------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by MrBeatnik

Hi all,

I've been directed to this thread to see if anyone can help me understand more about the relationship between normal global warming lifecycle, and how we may be affecting it.

Most information that I hear or read quotes some information "ice caps receeding at xx rate", but I have also read information that states this is normal behaviour for the world.

Ok, I hear you all shout that we may be speeding it up at an alarming rate, but I need this to be quantified... I would like to see info that shows the normal rate, with best proof possible, and and overlay showing the difference we are making with our CO2 emissions.

Currently, I hear two different sides - how can I take either as gospel?

Thanks all.

Hi MrBeatnik,

Check this out

I would point to the collapse of Larsen-B in Antarctica as evidence to quantify a pro-warming (climate-change) position. 12,000 year old ice crashing into the sea implies a situation which is unlike any we have experienced. Hence, variability does not apply. The link is old but if you back up a few pages in this thread you will see current data on the imminent collapse of Larsen-C. These ice sheets act as buffers and when they collapse land-based glaciers (behind them) race towards the sea. Ross's Shelf is a clear and present danger right now because it is held at bay by the collapsing ice sheets. West Antarctica is the place for you to focus. WAIS is a keyword that may be helpful in your search.

Let us know if you dig up anything new.

~Paradox

[MrBeatnik]

Thanks for the replies...

However, the weblinks and featured articles don't take into account the regular cycle of the climate... whilst I don't dispute many of the facts, what I am actually looking for is something to show that this isn't what should be happening in the normal rapid decline of the ice age.

For example, the 12,000 year old Larsen-B, isn't really that old in terms of climate cycle; if ice ages come to an end, then this was just part of the last ice age and was eventually going to collapse at some point. The question is, was this the normal point in time it should have collapsed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't become more green and need to reduce emissions etc, but I'm wondering if normal ice age endings that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago had similar climate decay - emissions from another source of some kind.

I like to play devils advocate, regardless of where my opinion actually resides - this way it can help give a clearer understanding.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by MrBeatnik

Thanks for the replies...

However, the weblinks and featured articles don't take into account the regular cycle of the climate... whilst I don't dispute many of the facts, what I am actually looking for is something to show that this isn't what should be happening in the normal rapid decline of the ice age.

For example, the 12,000 year old Larsen-B, isn't really that old in terms of climate cycle; if ice ages come to an end, then this was just part of the last ice age and was eventually going to collapse at some point. The question is, was this the normal point in time it should have collapsed?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't become more green and need to reduce emissions etc, but I'm wondering if normal ice age endings that took place hundreds of thousands of years ago had similar climate decay - emissions from another source of some kind.

I like to play devils advocate, regardless of where my opinion actually resides - this way it can help give a clearer understanding.

I don't think we are causing this problem but I do believe the intensity of the results (either natural or otherwise) are going to be catastrophic. Green is good for a number of reasons. I just don't believe pinning the warming of our globe on C02 makes much sense. I could be wrong but the solar cycle is the trigger for warming IMO.

Nature vs. Manmade causes is a hamsterwheel debate... we must redirect our focus to preparation.

[Paradox]

Mr. Beatnik,

I am borrowing your link from another post and placing here. More eyes hit this topic and I think they may have interest in the information. Good find. I have been keeping an eye on his work for sometime.

Milankovitch Theory Supported

[Paradox]

Rupert Murdoch changes mind on global warming

I have to clarify something. My beliefs may be that natural influences are the primary cause of our current (and past) extreme warming events, but this does not mean that anthropogenic GHG's are not a suspect. They very well may be. If they are, I would view them more as a facilitator or amplifyer of naturally occuring conditions. In other words, both forces (natural and manmade) are probably at work here. However, if I had to pick a side it would be nature...history is a clear guide in this respect.

~Paradox

[screener]

It's good that Mr. Murdoch is seeing a need for international progress. I hope he is better at keeping his views to editorial pages and doesn't try to slant stories. The press should be as good as reporter.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by screener

It's good that Mr. Murdoch is seeing a need for international progress. I hope he is better at keeping his views to editorial pages and doesn't try to slant stories.

He's carrying the right message. The dynamics are shifting...this is no longer an environmental issue. It is a matter of national security across the board.

I was browsing Google Earth in the Antarctic region (don't ask me why) and I noticed a huge crack on the Ronne Ice Shelf. Peculiar...maybe a practical joke at Google or something.

[Paradox]

Living with Australia's drought

Academic warns of climate change impact

[MrBeatnik]

Well, I do hope my questions aren't falling on too many deaf ears (the one problem I find with big threads like this: people don't always read al the info)...

Anyway, I hope someone has SOME article that may answer my question!

[Simple]

http://www.colorado.edu/research/cir.../pubpapers/38/

Beatnik,

This article riases the possibility within limits of probabality that the deglaciation being seen in the Andes is faster than during normal deglaciation periods.

However you seem to feel that we should currently be in a phase of rapid heating before a more gradual slide into another ice and ask is this normal rate or not.



Whereas temperature trends from natural variations before man interferred with GHG releases tend to indicate that the world was more cooling down than warming up before the massive release of GHG we have had.



We seem to have already had the warming phase about 10-12000 years ago you describe.

This link shows how the solar radiation has been overall fairly static over the last 4-6000years with a wide variation granted.
http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/working_gro...1june06.ppt#15


http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/working_gro...1june06.ppt#18

This link shows the forcing experinced before industrial times, solar 0.29w/m2, orbital changes 0.5w/m2, GHG-CO2 (4000BC-1000BC) 0.0067w/m2 this has risen to todys level of approximately 1.5w/m2.

The rate of melt can be quick though according history.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../311/5768/1747

It seems overall to me that we should be cooling, yet we aren't we are rapidly warming. This seems to suggest that GHG have become the driving force of the changes and as seen the forcing from GHG is large.

2.4-3w/m2 for GHG depending on report (IPCC 2001etc) and 4w/m2 for all mans actions (soot on snow, deforrestation). That is a lot of forcing and current trends are suggestive the climate is being pushed to levels not seen for a milion years (1C away 2050) and a lot furthwer than that by 2100(2-3C). This is likely to push the world into a new climate scenario and despite the paraquay Isthmus ice ages may well become a thing of the past.

However the trends for GHG are reversable with action and maybe just maybe a controlled situation may be able to be reached where the world temperatue remains stable by the actions of man. Currently however it is very unstable and heating up very rapidly.

Oh P.S. You could try looking for articles yourself aswell you know.