I tried to start this post some time ago but most people on the site seemed to dismiss it as irrelevant.
It is now time to have a serious debate on the matter because as far as I am aware, there does not seem to be any going on any where.
The problem is this - we are in an ice age - that is, an age when ice exists at the poles. Currently we are at the end of the warm interglacial period, where the ice stays at the poles. The Vostok ice core data shows us that the descent into the cold peroids is very rapid, and the cold periods last for a very very long time.
It is clear that the impact on civilisation of plunging into the next ice age will be devastating. Far worse than even the worst of the doom mongering that the AGW lobby has come up with.
Although I am sceptical of the degree of warming increases in C02 with bring to the atmosphere, it will bring some amount of warming.
Therefore, accepting that C02 brings some warming to the atmosphere, would it not be prudent to maintain or increase levels of this gas in an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze.
Originally posted by engineerer: I tried to start this post some time ago but most people on the site seemed to dismiss it as irrelevant.
It is now time to have a serious debate on the matter because as far as I am aware, there does not seem to be any going on any where.
The problem is this - we are in an ice age - that is, an age when ice exists at the poles. Currently we are at the end of the warm interglacial period, where the ice stays at the poles. The Vostok ice core data shows us that the descent into the cold peroids is very rapid, and the cold periods last for a very very long time.
It is clear that the impact on civilisation of plunging into the next ice age will be devastating. Far worse than even the worst of the doom mongering that the AGW lobby has come up with.
Although I am sceptical of the degree of warming increases in C02 with bring to the atmosphere, it will bring some amount of warming.
Therefore, accepting that C02 brings some warming to the atmosphere, would it not be prudent to maintain or increase levels of this gas in an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze.
I guess the question is whether we can regulate CO2 levels to optimise a comfortable, sustainable extistance. Destroying the CO2 "sinks" while pumping gigatons of the stuff into the atmosphere does not strike me as the way ahead.
Your reference to the power of a few ppm of CO2 to influence warming would appear to be backed up by the "Power of the Planet" programme (Dr Iain Stewart) which informed me that it was CO2 increase as a result of volcanic activity that started the beginning of the end of the last ice age.
You don't actually believe the next ice age is imminent and that it will come so quick we can't react. You are merely using the argument as a diversion, which is the reason for the lack of engagement from others.
quote:
Therefore, accepting that C02 brings some warming to the atmosphere, would it not be prudent to maintain or increase levels of this gas in an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze.
The answer is no. Because there is no consensus about how long the current interglacial period will last (assuming it will end). Lengths of interglacials have varied, and it would seem they are dependent not only on orbital cycles but also on the positions of continents, land coverage etc.
Given that the warmer interglacials are shorter than the cooler ones it has been speculated that the extra warmth melts ice sheets too quickly which shut down ocean currents and flip the earth back into an ice age.
Originally posted by Steve_M: You don't actually believe the next ice age is imminent and that it will come so quick we can't react. You are merely using the argument as a diversion, which is the reason for the lack of engagement from others.
quote:
Therefore, accepting that C02 brings some warming to the atmosphere, would it not be prudent to maintain or increase levels of this gas in an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze.
The answer is no. Because there is no consensus about how long the current interglacial period will last (assuming it will end). Lengths of interglacials have varied, and it would seem they are dependent not only on orbital cycles but also on the positions of continents, land coverage etc.
Given that the warmer interglacials are shorter than the cooler ones it has been speculated that the extra warmth melts ice sheets too quickly which shut down ocean currents and flip the earth back into an ice age.
Jeaz Steve, I reckon you've knocked Engineerer out cold !!
seriously though. Seskinreay - I saw the poer of the planet programme the other day, and found it very interesting. The ice age they were refering to in the programme was the 'snowball earth' episode of about 700 million years ago, rather than the begining of the last ice age.
The explanation of rising C02 levels increasing atmospheric temperatures was interesting, but I have never seen any scientific evidence to back this up (not ythat i've looked yet).
It would be interesting to know if the blackening effect of soot on the ice from all those volcanoes was also taken into account beacause i've heard this can have a big effect on the rate at which snow melts.
Steve_M - although the interglacials do vary in length, this one has been a relatively long one so far and as such we can expect to be near the end of it. As far as I now no continents have moved much in the last 18000 years and so I think we can be pretty certain that another one will come along.
I'm not saying it is imminent, but when it does come there is going to be very little we can do about it. The effects will be devastating. Cities will be obliterated, and crop yeilds and arable land will shink to a tiny proportion of what is currently available.
What i'm getting at is that any effect that anthroprogenic greenhouse gasses have on this should be welcomed, as the devastation will be unimaginable.
seriously though. Seskinreay - I saw the poer of the planet programme the other day, and found it very interesting. The ice age they were refering to in the programme was the 'snowball earth' episode of about 700 million years ago, rather than the begining of the last ice age.
The explanation of rising C02 levels increasing atmospheric temperatures was interesting, but I have never seen any scientific evidence to back this up (not ythat i've looked yet).
It would be interesting to know if the blackening effect of soot on the ice from all those volcanoes was also taken into account beacause i've heard this can have a big effect on the rate at which snow melts.
Steve_M - although the interglacials do vary in length, this one has been a relatively long one so far and as such we can expect to be near the end of it. As far as I now no continents have moved much in the last 18000 years and so I think we can be pretty certain that another one will come along.
I'm not saying it is imminent, but when it does come there is going to be very little we can do about it. The effects will be devastating. Cities will be obliterated, and crop yeilds and arable land will shink to a tiny proportion of what is currently available.
What i'm getting at is that any effect that anthroprogenic greenhouse gasses have on this should be welcomed, as the devastation will be unimaginable.
Apologies Engineerer, it was Roger58 who set me off with the standup.
I'm confused, you don;t rate CO2 as a planet warmer but you advcocate its use to stave off the next ice age?
I agree with you 100 percent on your postings in regard to Ice Ages. This global warming hype palls into insignificance as compared to a 5 to 7 degree C global cooling and the northern hemisphere mass migration that would be necessary if it were to happen tomorrow. The combined consequences for the human race as a whole will be catastrophic. I say will since it is going to happen, when, well who exactly knows. However, before that a real test for survival of the human race and our present civilisation is what will happen when the oil runs out. Various estimates put a reduction in the world’s population could be as much as three quarters with little chance of re-growth. With a drop of population of this magnitude the next global cooling (Ice Age) could be for us an extinction event.
For your information I have in front of me a copy of the Vostock Ice Core data going back over 400,000 years plus which appeared in the “Geoscientist” a few years back (Vol 16, No8, pp11). This plot includes “dust” and it is clear that the atmospheric dust (volcanic?) reached maximum levels during the ice age maxima. Even with the poor resolution of this plot it is clear that the ice core dust levels declined rapidly and significantly just before the global temperature began to rise. Further, just as importantly it appears the dust levels start to increase at the onset of global cooling.
A popular topic I have seen recently is the so called “Snowball Earth”. If the geological data is correct (still under debate I understand) then glaciers did reach the sea in tropical latitudes. However it is wrong to ascribe the cause and resolution to this subject to CO2 alone. For some reason the Earth’s major greenhouse gas, water vapour, became frozen on the planet’s surface. The model I agree with is that volcanic activity might have increased the CO2 levels to provide a measure of global warming to such an extent that there was an ever increasing amount of water vapour returned to the atmosphere to accelerate further warming and the global melt. The explanation of the Earth’s recovery from the freeze I have read and seen on the TV always leave out the action of water vapour and concentrates on the CO2 aspect alone.
I agree with you 100 percent on your postings in regard to Ice Ages. This global warming hype palls into insignificance as compared to a 5 to 7 degree C global cooling and the northern hemisphere mass migration that would be necessary if it were to happen tomorrow. The combined consequences for the human race as a whole will be catastrophic. I say will since it is going to happen, when, well who exactly knows. However, before that a real test for survival of the human race and our present civilisation is what will happen when the oil runs out. Various estimates put a reduction in the world’s population could be as much as three quarters with little chance of re-growth. With a drop of population of this magnitude the next global cooling (Ice Age) could be for us an extinction event.
For your information I have in front of me a copy of the Vostock Ice Core data going back over 400,000 years plus which appeared in the “Geoscientist” a few years back (Vol 16, No8, pp11). This plot includes “dust” and it is clear that the atmospheric dust (volcanic?) reached maximum levels during the ice age maxima. Even with the poor resolution of this plot it is clear that the ice core dust levels declined rapidly and significantly just before the global temperature began to rise. Further, just as importantly it appears the dust levels start to increase at the onset of global cooling.
A popular topic I have seen recently is the so called “Snowball Earth”. If the geological data is correct (still under debate I understand) then glaciers did reach the sea in tropical latitudes. However it is wrong to ascribe the cause and resolution to this subject to CO2 alone. For some reason the Earth’s major greenhouse gas, water vapour, became frozen on the planet’s surface. The model I agree with is that volcanic activity might have increased the CO2 levels to provide a measure of global warming to such an extent that there was an ever increasing amount of water vapour returned to the atmosphere to accelerate further warming and the global melt. The explanation of the Earth’s recovery from the freeze I have read and seen on the TV always leave out the action of water vapour and concentrates on the CO2 aspect alone.
Would not soot and dust be laid down on the ice and (virtually) immediately covered with fresh layers of snow and ice?
Originally posted by engineerer: "an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze"
...hilarious.
The explanation of rising C02 levels increasing atmospheric temperatures was interesting, but I have never seen any scientific evidence to back this up (not ythat i've looked yet). .
First of all you state with apparent certainty the approaching deep freeze then you admit you don't know the first thing about CO2.
I don't find that hilarious. I think it's naff. Perhaps you should start with AIP's "discovery of global warming".
Originally posted by engineerer: "an effort to stave off the approaching deep freeze"
...hilarious.
The explanation of rising C02 levels increasing atmospheric temperatures was interesting, but I have never seen any scientific evidence to back this up (not ythat i've looked yet). .
First of all you state with apparent certainty the approaching deep freeze then you admit you don't know the first thing about CO2.
I don't find that hilarious. I think it's naff. Perhaps you should start with AIP's "discovery of global warming".
I concur with your thought's on the devastating consequences of the oil running out. Do you have any up to date info on projections on when this will happen?
The current green agenda should in theory lead to cuts in the use of oil to produce enery, however misguided the reasons may be. It would be better if governments were honest and said 'look, this stuff will not last forever and we need to think about real aternatives'.
Unfortunately, as the percieved threat is global warming no one is really that bothered. Governments build token windfarms that are basically useless, and invest billions in these and other 'renewables' such as tidal. These are all white elephants and the billions should instead be ploughed into nuclear fusion power generation.
This would be the holy grail because if the power could be harnessed safely then we would essentially have free unlimited energy, and the 'hydropgen economy' could actually work.
At the moment you see a lot of hot air in news articles about the 'green hydrogen economy', but non of the half-wit hacks that write the articles seem to realise that you have to produce a lot of energy to extract hydrogen. It is like saying it is green to own an electric battery powered car. People think that because it doesn't use petrol it is green,whereas in fact you have to plug it into the national grid to draw energy from the coal fired power station down the road.
I'm sure that enough money was put into Fusion power someone somewhere would come up with a way to do it.
However it is wrong to ascribe the cause and resolution to this subject to CO2 alone. For some reason the Earth’s major greenhouse gas, water vapour, became frozen on the planet’s surface. The model I agree with is that volcanic activity might have increased the CO2 levels to provide a measure of global warming to such an extent that there was an ever increasing amount of water vapour returned to the atmosphere to accelerate further warming and the global melt. The explanation of the Earth’s recovery from the freeze I have read and seen on the TV always leave out the action of water vapour and concentrates on the CO2 aspect alone.
It's always dangerous to assume that the TV is correctly and completely representing scientific knowledge. However, the amounts of CO2 required to break out of a snowball earth are vastly more than we currently have - more like 10% of the atmosphere as opposed to less than 1/10th of a percent as we have now. More especially because 700 million years ago, the sun was much less bright than it is now.
So while increases in water vapour would be relevant, water vapour may not be as important as it is now. Further there are likely to be more important feedbacks such as a reduction in albedo as ice gives way to open ocean, which absorbs much more solar energy.
Having said all that, the risks of global warming far outweigh the risks of the next ice age which might be centuries or millenia off, or which might even be brought on quicker by global warming. Just because it has lasted a long time doesn't mean that the end must come sooner.
The hydrogen economy could be fine if, for example, you could have coal-burning power stations with CO2-sequestering technology. So again Geoman/engineerer, don't just listen to the "half-wit hacks" and the TV.
As posted by Seskinreay Quote: Would not soot and dust be laid down on the ice and (virtually) immediately covered with fresh layers of snow and ice? End Quote.
This is not a single event, but a continued sequence, the dust levels are high for thousands of years. If as I suspect the dust has volcanic origin then there will be not just dust in the high atmosphere but SO2 as well leading to a severe and prolonged "Nuclear Winter". Yes the dust will fall out of the atmosphere and be covered by snow, that is why it is in the ice core!!
As posted by Engineer Quote: I concur with your thought's on the devastating consequences of the oil running out. Do you have any up to date info on projections on when this will happen?
The current green agenda should in theory lead to cuts in the use of oil to produce enery, however misguided the reasons may be. It would be better if governments were honest and said 'look, this stuff will not last forever and we need to think about real aternatives'. End Quote
No, nothing definite. But a couple of years ago I read a report that the then known reserves would reach maximum production around 2045, down hill from then on. Crude oil is too valuable to burn for energy and transport. It supports our way of life. A test for yourself. From the moment you get out of bed for one morning note how many items you use are made of plastic. Not wood, wool, cotton, linen, etc. I will start you off with the plastic tooth brush and the plastic tube holding the tooth paste. Of course there are others where the petroleum derived products are not so obvious.
As posted by Steve_M It's always dangerous to assume that the TV is correctly and completely representing scientific knowledge....So again Geoman/engineerer, don't just listen to the "half-wit hacks" and the TV. End Quote Nothing I have posted come from the TV, indeed I enjoy watching these programmes just to see how wrong they get the geoscience subject and push the topic to erroneous conclusions.
As posted by Steve_M It's always dangerous to assume that the TV is correctly and completely representing scientific knowledge....So again Geoman/engineerer, don't just listen to the "half-wit hacks" and the TV.
You raise an interesting point Steve, Just where is the average layman supposed to gain his/her scientific news from, that fine bastion of truth and knowledge the internet(GI) or maybe TBC....
Engineer, further information based on data acquired from Energy Information Administration.
Peak production depends on future demand, future growth, discoveries etc and on how you define crude oil. The above have conventional oil production peaking around 2044. If you factor in the heavy crude oil (Canadian Bitumen and the Orinoco heavy oil), then maximum production is extended to around 2060.
Originally posted by Geoman: As posted by Seskinreay Quote: Would not soot and dust be laid down on the ice and (virtually) immediately covered with fresh layers of snow and ice? End Quote.
This is not a single event, but a continued sequence, the dust levels are high for thousands of years. If as I suspect the dust has volcanic origin then there will be not just dust in the high atmosphere but SO2 as well leading to a severe and prolonged "Nuclear Winter". Yes the dust will fall out of the atmosphere and be covered by snow, that is why it is in the ice core!!
As posted by Engineer Quote: I concur with your thought's on the devastating consequences of the oil running out. Do you have any up to date info on projections on when this will happen?
The current green agenda should in theory lead to cuts in the use of oil to produce enery, however misguided the reasons may be. It would be better if governments were honest and said 'look, this stuff will not last forever and we need to think about real aternatives'. End Quote
No, nothing definite. But a couple of years ago I read a report that the then known reserves would reach maximum production around 2045, down hill from then on. Crude oil is too valuable to burn for energy and transport. It supports our way of life. A test for yourself. From the moment you get out of bed for one morning note how many items you use are made of plastic. Not wood, wool, cotton, linen, etc. I will start you off with the plastic tooth brush and the plastic tube holding the tooth paste. Of course there are others where the petroleum derived products are not so obvious.
As posted by Steve_M It's always dangerous to assume that the TV is correctly and completely representing scientific knowledge....So again Geoman/engineerer, don't just listen to the "half-wit hacks" and the TV. End Quote Nothing I have posted come from the TV, indeed I enjoy watching these programmes just to see how wrong they get the geoscience subject and push the topic to erroneous conclusions.
Geo, I didn't think it was a single event. The point I was making was the dust and soot would not account for warming if it was continuously covered with snow and ice thus maintaining the albedo.
Oil is too precious to maintain our personal transport systems, I supplied a list of diverse oil based products (knicked from Michael Moore !!) elsewhere on this forum (Asprin was the one that sticks in my mind for some reason). However, I had it from the horse mouth that petrol and diesel is a byproduct of the cracking process and so you have to do something with it !! Dr Craig Ventner seems to have the answer (ref the Dimbleby Lecure the other night - on the TV !!). What do you suggest?
As asked by Seskinreay:I had it from the horse mouth that petrol and diesel is a byproduct of the cracking process and so you have to do something with it !! Dr Craig Ventner seems to have the answer (ref the Dimbleby Lecure the other night - on the TV !!). What do you suggest?
Answer: Polymerisation, the reverse of cracking, the building up of of long chain hydrocarbons from smaller ones. In fact I believe this is what is being done to keep the plastic industry supplied with products. Do not watch much TV, did not see the Dimbleby Lecture.
The point I am making is that as a race we are so over dependant on this one product that one day is going to run out with catastrophic consquences. Forget the motor car, the full effect will be so much more severe than the transport issue or keeping the lights on at night.
However this thread was started by "Engineer" on the threat of an Ice Age being far more devistating to the human race than the modelled a rise of a degree or two. Do you have a view?
