Natural changes in the Earth's climate
Discussion
I nearly posted this in one of the many climate change threads but thought better of it... wonder if anyone scientifically minded can set me straight on this.
As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
Simpo Two said:
There's a bit of difference between having frozen poles and being in an ice age. If this was an ice age you'd be under 100' of solid ice...
Thanks. Yes, I understand that but it still doesn't answer the question. Sure in the middle/prime period of an ice age we'd be balls deep in ice... but it has to start and end somewhere.I'm certainly not saying I'm right, just that this 'fact' has stuck with me and I want to know if it's correct. That fact being that at many points over the history of the planet the poles cycle through periods of being frozen and not.
Simpo Two said:
There's a bit of difference between having frozen poles and being in an ice age. If this was an ice age you'd be under 100' of solid ice...
There have been vast periods of the earth's history where there was no ice at the poles at all. Indeed, it seems that for MOST of its history, having ice caps at the poles is rare. Therefore, you could argue that the fact that they still exist at all indicates we are still in the middle of an ice age. What we don't know for sure is whether the ice caps are melting to the point where they will disappear i.e. the more "normal" state - or whether we are in the middle of an inter-glacial period and at some point over the next few tens of thousands of year the ice caps will start expanding again.Its never mentioned along with the connection the sun may have on our climate because it doesn't matter.
Climate changed is the change in the climate due to mans actions, the climate will change it always has and scientists understand that, some of the science of climate change isn't very good, but its doesn't get around the fact that we as a race are pumping pollutants into our atmosphere in the name of profit and common sense says that that must be affecting the climate, the issue for me though isn't the change to the climate but the change to 2 things vital to our continued existence on this planet, the air we breath and the water we drink.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/fli...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/cal...
Id rather see people/corporations make money trying to fix the problems than causing the problems
The earth will still exist perhaps not as lush and green as it is now, but will we bring about our own extinction? That at the very core is the issue.
Climate changed is the change in the climate due to mans actions, the climate will change it always has and scientists understand that, some of the science of climate change isn't very good, but its doesn't get around the fact that we as a race are pumping pollutants into our atmosphere in the name of profit and common sense says that that must be affecting the climate, the issue for me though isn't the change to the climate but the change to 2 things vital to our continued existence on this planet, the air we breath and the water we drink.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/fli...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/cal...
Id rather see people/corporations make money trying to fix the problems than causing the problems
The earth will still exist perhaps not as lush and green as it is now, but will we bring about our own extinction? That at the very core is the issue.
We're just temporary parasites.
I have flint fishing spear points collected from the middle of the Sahara, where I live was under a mile of ice about 15k years ago; we're a bit egocentric when we think about the earth - nature will always survive, but we probably won't.
Pollution/energy security is another matter, ironic that the greens pushed nuclear off the table so we consumed fossil fuel faster.
Some of the enviro thinking is akin to religion - a belief we are created in 'gods image' and somehow special rather than just an advanced primate that will probably be extinct like 99.9% of all species have been in the past.
Happy New Year.
I have flint fishing spear points collected from the middle of the Sahara, where I live was under a mile of ice about 15k years ago; we're a bit egocentric when we think about the earth - nature will always survive, but we probably won't.
Pollution/energy security is another matter, ironic that the greens pushed nuclear off the table so we consumed fossil fuel faster.
Some of the enviro thinking is akin to religion - a belief we are created in 'gods image' and somehow special rather than just an advanced primate that will probably be extinct like 99.9% of all species have been in the past.
Happy New Year.
Interesting stuff.
I'm of the opinion that humans probably are having an impact on global warming but just can't quantify it in any way.
If science suggests that it's an inevitability that all polar ice will melt entirely at some point (then come back, then go again ad infinitum) I suppose the only real argument is whether or not we're accelerating that process, and if so by how much.
Regardless I do find it pretty interesting that nobody is really mentioning it when discussing things. A bit like the measures taken to deal with the credit crisis it seems that whichever camp one is in what is really being discussed is who is going to be hit hardest by a significant change in Earth's weather patterns - us, our grandchildren, their grandchildren etc.
The bottom line seems to be:
a) The ice is melting.
b) It will have a dramatic effect on global weather patterns.
c) There is nothing we can do about it.
d) We're arguing about whether or not we're accelerating it, not whether or not we are the root cause.
I'm of the opinion that humans probably are having an impact on global warming but just can't quantify it in any way.
If science suggests that it's an inevitability that all polar ice will melt entirely at some point (then come back, then go again ad infinitum) I suppose the only real argument is whether or not we're accelerating that process, and if so by how much.
Regardless I do find it pretty interesting that nobody is really mentioning it when discussing things. A bit like the measures taken to deal with the credit crisis it seems that whichever camp one is in what is really being discussed is who is going to be hit hardest by a significant change in Earth's weather patterns - us, our grandchildren, their grandchildren etc.
The bottom line seems to be:
a) The ice is melting.
b) It will have a dramatic effect on global weather patterns.
c) There is nothing we can do about it.
d) We're arguing about whether or not we're accelerating it, not whether or not we are the root cause.
My understanding was that technically we are in an ice age currently, this is confirmed by Wiki:
wiki said:
An ice age is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]
I come from a science background, well aerospace engineering to be exact, and I am not a type to make 'leaps of faith'.
In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
The evidence that is presented are historical data coupled with computer models.
The on going historical data suggests nothing untoward is taking place and fits within the tolerances of natural variance, but the computer models which are fed data and given parameters are more or less told what to output.
Also my opinion is that "so what if the global temps are increasing"... a few tenths of a degree hotter is not a bad thing IMO.
Remember that climate change politics/science is nothing to do with all pollutants, its just about CO2.
The total focus on CO2 emissions is, in my view, having detrimental impacts on pollution of atmosphere and land.
(Just take a look at the recent turn around on diesel engines - some cities are planning/planned to ban them).
Going back to the point the OP makes - yes there seems to be a total lack of balance on the science regarding climate change/global warming.
I don't know how long the stupidity of it all will go on for - because such matters require decades of data to show trends, and even then the powers that be can nudge the trends in any direction by 'standardisation' of results and other little tricks.
In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
The evidence that is presented are historical data coupled with computer models.
The on going historical data suggests nothing untoward is taking place and fits within the tolerances of natural variance, but the computer models which are fed data and given parameters are more or less told what to output.
Also my opinion is that "so what if the global temps are increasing"... a few tenths of a degree hotter is not a bad thing IMO.
Remember that climate change politics/science is nothing to do with all pollutants, its just about CO2.
The total focus on CO2 emissions is, in my view, having detrimental impacts on pollution of atmosphere and land.
(Just take a look at the recent turn around on diesel engines - some cities are planning/planned to ban them).
Going back to the point the OP makes - yes there seems to be a total lack of balance on the science regarding climate change/global warming.
I don't know how long the stupidity of it all will go on for - because such matters require decades of data to show trends, and even then the powers that be can nudge the trends in any direction by 'standardisation' of results and other little tricks.
Foliage said:
Its never mentioned along with the connection the sun may have on our climate because it doesn't matter.
Climate changed is the change in the climate due to mans actions, the climate will change it always has and scientists understand that, some of the science of climate change isn't very good, but its doesn't get around the fact that we as a race are pumping pollutants into our atmosphere in the name of profit and common sense says that that must be affecting the climate, the issue for me though isn't the change to the climate but the change to 2 things vital to our continued existence on this planet, the air we breath and the water we drink.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/fli...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/cal...
Id rather see people/corporations make money trying to fix the problems than causing the problems
The earth will still exist perhaps not as lush and green as it is now, but will we bring about our own extinction? That at the very core is the issue.
pollution <> climate changeClimate changed is the change in the climate due to mans actions, the climate will change it always has and scientists understand that, some of the science of climate change isn't very good, but its doesn't get around the fact that we as a race are pumping pollutants into our atmosphere in the name of profit and common sense says that that must be affecting the climate, the issue for me though isn't the change to the climate but the change to 2 things vital to our continued existence on this planet, the air we breath and the water we drink.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/24/fli...
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/03/cal...
Id rather see people/corporations make money trying to fix the problems than causing the problems
The earth will still exist perhaps not as lush and green as it is now, but will we bring about our own extinction? That at the very core is the issue.
OP, there are a plethora of references available on the web detailing natural climate variability and its causes. Look up things like Milankovitch cycles, Solar cycles, climate feedback loops, ocean currents, and so on. The current debate about whether or not humans have an influence on this has already been discussed ad infinitum in other threads on PH.
ALT F4 said:
I come from a science background, well aerospace engineering to be exact, and I am not a type to make 'leaps of faith'.
In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
Speaking as another with a science background, I'd be intrigued to understand why you think a greater leap of faith needs to be taken to accept climate change research compared to any other research you haven't personally undertaken.In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
Also the idea that only CO2 emissions' impact is being modeled is obviously untrue as you'd know if you'd bothered to acquaint yourself with any summary of the research.
I find it astonishing how dismissive people can be of others' research when they clearly are in no position to make a judgement one way or the other. Those of us who haven't studied this subject in detail are in no position to form an opinion of the science. All we can do is choose to trust or not trust the established process of producing, peer-reviewing and publishing research. Why reject climate science yet accept the frankly infinitely more bizarre claims of quantum mechanics or general relativity?
The way I see it is I highly doubt humans (who have only been advanced in the last 100 years or so) can bring about the sort of climate change people are panicking about. I think it's more to do with making money from this scaremongering than anything else. I mean if it's such a huge problem surely the oil companies would have been closed down and we would all be driving electric vehicles if it was having such a big impact.
Besides polar ice melting on the north pole won't cause sea levels to rise so no big deal and if the southern ice melts......well.....there's bound to be some cool s
t under that ice!
Do I care if some animals are made extinct? Not really. The dinosaurs are dead and that's life. I don't hear too many people whinging gthat there are no dodos left and if they are it's just because there's not enough stupid animals like sheep around them
Besides polar ice melting on the north pole won't cause sea levels to rise so no big deal and if the southern ice melts......well.....there's bound to be some cool s
t under that ice!Do I care if some animals are made extinct? Not really. The dinosaurs are dead and that's life. I don't hear too many people whinging gthat there are no dodos left and if they are it's just because there's not enough stupid animals like sheep around them
ATG said:
ALT F4 said:
I come from a science background, well aerospace engineering to be exact, and I am not a type to make 'leaps of faith'.
In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
Speaking as another with a science background, I'd be intrigued to understand why you think a greater leap of faith needs to be taken to accept climate change research compared to any other research you haven't personally undertaken.In this context I mean the evidence is very much lacking that links human CO2 emissions to a global increase in temperature. If I were to choose to think along those lines I would have to make a leap of faith to get to that acceptance.
Just to pin you down on a couple of points, I mentioned "a leap of faith", not a greater one. And usually in my field of working no 'leap of faith' is necessary. We design based on principles, figures and goals, and if a 'leap of faith' ever comes close to the table it means we do not have the full data necessary in order to design.
Would you be happy to take your next passenger trip on an airliner knowing somebody had a design input based on a 'leap of faith' (a decision based not on data and figures but on some individual's personal belief that it should just be so).
ATG said:
Also the idea that only CO2 emissions' impact is being modeled is obviously untrue as you'd know if you'd bothered to acquaint yourself with any summary of the research.
Al Gore's global warming and the politics that arose from it are based on CO2 being the cause of increases of global temps.Not saying that when it comes to the computer models that other factors are not taking in to account, but what I am saying is that its all about the CO2 when it comes to the politics.
And climate change is more politics driven than it is science - this is clear to see.
To back up my scientific approach, I would be happy to accept human caused climate change if the link between human CO2 emissions and an increase in global temps was clearly shown within the unmolested data collected around the globe.
To date it has not.
It is also strange that those with a credible science background don't accept the level of intake of CO2 by the biosphere. Both land and sea.
There are currently large holes in the study of climate science and I am sure that the history of computer modelling of the globe's climate is wrong - I'm sure because they been proven to be wrong time after time.
ALT F4 said:
Also my opinion is that "so what if the global temps are increasing"... a few tenths of a degree hotter is not a bad thing IMO.
My understanding is that warming is considered a "bad thing" as it results in more energy in the atmosphere (increased temperature,humidity, sea temperature) and more extreme weather events (rainfall, floods, frequency and intensity of cyclones, hurricanes etc) These events tend to be undesirable for humans. climate change happens everyday, but where do you draw the line.
the population is growing, c02 has increased from '280 parts per million just prior to the Industrial Revolution to about 394 parts per million today, and the rate of increase is speeding up. The global average of atmospheric CO2 is expected to reach 400 ppm by 2016, according to scientists.'
- See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/e...
the whole earth ecosystem is complex, the earth currently takes up 50% of co2 so there is a deficit in what is removed from the atmosphere.
Sunspots and Solar Winds could have an impact, but not fully understood, as only in the absence of that potential driver will scientists be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.
the population is growing, c02 has increased from '280 parts per million just prior to the Industrial Revolution to about 394 parts per million today, and the rate of increase is speeding up. The global average of atmospheric CO2 is expected to reach 400 ppm by 2016, according to scientists.'
- See more at: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/e...
the whole earth ecosystem is complex, the earth currently takes up 50% of co2 so there is a deficit in what is removed from the atmosphere.
Sunspots and Solar Winds could have an impact, but not fully understood, as only in the absence of that potential driver will scientists be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.
el stovey said:
ALT F4 said:
Also my opinion is that "so what if the global temps are increasing"... a few tenths of a degree hotter is not a bad thing IMO.
My understanding is that warming is considered a "bad thing" as it results in more energy in the atmosphere (increased temperature,humidity, sea temperature) and more extreme weather events (rainfall, floods, frequency and intensity of cyclones, hurricanes etc) These events tend to be undesirable for humans. It appears that any change from the conditions in the mid-20th century is being sold as "a bad thing". A degree warmer = more storms, droughts, floods, "extreme weather". one degree colder and crops won't grow across the northern hemisphere, general carnage.
And yet, what are the chances of the climate just happening to be perfect for us at just the moment we chose to start studying it? I propose that it's highly unlikely.
benjj said:
I nearly posted this in one of the many climate change threads but thought better of it... wonder if anyone scientifically minded can set me straight on this.
As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
You are correct that we are in an interglacial period. It is thought that these cycles are caused by orbital forcing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_forcing, which is basically variations in the earth's orbit and tilt angle. As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
So I think your point is that - it's all natural and the planet will end up warming and cooling anyway?
I think the worry is that the natural warming is being influenced by human activity which is having a detrimental effect (above any natural variation) in the climate.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff