Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TruthSeeker0

US climate report

Recommended Posts

On 12/13/2018 at 8:11 PM, florduh said:

Might it serve us better if we do our best to not hasten the warming cycle? Or would you rather just heat it up as quickly as possible and get it over with? Those seem to be our two choices here.

 

Here's the thing, we're not going into the natural warming end of the cycle. We're going into the cooling end of the natural cycle and while that's happening, there has been some warming which we're looking at as the global warming period of the post industrial era. So there seems to be a tug-o-war between natural cooling and unnatural warming going on here. 

 

 

image.jpeg
 

When the earth's axis wobbles it's a nearly 26,000 year cycle around like a wobbling top. During that time, the northern hemisphere spins around like a wobbling top. Aimed towards the sun on one extreme and aimed away from the sun on the opposite extreme. This is part of the natural glaciation cycle process, but there are other factors working as well. The north stars changes positions during this long cycle as the earth's axis points toward different "north stars." 

 

http://theconversation.com/ice-ages-have-been-linked-to-the-earths-wobbly-orbit-but-when-is-the-next-one-70069

 

<snipped from article>

 

Quote

So how can all this help us understand future climate? One idea is that small increases in greenhouse gases due to the expansion of agriculture

 that started 8,000 years ago have in fact delayed the next ice age. What’s more, if we continue emitting greenhouse gases at the same rate, we might have put off the next ice age for at least half a million years.

If we have merely delayed the next ice age, we will still be in the Quaternary Period – the last 2.58m years defined by the ice age cycles. But if we have stopped the ice ages, humans will have caused a much greater change and so have entered the Anthropocene period as some argue. If I had to put money on it, I’d say the Earth has experienced its last ice age for a very, very long time.

 

So altogether it looks as if emissions are a big factor in the warming trends that have happened over the last couple hundred years, then we've been altering the natural glaciation cycle with technology, not knowing that that's what we've been doing at first. And like the author said, it goes back way before the industrial period if we take human agriculture into account, which started around 8,000 years ago. I'm not sure how that really factors in though. 

 

This is some what different than if the planet were going through the natural 'warming' end of its relevant cycles of eccentricity, obliquity and precession. In that case we would be adding man made heat on top of natural cycle heat, as you were suggesting. 

 

But in this case we're adding man made heat on top of natural cooling.

 

And that's what I've been looking at with the climate models fluctuating between warming and cooling just over the last several decades of close observation. LF has pointed out that setting politics aside, some of the actual scientific papers coming out of the 70's era predicted warming followed by cooling, and then more warming. If we see warming, then cooling, then warming, then more cooling, then more warming, and then more cooling, I'd be inclined to think that we're merely doing a tug-o-war between technology (emissions) and the natural dominant cooling trend. 

 

I don't know what to make of it all. It looks to me like we've 'accidentally' stumbled into knowledge of how to try and off set, and possibly balance out the natural glaciation cycle at least in part. And that's what some of the sources that I've cited before on this issue have been saying. Offsetting the ice age and 30% global greening are some of the benefits involved in the amount of warming that has happened so far. Altogether the issue seems far from understood at this point. So I've taken serious trying look at the bigger picture oriented information and trying to reason it out for myself looking out long term. Scientific curiosity outside of whatever the accepted group think happens to be. 

 

Image result for Greenland ice core samples show millions year long cooling trend

 

The big question seems to be will the cooling arch in the northern hemisphere continue dropping down, with our technology and civilizations only contributing to short bursts of warm spikes along the way, as we continue arching downward through the cold end of the natural cycle? And whether ice sheets will reform or gain in mass during this possible temperature tug-o-war, or will the warming be enough to prohibit massive ice sheets from forming again like they should be doing on a celestial trip through a cosmic winter period? 

 

All of that would factor in to short term (100's of years) sea level changes ahead of us. Whether the future sea levels rise or they fall from present positions, depending on how our interaction with the dominant cooling trend goes. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll rattle out a few quick thoughts in the few minutes I have. These are not necessarily in-depth.

 

I've noticed a bit of a trend away from outright denialism of global warming to more of a yep, its warming its all natural, but humans don't do squat. The problem with this is when we try and claim humans have no effect we generally find out (after the fact, and usually too late) that we do have an effect. I think the major question is how much effect do we have, and can we do anything about it, and this seems to be the major points of contention generally.

 

Addressing the it's natural, we can't stop it blah blah etc. This general line of argument seems to be a cop out and basically translates to I can't be fucked doing anything I just want to do whatever I want to. Reducing pollution and the harmful effects we have on the environment cannot be a bad thing and I think we need to take a holistic approach to our environment.

 

At the moment its polarised: Lets stop GW, or lets stop plastic pollution etc. But we need to take a wider look overall at how we affect our world and what we can do better - and people and companies are doing this.

 

I have several big issues with this topic because people on the net, do as they do, take the extreme most the time. The world is ending, or nothing to see here.

 

Climate change is man made: No it isn't. Stop saying it is, you just feed misconceptions. Climate change is a natural occurrence that is aggravated by human activities. Humans haven't 'caused' warming, but they certainly have had an impact on warming rates. Why would we want to reduce our impact? Because that would mitigate the rate increase and give a longer time frame to adapt. Humans are great at adapting, but everything fins its hard to adapt fit the change is too sudden, too abrupt. 3ft rise in 100 years is doable. 2 meters will have larger consequences.

 

Right I'm outa rattling time. CYL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one do not think the world is ending. I start to resent it when implications are made that people must be one extreme or the other just because they're concerned. Those of us who have concerns about the environment and think that we humans are having some impact on global warming are so often poo pooed as liberal extremists or some such. I also don't see anything wrong with having concern over the sheer amount of garbage like plastics which we are just piling up in landfills and waterways. It certainly isn't going to benefit us in any case. 

Anyway, I've just decided I'm going to stop posting on anything other than religion in this forum. This isn't a place where people are smart enough to stay away from trolling and baiting. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great visual representation of the obliquity, eccentricity, precession from a PBS show. Seeing our current position in the celestial winter: 

 

 

By around 17:00 forward he goes into how we're experiencing a warm period while in the depths of an ice age. And the question will remain how anthropogenic climate change will play out, since modeling has been, "extremely difficult." 

 

But the above makes more sense out of the graphs showing the earth in a steady decline over the long period. 

 

65 million years of global temperatures

 

Greenland GISP2 ice core - last 10,000 years.

 

That's consistent with our current orbital position at aphellion (cosmic winter). 

 

Five million years of global temperatures from sediment cores.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few give a damn about human costs.

 

*************

josh?

 

Have heard from RELIABLE posters "...you are an idiot.."
Effin' science and words and lines 'n chitt..

 

Keep this up and "they'll" c o m e for your long boards.

 

(Thanks for considerable linkage and commentary your Mighty Truffitaryness!)

 

kL

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joshpantera

 

I doth wonder if there is not some confusion in terminology?

 

An "Ice Age" as scientists use the term is when there is ice at the poles. A fairly uncommon event over geological time. So saying we are in an "ice age" right now is somewhat misleading. For the vast majority of earths history we didn't have ice ages, largely because land masses didn't block flow of water around the poles.

 

The terms we should be using is glacial or interglacial. In a glacial the ice grows, in an interglacial ice shrinks.

 

Right now we are in an interglacial period. The last glacial ended 10,000 years ago. The last four interglacial periods lasted 20,000 + years. Sometimes they end after 10,000 years. The question is are we in the middle of an interglacial and simply putting "fuel" on the metaphorical fires that melt ice (And ipso facto raise sea levels) or at the end where our "efforts" to destroy our environment (Bit tongue in cheek there, but not too far from reality) is helping stave off for a minute amount of time the next glacial.

 

There is also a third option. It is possible that this current interglacial period could herald the end of the current ice age. If that's the case we wouldn't see another ice age for... oh long enough for us to go extinct! IF that is the case then things will get warmer... and sea levels much higher because in order for there to be no ice age, there must be no ice at the poles. No ice at the poles means its in the oceans. I think we are talking 400 feet of water. Naturally we are talking timeframes outside our lifetimes. Assuming that global warming is real; that is the globe is warming overall as it has been trending for 10k years, and assuming that our CO2 efforts are in fact causing predicted rises in warming, its still gonna take a long time to melt that ice. So yeah... 400ft rise in our time... not happening. 8 feet? - rises in the past have been faster without any 'helping hands'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I doth wonder if there is not some confusion in terminology?

 

An "Ice Age" as scientists use the term is when there is ice at the poles. A fairly uncommon event over geological time. So saying we are in an "ice age" right now is somewhat misleading. For the vast majority of earths history we didn't have ice ages, largely because land masses didn't block flow of water around the poles.

 

We have to refer to the scientific video with the graphic illustration of earth's celestial positions against the sun with it's elongated orbit, it's tilted axis and so on. What they're referring to as being in an ice age is the orbital position and duration of "aphellion." This is the long time scale of precession of the equinoxes. During that entire age glacial and interglacial periods play out for the various reasons described - the ages where the northern hemisphere is farthest away from the sun (starting at 7:10). The opposite orbital and axial tilt positions which have the northern hemisphere closer and aimed at the sun being long ages which are not the ice ages.  

 

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Right now we are in an interglacial period. The last glacial ended 10,000 years ago. The last four interglacial periods lasted 20,000 + years. Sometimes they end after 10,000 years. The question is are we in the middle of an interglacial and simply putting "fuel" on the metaphorical fires that melt ice (And ipso facto raise sea levels) or at the end where our "efforts" to destroy our environment (Bit tongue in cheek there, but not too far from reality) is helping stave off for a minute amount of time the next glacial.

 

That's what he's talking about as well. The talk about obliquity and eccentricity goes into some of that. Again, these are projections and so far they've not been able to understand how it's playing out, with temps rising and cooling over and over again when people are setting up computer models to sky rocket up, up, and away. 

 

 

image.png
 

Those "alarmist" style projections from the IPCC are based on models which were given input parameters to go off the charts. In reality temps haven't done that. And what I'm beginning to wonder, considering the big picture (the 5 million year ice core samples, Greenland showing small warming blips during an overall temperature decline, all of the graphs I've posted, against our cosmic landscape of orbiting through the aphellion), is if anthropogenic climate change is merely tugging against all of the dominant cooling features? If we were to make fossil fuel illegal and trend that across the globe (forcing aviation to return to propeller technology, land and marine tech to electric, etc.) would the dominant cooling features quickly take the wheel and give us the opposite of warming with large scale cooling? 

 

Now in the above I'm granting the anthropogenic climate change arguments full validity, though they are still being debated to some degree. If going into 2020 we see drops going below 0.2 and trending back down again it would probably continue to raise more questions about the methodology behind the modeling. That seems to be a consideration when we're discussing how long anthropogenic activities could off set the next glacial period. How could we know, aside from computer modeling? And has computer modeling erred on the side of extreme verses the unfolding of reality. It seems hard at this point to firmly project something like that because of the all of the contributing factors involved. 

 

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

There is also a third option. It is possible that this current interglacial period could herald the end of the current ice age. If that's the case we wouldn't see another ice age for... oh long enough for us to go extinct! IF that is the case then things will get warmer... and sea levels much higher because in order for there to be no ice age, there must be no ice at the poles. No ice at the poles means its in the oceans. I think we are talking 400 feet of water. Naturally we are talking timeframes outside our lifetimes. Assuming that global warming is real; that is the globe is warming overall as it has been trending for 10k years, and assuming that our CO2 efforts are in fact causing predicted rises in warming, its still gonna take a long time to melt that ice. So yeah... 400ft rise in our time... not happening. 8 feet? - rises in the past have been faster without any 'helping hands'.

 

The 12,000 year ago situation with the Antarctic could be related to the meteor dent discovered in Iceland. In that if the meteor caused a massive melt water discharge and did rise global sea levels, that would have risen sea levels down in the Antarctic as well. The idea is that there were several cosmic impacts going down in the northern circumpolar regions. It will be interesting if the collapse of the western ice sheet is somehow directly tied into all of that. 

 

I think the modern sea level rise depends on a lot of different factors, especially consider all of the polar ice melting on both poles. I don't think all of the polar ice would melt, that seems pretty unlikely. The 8' rise in sea levels in the past from a cosmic impact and rapid melting ice would be something outside of control for sure. If the western Antarctic Ice Sheet fell off again, how long would it take to melt without the assistance of a cosmic impact in the northern hemisphere? And would any of this even touch all of the polar ice caps melting completely? If anthropogenic climate change doesn't go off the charts like errant modeling has shown, then I wouldn't think all of the polar ice will ever melt completely either. 

 

Until the cosmic orbital season changes again and the earth is at it's closest to the sun positions. That's when natural global warming would be an issue unless they devise a way of manipulating cloud cover or doing something to block out the sun and heat during a cosmic summer period. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.