Ice Age due to Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.

J

Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
434
Location
Berkeley
I hope you don't think this is a political issue.

The claim that global warming may lead to an ice age does not
make a lot of sense to me.

The argument goes as follows: The increasing temperature causes
the ice covering much of Greenland to melt. The fresh water
coming off of Greenland shuts off the ocean currents which keeps
East Coast of North America and Western Europe from being much
colder. The result is that North America and Europe enter an
Ice Age.

What I don't understand is why ice would melt in Greenland and
not melt in more southerly regions. An ice age is a period of
time when ice covers land year round. So, I don't understand
what would cause Greenland to be warmer than say Boston or
London. If the "scientists" who predict an Ice Age as a result
of Global Warming are worried about ice forming in Boston in
winter, that doesn't make sense because Boston is covered with
Ice and snow for almost all of winter anyway.

Are the same people who predicted the Y2K disaster (read non-
event) the ones now predicting an ice age due to rising
temperatures?

cheers3.gif


Jae
 
I don't think anybody really knows what will happen. These are all theories so far. Not saying it isn't a problem, just that the exact effects remain to be seen.
 
The theory I've heard asks where the snow to make an ice pack several miles thick over North America would come from. The resulting weather models require the Arctic to be an open sea, providing the necessary moisture source to fuel snow storms across North America. When the ice pack buildup causes the ocean levels to drop, the warm currents which thaw the Arctic cease, the Arctic freezes over again, and the Ice age ends . . or starts all over again?
 
Originally Posted By: pcoxe
The resulting weather models require the Arctic to be an open sea, providing the necessary moisture source to fuel snow storms across North America.


That makes more sense. Salt water freezes at lower temperature
than fresh water.

But the argument relating to Greenland's fresh water ice melting
and causing ice to form in North America just doesn't hold water.

I doubt that Arctic Ocean will completely melt. That entire
area sees NO sun during the winter. I don't see how a place
that sees NO sun gets the energy to stay about -4 degrees
celsius is beyond me.

The same experts that said there would be a Y2K disaster, the
same "experts" that said that there would be no stock bubble,
and the same "experts" that lent money to sub-prime borrowers
and were shocked when they defaulted predict another ice age
due to global warming. That's what I see.

cheers3.gif


Jae
 
Remember that these results come from Global Climate Models, which are mathematical models of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, and are incomplete, because we do NOT know all the interactions.

Solar output still remains the major driver in climate, IMHO.
 
We just had a geologist talk at one of professional group gatherings. He presented a timeline chart that shows we are in a warming period, which started around 10,000 years ago. He also showed that historically we had many ice ages with brief warming periods. These cyclic ice ages were over ten times as long as the warming periods. So, the normal condition of earth is for it to be covered with glacial ice down to around Tennessee. The warming periods are somewhat of an aberration. I guess we should count our blessings.

To his credit, he tactfully avoided answering questions on the hot-button topic of global warming. Though he did give a few facts on the subject, which I can't repeat here.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Remember that these results come from Global Climate Models, which are mathematical models of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, and are incomplete, because we do NOT know all the interactions.

Solar output still remains the major driver in climate, IMHO.


You are correct. A VERY important item that's not included in any calculation is water vapor.
 
Originally Posted By: Kestas
The warming periods are somewhat of an aberration. I guess we should count our blessings.


Why can't "experts" just claim that they just don't know? Why
can't they just say that global climate is just too complicated
to predict for anything more than a week or month in the future?

Why do they have to come up with theories that do not stand up
to scrutiny? Why can't they see the fallacy in a theory that
assumes that water would melt in Greenland but freeze in Boston?

cheers3.gif


Jae
 
Because there is no power nor glory in not knowing. There is power, money & glory for those who "know", even if, and especially when, they're flat wrong.

Follow the money.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: J
Originally Posted By: pcoxe
The resulting weather models require the Arctic to be an open sea, providing the necessary moisture source to fuel snow storms across North America.


That makes more sense. Salt water freezes at lower temperature
than fresh water.

But the argument relating to Greenland's fresh water ice melting
and causing ice to form in North America just doesn't hold water.

I doubt that Arctic Ocean will completely melt. That entire
area sees NO sun during the winter. I don't see how a place
that sees NO sun gets the energy to stay about -4 degrees
celsius is beyond me.

The same experts that said there would be a Y2K disaster, the
same "experts" that said that there would be no stock bubble,
and the same "experts" that lent money to sub-prime borrowers
and were shocked when they defaulted predict another ice age
due to global warming. That's what I see.

cheers3.gif


Jae


It's known that the Arctic ice sheets are decreasing each year. Less ice cover means that less solar energy is reflected, more is absorbed, causing temperature increases.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
You are correct. A VERY important item that's not included in any calculation is water vapor.


Any calculation ?

rubbish.

Water vapour is the positive feedback part. Hotter, more water vapour, more water vapour, more stored heat. And it's in the models.
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
As long as RSP isn't part of the issue I reckon.

IMO, this issue is not RSP, it's economic....all about $$$.


So long as we don't venture into RSP, and talk about thermodynamic models and their structures and weaknesses/strengths, were OK.

Economics can turn into P very quick.

Let's just be careful...

JMH
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top