A "Mini-Ice Age" could hit earth by 2030, Scientists warn

[Garnier Fructis]

What I find funny is "The Model" part.

It's just a fucking Statist claiming everything.

Everything in science at some level is done with models.

[Deleted]

Everything in science at some level is done with models.

Yes, but a Model is literally that, a simulated tool used to measure or estimate something. Nothing has been done yet to prove this model and it's creator even doubts it.

[Garnier Fructis]

Yes, but a Model is literally that, a simulated tool used to measure or estimate something. Nothing has been done yet to prove this model and it's creator even doubts it.

That's fair.

[Shmazard]

Finally i can ride a snowmobile to work!

[Adam Jensen]

Climate is constantly changing since the beginning of Earth. Wasting resources to stop this natural change is stupid.

Climate has been changing SLOWLY since the beginning of the earth.

Key word is slowly.

The warming we've seen in the last century has literally never happened before. Climate change typically takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. Not a mere century.

[Deleted]

Climate has been changing SLOWLY since the beginning of the earth.

Key word is slowly.

The warming we've seen in the last century has literally never happened before. Climate change typically takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. Not a mere century.

.... Yes it has.

And we literally had Mini Ice ages recorded in Human History.

We have had REGULAR ice ages in known human history.

[Adam Jensen]

.... Yes it has.

And we literally had Mini Ice ages recorded in Human History.

We have had REGULAR ice ages in known human history.

Within a 100 year time span? To the extent we've seen now?

[Deleted]

Within a 100 year time span? To the extent we've seen now?

....Fucking yes?

Google the Victorian mini Ice age.

[Mafic]

Some of the problems with climate science is that temperature measurements are not a good gauge or a good way to argue for human influenced climate change. The reason why temperature measurements are not a good gauge is because urban environments can alter temperature readings even if you were to measure the temperature in say Los Angeles, CA compared to Riverside, CA. Both are in the same climate region and yet very different temperature readings can be found as Los Angeles is far more developed while Riverside is an suburban area that is in a remote location. And since both LA and Riverside are in different geographic locations they can have different weather patterns despite being in the same climate region (eg Los Angeles is in a basin)

Next, it is hard to obtain an average when not all places on the globe have an even distribution of temperature gauges. If your goal is to obtain a mode or median average than you don't need to have same amount of gauges at certain interval locations. For example, if you are measuring river flow you don't need the same amount of gauges at the head waters of a river and downstream. However, most river measurements use an average mean of flow and thus you need the same amount of gauges at the headwaters of a river as well as downstream.

The most reliable two ways to measure the impact of human acceleration of a natural process like climate change is to look at isotope ratios of oxygen and sea level rise. The hydrological cycle is far more important of a measure to determine climate change, because every time glaciers melt for example that frees up more water to enter the hydrological cycle. The #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor and while Co2 and methane can accelerate the feedback loop it is still rests solely on what happens to the water vapor and where it goes.

In my opinion, the reason why the global temperature increase has been so slow the last 100+ years is because of the high heat capacity of water. Given the majority of the earth is covered by water and the poles with ice it is clear that the earth has been relatively stable temperature wise despite human influences of pumping Co2 into the atmosphere.

It has been seen in the past geologic record of rapid temperature increases which have led to mass extinctions. However, the earth has recovered and also major ice ages tend to follow after rapid temperature increases. The reason why that is the case is that the earth's atmosphere can not hold that much water vapor indefinitely. Thus, it must come down as precipitation and usually the heavier oxygen isotopes are the first to come down back to the earth. This is how we know the temperature of the earth at different points in the geologic record based on the ratio of oxygen isotopes that we have found.

Now, how much Co2 can continued to be put into the atmosphere to cause the water vapor to suspend itself and come down as precipitation? No one knows and that is why on one hand I can understand the push to reduce humans putting Co2 and methane into the atmoshpere as that indirectly causes more water vapor be freed up to enter the atmosphere as the earth warms.

But the hydrological cycle shows that water in the atmosphere doesn't linger for long periods of time, so no one really knows what happens next.

The fear is coastal regions being unable to deal with rising sea levels in poor countries and also the ice age that usually comes after a major global warming event.

[Endus]

....Fucking yes?

Google the Victorian mini Ice age.

While you've been banned, I'd like to point out that the answer to this is "unequivocally, objectively no."

The temperature shift in that era was A> regional in nature, and B> came on much more slowly than the last century's warming trend.

[Rasulis]

The fear is coastal regions being unable to deal with rising sea levels in poor countries and also the ice age that usually comes after a major global warming event.

Like Louisiana which has been losing land faster than just about anybody else in the WORLD? Last estimate was about 2,000 square miles since the 1930s.

[Mafic]

Like Louisiana which has been losing land faster than just about anybody else in the WORLD? Last estimate was about 2,000 square miles since the 1930s.

The gulf states have always had high erosional rates. The loss of wetlands and the reduced suspended load that the Mississippi River has carried is a greater impact The reason we knows this is because when the Mississippi River changes the direction it flows it has changed the shape of the Louisiana coastline as a result from the suspended load that the river carries.

[Rasulis]

The gulf states have always had high erosional rates. The loss of wetlands and the reduced suspended load that the Mississippi River has carried is a greater impact The reason we knows this is because when the Mississippi River changes the direction it flows it has changed the shape of the Louisiana coastline as a result from the suspended load that the river carries.

It is a combination of several factors, sinking land, damage from dredging by oil companies, storm surges and hurricanes, disappearing marshland, and yes, also rising sea level.

You’ll find this interesting. A study by NASA and Louisiana State University in 2008 finds that sediments deposited into the Mississippi River Delta thousands of years ago when North America's glaciers retreated are contributing to the ongoing sinking of Louisiana's coastline. The weight of these sediments is causing a large section of Earth's crust to sag at a rate of 0.1 to 0.8 centimeters (0.04 to 0.3 inches) a year.

Back in the 1980s, I was one of the assistants to Prof. Mustafa (I can’t remember his last name now) while he was working on a complete model of the Mississippi Delta at the JPL lab in Pasadena. So, although I have not done open channel modeling for decades, I am somewhat familiar with the issues of the Mississippi Delta.

[Deleted]

Archeans could survive that as well, but multicellular life is a different matter.

Not really: On Venus the surface is 467 °C (i.e. no liquid water) and the pressure is 93 bar with clouds made of sulfuric acid.

None of the known unicellular life forms would survive that.

[Mafic]

It is a combination of several factors, sinking land, damage from dredging by oil companies, storm surges and hurricanes, disappearing marshland, and yes, also rising sea level.

You’ll find this interesting. A study by NASA and Louisiana State University in 2008 finds that sediments deposited into the Mississippi River Delta thousands of years ago when North America's glaciers retreated are contributing to the ongoing sinking of Louisiana's coastline. The weight of these sediments is causing a large section of Earth's crust to sag at a rate of 0.1 to 0.8 centimeters (0.04 to 0.3 inches) a year.

Back in the 1980s, I was one of the assistants to Prof. Mustafa (I can’t remember his last name now) while he was working on a complete model of the Mississippi Delta at the JPL lab in Pasadena. So, although I have not done open channel modeling for decades, I am somewhat familiar with the issues of the Mississippi Delta.

This is all true and rising sea levels can still measured despite all these factors.

[Ghostpanther]

Within a 100 year time span? To the extent we've seen now?

Even more so.

A good read. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...hs-history.htm

So the earth has experienced at least 5 major Ice ages. And as the article points out, it is not common in the history of the Earth, for Greenland and Antarctica, to be covered with a ice sheet.

And also another interesting article. http://www.history.com/news/1500-yea...rse-of-history

[Endus]

Even more so.

A good read. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the...hs-history.htm

So the earth has experienced at least 5 major Ice ages. And as the article points out, it is not common in the history of the Earth, for Greenland and Antarctica, to be covered with a ice sheet.

And also another interesting article. http://www.history.com/news/1500-yea...rse-of-history

Again, technically, an "ice age" is when there are major ice sheets at the poles. We're in an ice age right now, and have been for millions of years; the Quaternary Ice Age.

The expansion and contraction of those ice caps is what are labelled in popular terminology as "ice ages", but properly, those are "glacial periods", as opposed to "interglacial periods", like the one we're in right now.

That glacial/interglacial cycle involves a global temperature shift on the order of about 10 degrees C, at the two extreme points. The problem is that these cycles are 80k-100k years long. They're marked by slow cooling, followed by a rapid warming event, followed by slow cooling. However, we're using "rapid" and "slow" in geologically relative terms, here. The "rapid" warming involves warming up by 10 degrees C over a span of about 6,000-7,000 years. That's about one degree every 650 years. That's "violently rapid", in terms of natural cycles.

We've seen a degree in warming in the last 100 years, and 2/3 of that warming just in the last 50. We're way outside the scale of how quickly natural cycles occur. Worse, the glacial/interglacial cycle waffles between two extreme points on the temperature scale. We're currently near the warm peak of that cycle. We should be set for 50,000 years of steady cooling, left to natural cycles, not unnaturally rapid warming, which is threatening to pull us out of the Ice Age entirely (not immediately; the Antarctic ice cap in particular will take centuries to melt completely, but once it's gone it's highly unlikely to come back).

Your own source is essentially pointing out that the planet can easily have different stable plateaus, climate-wise. And that's true. The problem is that all of human civilization has emerged during this last interglacial period. The human species has never existed outside of the climate conditions of an ice age. Human civilization has never had to deal with this kind of rapid climate shift on a global scale (and on a local scale, it's often resulted in the collapse/migration/extinction of a given society).

Your own sources are essentially supporting that the planet hasn't seen this kind of climate change before, not outside of extinction-level events like major asteroid impacts. And even those had more long-term climate impact due to the effect of killing 95% of life on the planet in one fell swoop, than their direct impact.

[cubby]

There was a little ice age back in the 1600’s.

Data? Cite?

- - - Updated - - -

Pardon me for the interruption, but I love your icon. Epic.

Thank you. I was rofl'ing when I first saw it and just knew I'd found my new icon. Took me awhile to get it the right size so it was readable on the forum pages.

I also agree with you about the "innocent" questions, they're usually baited.

Thanks - that's usually what we run into here with climate change. I still probably shouldn't have started out so aggressively, but I'm also tired of the people who know what's going having to be patient.

[Mhyroth]

On a grand scale, things don't happen overnight.

I doubt we will se a huge change in 15 years.
If say it will take about 10.000 years until the next major climate change.

Sounds to me like "since I won't be around it's none of my business or problem".
There's a word for that.

[Strawberry]

Sounds to me like "since I won't be around it's none of my business or problem".
There's a word for that.

Something like that, yeah.