the explanation for it was generally accepted by climatologists (as it is now) doesn't mean it didn't happen. The early 20th century was when we started extracting and burning fossil fuels on a large scale. It stands to reason that the effects would be evident. Just because there was a minor cooling trend that lasted from 1940 to 1960 doesn't contradict the fact that the earth has been getting warmer on average since the Industrial Revolution, and that currently it's warmer than ever. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...Land_Ocean.svg ) You can't say "science" is on your side if you reject the overwhelming consensus of the scientists who actually study this stuff. The real scientists are rightfully alarmed, and are trying their best to stir some action before it's too late. ]
    >
    >
    > I'm not particularly convinced by the Milankovitch hypothesis but whatever causes glaciation is certainly not weak.
    [Whatever causes it seems to have weakened significantly of late.]
    >
    >
    > Much of the claims of extinctions have been biases studies, like Parmisan's faked Monarch butterfly work and the run-away Pikas. Sadly this gets published without proper scrutiny because it fits the narrative. Once rebutted it never gets retracted and is already lodged in the public psyche. There may well be problem with insect populations but that is due pesticides and land use. The longer we remain obsessed with "toxic" CO2, the less likely we are to address real pollution issues and other problems facing humanity.

    [Climate cranks are quick to claim bias on the part of peer-reviewed scientific studies, but never own up to their own. Ecological systems worldwide are exquisitely sensitive to small changes in climate, and have been increasingly under stress from rising temperatures, changes in precipitation, wildfires, insect infestations triggered by mild winters, ocean acidification, deoxygenation, and direct heating; and other climate-related effects. We've presided over a radical diminution of animal populations in the past few decades; not just in insects but across the board. (see https://www.theguardian.com/environm...r-report-finds ). This is not entirely due to climate change, but it's certainly a major contributing factor. Here's what the US EPA used to be able to tell us about it: https://archive.epa.gov/climatechang...cosystems.html ]
    >
    >
    > You seem genuinely concerned, have you checked out the question I asked about Arctic sea ice cover?

    [ I am concerned; you should be as well. Your issue with Arctic sea ice is a typical fallacy; you expect every climate effect to be perfectly linear, even though climate is a vast and chaotic system with innumerable inputs and variables. But what happens in any one year - or any one decade - is not climate, it's weather. You need to look at the trends, not at individual high or low points. And the trends have been increasingly alarming, as one model after another has been proved to underestimate the risks and speed of ongoing climate destruction. Here's an article about recent Arctic sea ice minimums: 2018 Arctic sea ice tied for sixth-lowest on record: https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0927122939.htm - I don't find that particularly comforting.

    One climatologist put the situation quite well (I paraphrase): we shouldn't think of what Mankind has been doing to our planet as a small incremental change. It's more comparable to the small effort required to dislodge a huge boulder from the top of a mountain and send it crashing down. Once started, it's very difficult to stop. It's always easier to break things than to fix them. ]

    [FONT=Verdana]Andrew Werby[/FONT]
    [URL="http://www.computersculpture.com/"]Website[/URL]


Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


About CNCzone.com

    We are the largest and most active discussion forum for manufacturing industry. The site is 100% free to join and use, so join today!

Follow us on


Our Brands

ice ages

ice ages