- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Hi, just popping in.
Hi! I'm not sticking my neck out here either.
Hi, just popping in.
Hi! I'm not sticking my neck out here either.
Ice Age due to Global Warming?
- Thread starter J
- Start date
- Status
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.
Jae
LOL this reminds me of that part of the movie "Shooter" where that crazy sniper expert guy goes: "They SAID artificial sweetners were safe, that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Anna Nicole married for love..."
That guy was classic. I see myself getting more like that every year - before long I'll be tapping out my manifesto on a broken typwriter in some cabin in Montana.
Edit: I qouted the wrong thing above for my response. My little observation there was in response to what the 'experts' who predicted a Y2K meltdown are saying now.
Clearly I am not ready for the internet.
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.
Jae
LOL this reminds me of that part of the movie "Shooter" where that crazy sniper expert guy goes: "They SAID artificial sweetners were safe, that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Anna Nicole married for love..."
That guy was classic. I see myself getting more like that every year - before long I'll be tapping out my manifesto on a broken typwriter in some cabin in Montana.
Edit: I qouted the wrong thing above for my response. My little observation there was in response to what the 'experts' who predicted a Y2K meltdown are saying now.
Clearly I am not ready for the internet.
Last edited:
I have been watching and reading alot about the global warming and what I have picked up on what causes the ice age is that the cooler water from the ice cap melts, cools the water circulating in the gulf stream and causes a rapid cooling. More or less you have too much cold water entering the system and it overcomes the warm water and causes a ice age. I also picked up that most scientists are guessing and picking and choosing what they want to say, they will claim that industry is releasing co2 into the air yet it is 4 to 5 times what is was during prehistoric times. No real explanantion what causes the ice ages or what ends it, why water rises or recedes and why the desert was once a ocean. What I did gather on all these shows and articles that I read, the Earth changes regardless if man is driving a 59'Cadillac or living in a cave, the changes happen, most of the time without man at all.
He who controls the Spice controls the Universe.
There is a lot more than latitude to making a piece of land the right temperature to be habitable. Saw the English north sea compared to the Yukon territory in latitude (or plug your two cities in... I forget)
Mess up those ocean currents (remember el nino being blamed for everything in the 90s) and a spot of land, getting the same sunlight the same time of year as before, will have radically different weather.
You're seeing a prediction that XXX chunk of land will get iced over, not necessarily a worldwide trend.
Mess up those ocean currents (remember el nino being blamed for everything in the 90s) and a spot of land, getting the same sunlight the same time of year as before, will have radically different weather.
You're seeing a prediction that XXX chunk of land will get iced over, not necessarily a worldwide trend.
I just wish they would make up their mind what they want to call it. If it's global warming, it's not in Wisconsin, but if they want to call it another ice age, this is the place to be right now.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I'll take 70-75F with low humidity, please ...year round. If I don't have to move, great. Now ..I don't know what's required to make that possible ...nor who's going to pay for it in reciprocal/compensatory heating or chilling to make that possible
..but like the guy who was chained to the telephone pole after being car jacked and robbed as he thought a good Samaritan was coming to help him ..sometimes, "You're just not going to have a good day" (cue dueling banjos
)
..but like the guy who was chained to the telephone pole after being car jacked and robbed as he thought a good Samaritan was coming to help him ..sometimes, "You're just not going to have a good day" (cue dueling banjos
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll take 70-75F with low humidity
Still too hot. I want slightly overcast, no more than 62°F, <45% humidity, and a slight breeze.
I'll take 70-75F with low humidity
Still too hot. I want slightly overcast, no more than 62°F, <45% humidity, and a slight breeze.
Quote:
The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods during 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain substantial uncertainties (5, so these correlations are imprecise. In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4 content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature
[URL]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm[/URL]
Pretty much debunks man made GW.
The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods during 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain substantial uncertainties (5, so these correlations are imprecise. In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4 content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature
[URL]http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm[/URL]
Pretty much debunks man made GW.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: moribundman
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll take 70-75F with low humidity
Still too hot. I want slightly overcast, no more than 62°F, div>
That works too. It's especially appealing if you can have it with towering Cumulus puffy clouds against a non-hazy blue sky.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I'll take 70-75F with low humidity
Still too hot. I want slightly overcast, no more than 62°F, div>
That works too. It's especially appealing if you can have it with towering Cumulus puffy clouds against a non-hazy blue sky.
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.
Jae
The Arctic doesn't melt from direct solar radiation. It melts due to ocean currents bringing warm equatorial water to the Arctic region. There are several undersea mountain ranges that block this flow at low ocean levels. As ocean levels rise, more water reaches the Arctic and even more melting occurs. Once the Arctic thaws, look for massive snowfall over North America.
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.
Jae
The Arctic doesn't melt from direct solar radiation. It melts due to ocean currents bringing warm equatorial water to the Arctic region. There are several undersea mountain ranges that block this flow at low ocean levels. As ocean levels rise, more water reaches the Arctic and even more melting occurs. Once the Arctic thaws, look for massive snowfall over North America.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Oh khrap I thought I had bingo.
Don't discard your cards, hold all cards.
Oh khrap I thought I had bingo.
Don't discard your cards, hold all cards.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
