It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Greenland ice core analysis shows drastic climate change near end of last ice age

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
At the end of the last Ice Age the temperature spiked 22 degrees (F) over a 50-year period.

Could this be similar to what we are seeing recently

22 Degree (F) temprature shift over 50-years - last Ice Age data




posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   
good luck getting replies with undesired content.

once i reduced a pro-agw'ers arguments to change rate. this would of course break the camel's back. i can't find it now, d'uh.

i conjunction with many points raised in the past, f.ex

www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is powerful evidence.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Yeah, I figured it would be a snoozer. It's not what the aggressive posters want to hear.

It's OK though, just adding to the common knowledge-base for reference.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I read the article and I am very interested in all this. I think that this is a great subject to discuss. I just hope we are able to handle mother nature and whatever she throws at us.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by isa75
 


It seems we might be victimized by our own lack of understanding. I fear that people, believing the root cause of the climactic change is human activity, can, and probably will be convinced that by changing their behavior, they can avert this.

It seems to me more likely that this event may be happening despite human behavior, not because of it.

How could we prepare for this possibility. Can housing be modified if the major urban areas are suddenly thrust into arctic conditions or desert-like heat. Could all coastal cities 'adapt' to 'Venice" style cities? Will huge segments of the population suddenly be forced to migrate to temperate zones hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away? Doubtful, I believe.

On the other hand the shift may be milder than any we have noted before. It too is possible.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
sea level rises haven't been verified, it's all extrapolations and fear, measurements are below tenths of an inch, ie. are drowned out by tides.

sea level rise is just a scarecrow.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


Why do you suggest this? Tides can be accurately predicted and subtracted from the ocean data to give an underlying trend. This underlying trend shows sea level rise throughout the last century. This has been confirmed by tide gauge data and satellite altimetry. If you want more info try here Sea Level.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The people that trumpet global warming 24/7 don't want to hear about the history of weather going back more then 20 years. Let alone, do they want to contemplate the 4.5 billion years or so this planet has been here.

Great thread and article



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Just had to reply to this LateApexer313. I am a firm believer in climate change which is a better desrcription than global warming due to geographic differences around the globe. To suggest that scientists who would promote the view of climate change ignore paleoclimate events is ridiculous. These events are studied to see what change we can expect to happen or indeed what signs we might see if a change is going to occur. There are numerous papers available on this subject of which the OP would be one. In the science community as a whole the great majority believe in a current climate change and a smaller, although still large, majority believe it is human induced. A majority of course doesn't make it right but that is the way things stand. Am I to understand that there are people who think that there really is no change occuring in the worls climate? Or are people really just confusing their objections to human induced climate change with climate change itself?

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Iggus]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Seems pretty obvious what happened, as it mentions in the article the temperature spikes coincided with a massive increase of atmospheric circulation in the northern hemisphere, it is a well founded asumption that if the gulf stream stops the temperature will drop by 6-7 º C, so if it is jump started the temperature will likely go up an equal amount, as all this was acompanied by a lot of weather changes my conclusion would be that the gulf stream started up caused temperature to rise, weather patterns to change etc. before it dropped off again only to restart a few thousand years later only to drop off again sometime around now making room for a new ice age. Not before getting warm enough to melt the remains of the last ice age causing sweet water levels up around greenland to rise dramatically thereby diluting the heavy salt water that causes the gulf stream to drop to the oceans floor which is the pump that keeps the gulf stream going. So keep your down jackets at hand or move to the geographic latitudes between 15º north and souhis pointth of the equator.
Weather we are resposable or our irresposable use of fossile fuels is coinciding with a natural phenomena is kind of irrelevant at this point.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I suppose we can all benefit from the effort to coexist with the planetary cycles more diligently. But I would hope people would invest in preparation for an inevitable climate shift - instead of thinking they can somehow make it 'not happen'.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Hi im new to this site but do have a question regarding global warming. The general concesus is that the ice caps will melt & therefore sea levels will rise. ( and the Gulf stream will be switched off). Now, as far as i am aware, ice displaces water at the same volume. For example if you put an ice cube in a glass of water, whatever level the water rises to is where it will stay even if the ice melts. My question is, will the ice that melts into the sea actually make any difference?

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question but i cant really find anything online that answers it.

Hope you can help




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Sorry I am all out of ice cubes at the moment, I also am not sure but the ice that is presently calving off glaciers and slipping into the sea is raising sea levels. It is already happening, there are islands in the south pacific that are rapidly becoming uninhabitable.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


when it gets serious, the numbers plummet, take the following example:

www.sciencemag.org...



After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.



now, the total is supposed to be 3mm/a with 0.35mm being attributed to GW, taken from

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i will repeat my old question: got caliper? the thread i linked contains a wealth of bickering along with sources to spice it up. it might be a surprise to you that very credible sources say that the Antarctic Continent is gaining ice mass and experienceing longer pack ice seasons, so asking whether a purported sea level rise of 0.35mm, attributed to GHGs, is a serious affair - or a laughing matter - is imho only natural and should be expected.

reply to post by survivalsurfer
 


No.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Erosion sucks but without it the world would be littered with crap.

[edit on 2008.6.24 by Long Lance]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Briles
Hi im new to this site but do have a question regarding global warming. The general concesus is that the ice caps will melt & therefore sea levels will rise. ( and the Gulf stream will be switched off). Now, as far as i am aware, ice displaces water at the same volume. For example if you put an ice cube in a glass of water, whatever level the water rises to is where it will stay even if the ice melts. My question is, will the ice that melts into the sea actually make any difference?

Sorry if this seems like a stupid question but i cant really find anything online that answers it.

Hope you can help



Don't forget, much of this melting ice is NOT yet in the water, it's on the Antarctic Continent, or Greenland, etc. so as it melts it actually increases the amount of water in the oceans.

I'm no expert, but it's just something worth keeping in mind for the argument.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Thanks for the info Long Lance but I don't really see what you are getting at. The Antarctica issue about what is happening to the ice down there is a complex issue and some parts are indeed increasing in ice thckness and other parts are decreasing in thickness and increasing in speed of flow off the continent. I am not sure what this has to do with Climate change. With regard to the external source it states that the current flow of land ice into the ocean from Greenland and Antarctica is at the best current estimate producing only 0.35mm per year of sea level rise. Not the total 3mm of sea level rise that we are currently seeing. What does this have to do with anything? The major rise in sea levels is due to thermal expansion in the short to medium term and only in the long term will the melting of land fixed ice play a role. My final question was really whether people are questioning whether climate change is taking place or whether it is really human induced or a natural variation in the system.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by Iggus]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Briles
 


Hi, you are right in that the ice that floats on the water when it melts will not affect sea levels globally. The problem is in the ice which is on land such as the rather large ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. If these were to completely melt, not that I am suggesting that they will and neither are most scientists but if they did, they could raise the global sea level by about 5m. Interestingly though the local sea level near Greenland would decrease



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Iggus
 


3mm or 0.35mm, do you seriously believe that one can accurately measure sea levels at that accuracy?

statistical methods are often garbage in&out, i for one find it hard to believe any of this. satellites are the best tool to detect significant changes reliably (on a global scale, not just a few points) and anyone who knows anything about radar knows its inherent limitations regarding resolution.

it's not in the mm range, which begs the question whether changes in millimetres should be taken seriously at all. the notion that sea levels will rise by a few meters is most certainly just PR, i remember predictions during the 90s, which depicted submerged cities, with rises in the 40m range, now we're down to six, when the time comes, it'll be ZERO.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Firstly I will agree that garbage in is garbage out, but that doesn't just apply to statistics it applies to all science. The numbers calculated for the increase in sea level due to ice sheet melt is calculated through obtained the volume of water melting and flowing into the sea for a given year and then dividing it by the area covered by the ocean. These are huge numbers and give this predicted value. The value of 0.35mm per year is never directly measured by anything it is simply inferred and in this case is a best guess. The 3mm sea level increase is again just taken as a long term average by considering sea level around the globe. The data that is used for this comes from satellite and point measures so that hopefully they can back each other up, after all two witnesses are better and more reliable than one. The satellite data from TOPEX/Posiden has an accuracy of slightly worse than 3cm and we have continual sea surface measurements from 1992. The fact that over the 15 years, since that point, the sea levels will have seen a rise in the order of 4.5cm, if using the 3mm per year value, will mean that the sea level rise will have been visible to the satellite. Measurement accuracy of mm order is not necessary and these values are just averages both in time and space.

Finally I was really just interested, as I said, in whether people really think that there is no climate change at all or whether the climate change just isn't caused by man? A simple question, which do you think?

Thanks



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iggus

Finally I was really just interested, as I said, in whether people really think that there is no climate change at all or whether the climate change just isn't caused by man? A simple question, which do you think?

Thanks


a resolution of 3cm means that if 4.5 cm have been measured, it might as well be 6cm or 3. continuous measurment is always preferrable, because that way you get to know if there are chages within shorter time periods. f-ex. the notion of thermal expansion could then be put to the test by comparing seasons and their impact. less data means less information to derive from it.

since you asked about my stance on GW, climate change or whatever you wish to call it, i think the blame game currently being played is being used for nefarious reasons (Kyoto protocol aka. air tax) all existing data is either ignored if it contradicts or cooked to the point of fraudulence, which is why i am firmly opposed to all politically motivated scaremongering about 'AGW'.

it should be clear to any calm person that human activity will alter the environment and climate with it, i just doubt that focusing on climate and furthermore, on greenhouse gas, predominantly carbon dioxide has any basis. the result of such a narrow outlook is by default negative and constructive discussions just do not seem to happen. it should be noted that a warmer climate would have many advantages and few downsides, but this aspect is not discussed, just doom and gloom and procrastination.

another aspect that got completely lost is that chances are that we can neither change nor stop climate and the underlying consensus today seems to be that unless avg. temperatures remain the same at one point, we are a) doomed and have b) failed. they've never ever remained constant, now suddenly our glorious intervention will do just that? where's the logic, may i ask?


all in all, if warming is real, it won't be a big deal if historical data is anything to go by, if it's not, much (but not all) effort has been wasted in vain. from that point of view, the AGW only concept is just damaging, to society as a whole and the scientific community in particular. noone will be able to talk them out of this egregious mess. lying, manipulating and racketeering, what a wonderful combination. if you're interested in an elaborate summary, i redirect you to the following thread:


www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2008.6.25 by Long Lance]




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join