Global warming? - New Ice Age?

Bill White · 2002-06-17 11:04:18

Paradoxically - some think that global warming will cause a new ice age. One mechanism arises from "turning off" the Gulf Stream. For more detail than I can provide, check out this link:

http://WilliamCalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm.

In summary - the Gulf Stream flows north from the Gulf of Mexico past Ireland and Iceland into the Arctic Ocean and is powered by the salinity of water in the Arctic Ocean and Norwegian Sea. The Atlantic Ocean is deeper as you travel south and as strong winds evaporate water in the northern seas, the saline concentration makes such waters heavier and denser. Those waters sink and flow southwards along the ocean floor. To compensate, warmer, less saline water flows north from the tropics.

The Gulf Stream - which gives northern Europe its temperate climate - is a 3 dimensional pattern of circulation.

Now - global warming is said to disrupt this engine in 2 ways - 1st as the Arctic ice cap and Greenland glaciers melt the inflow of fresh water causes the surface waters to become less saline and less dense. 2nd changes in Arctic wind patterns decrease the evaporation rates also decreasing the saline concentrations.

This would slow the southerly flow of heavy high salinity water southwards thereby slowing the northerly flow of the Gulf Stream. Since the Gulf Stream transports tremendous amounts of heat to northern Europe, such slowing or stopping would greatly change the climate.

Imagine those gentle Irish rains falling as snow! Lots of snow!

I encourage everyone to visit www.WilliamCalvin.com - he has a new book about climate flip-flops driving human evolution and I enjoy just about everything Calvin writes.

Its a hard call - are things getting better and better - as Adrian writes - or are we on the verge of a climatic or environmental disaster which could impoverish if not kill off billions of people?

I find I can find good points on both sides yet I am troubled at the idea of being Panglossian about the potential fate of much of humanity.

See Cindy, I have read some Voltaire!

Bill White · 2002-06-17 11:14:06

Sorry about the link - which seems not to work.

try William Calvin

Byron · 2002-06-17 13:08:11

Imagine those gentle Irish rains falling as snow! Lots of snow!
I encourage everyone to visit www.WilliamCalvin.com - he has a new book about climate flip-flops driving human evolution and I enjoy just about everything Calvin writes.
Its a hard call - are things getting better and better - as Adrian writes - or are we on the verge of a climatic or environmental disaster which could impoverish if not kill off billions of people?
I find I can find good points on both sides yet I am troubled at the idea of being Panglossian about the potential fate of much of humanity.

I agree with you on this one...it would be foolish for humankind to ignore the possibility of drastic and sudden climatic change. There is a good deal of evidence that the climate has "flip-flopped" in the past, and there is no reason to suspect that it won't happen again in the future. The book Skepical Environmentalist makes some strong arguments that humanity will always be able to take care of itself, but I think this book is based on too many optimistic assumptions. Just because one is having a good winning streak at the gaming tables doesn't mean that the good luck will continue. Modern civilization needs an insurance policy, and Mars is our best best at this point in history. At the very least, our greatly expanded knowledge of climate systems on another world should give us a much better understanding of what to expect here on Earth..and maybe do something about it before it's too late...

B

Bill White · 2002-06-17 14:50:46

The book Skepical Environmentalist makes some strong arguments that humanity will always be able to take care of itself

When I think about this book - I have an image of a man jumping up and down on soft ice, saying "Look, I haven't fallen through, yet!"

He may be right, but what are the risk/reward ratios? How do you do cost benefit analysis when the cost could be the deaths of several billion people?

Its like the American practice of feeding antibiotics to cattle - maybe the statistics are not all in yet, but can there be any doubt that its a bad idea in the long run. . .

Phobos · 2002-06-17 17:25:38

Paradoxically - some think that global warming will cause a new ice age. One mechanism arises from "turning off" the Gulf Stream. For more detail than I can provide, check out this link:

I've heard this theory also. I think the best we can do is to invest in technology that produces clean energy and try to find alternatives to the rampant use of anti-biotics, etc. I remember reading an article about some research into using genetically altered viruses to attack microbial infections. I just hope we don't ultimately cave in to the anti-human/anti-technological faction of the environmentalist crowd who would love to see billions of people die, although not in a way that was caused by catastrophe to the environment.

Bill White · 2002-06-18 10:21:42

I recommend the following link concerning climate issues.

Climate link

Can any of the Skeptical Environmentalist supporters review and comment?

Palomar · 2002-06-18 12:57:42

Bill White: "I find I can find good points on both sides yet I am troubled at the idea of being Panglossian about the potential fate of much of humanity. See Cindy, I have read some Voltaire!"

*Oh, my dear Pangloss! Oh, my dear Cunegonde! Oh, I wonder how my beloved Voltaire came up with such unusual names for his characters!

I recommend everyone read Voltaire, and am glad to know you have

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Mark S · 2002-06-18 13:51:33

I'm still skeptical about global warming and its alleged ties to carbon dioxide emissions. Although there are signs that global warming is occuring (the breaking up of the ice shelves,) it is also possible that these events are linked to other phenomena. There hasn't been any consistent increase in global temperatures over the past thirty years, and I have yet to see studies indicating that the air is more saturated with carbon dioxide than it used to be.

I'm of the belief that the atmosphere, in thermodynamic equilibrium, would be comprised of much more carbon dioxide than oxygen. But oxygen is predominant because plants shift the equilibrium of the atmosphere so that 18% is oxygen and 1% is carbon dioxide. We have yet to saturate the atmosphere with enough carbon dioxide to overwhelm the plants.

Here's an alternative explanation for global warming: black body radiation. Simply put, manmade structures do a better job absorbing the infrared radiation of the sun. By covering the earth's surface with concrete and steel, we can raise the temperatures in the troposphere.

Phobos · 2002-06-19 00:47:25

Here's an alternative explanation for global warming: black body radiation. Simply put, manmade structures do a better job absorbing the infrared radiation of the sun. By covering the earth's surface with concrete and steel, we can raise the temperatures in the troposphere.

Are there enough manmade structures covering the Earth to affect global temperatures though? Most of the Earth is still empty or cultivated space. Not to get off topic, but I was reading some articles lately that accused the USA and some other industrially advanced nations of destroying traditional rain patterns in Africa. It's always suspicious how they never attach blame to highly polluted socialist countries like China. It's hard to get an accurate scientific assessment of environmental health when people attach their politics to it.

Mark S · 2002-06-19 09:25:13

Right on, Phobos.

The environment should not be the highly-politicized issue that it currently is. Fair and objective studies need to be done, followed by an appropriate bipartisan response to the problems that the studies find.

One of the problems with global warming theories is that they are just that--theories. They can never be proven, aand it is doubtful that the theory's supporters will allow it to be disproven.

Still, the world community is convinced of the theory's veracity and has drafted the Kyoto Protocol in response. The treaty dumps the burden of reducing emissions on the United States and other western countries that have taken great steps to fight air nd water pollution. But countries like China, which continue to flaunt air pollution standards, are exempted because they are "too poor" to comply.

Adrian · 2002-06-19 11:00:02

Actually, the amusing thing about pollution worldwide is that China has cleaned up its air pollution quite significantly over the last few years - see this recent study for more information (PDF). CO2, SO2, methane and other pollutants are all reduced from five years ago across teh board, even though China's economy has been increasing.

You have to remember that America is the world's largest polluter - and I'm not criticising, because they make a hell of a lot of stuff, but even so, it's not fair to criticise other countries that are undergoing modernisation.

Adrian · 2002-06-19 11:16:00

Comments on Skeptical Environmentalist: I don't have the book with me right now, I lent it to a friend - but I'll have it back in a few days so I'll be able to comment in greater detail. I think a lot of the criticisms of Lomborg's work stem from the fact that it is so unbelievable that the environment is getting better! Look at it this way, we've been told continuously that the world is going to end due to global cooling/warming, and that oil supplies will run out in twenty years (just like the time it'll take fusion to get started, eh? ). So when someone comes along and says, "Well, it isn't that bad after all, in fact, in some cases things are good!" it seems laughable.

But the book is not one that rests on 'assumptions' or similar woolly thinking. As I have said in other threads, it uses unimpeachable data from the world's best climate and environmentalist experts. It uses the same data that all the environmentalists use - but it points out some of the serious errors in their analysis. Notably, many environmentalists are fond of extrapolating trends from insufficient data - e.g. if there is an increase in grain prices for the last five years, they are oft to say, 'Food prices are rising! We're all going to starve! The sky is falling!' even though:

1) The long term 50 and 100 year trends show a constant downward fall, and
2) The next five years of grain price data show another sharp fall (this is a true example, BTW).

Now, this thing about risk/reward ratios is very interesting. There's been an interesting study (I'll find out the reference soon) carried out on the cost required by many different methods to save one 'life year'. It turns out that environmental measures such as reducing cancer-causing pesticides or putting SO2 filters on smokestacks can cost way over $1000/life year.

$1000 for a year? Sounds like a bargain to me. But hold on a second, if there was a federal law to install fire detectors in every house and apartment in America, the cost per life year saved would be below $1! So you really have to look at this stuff in perspective - yes, we can save a lot of lives by cleaning up the environment. But we can save even more by taking simple everyday precautions.

One last thing about the psychology of risks: humans tend to exaggerate small risks and underestimate large ones...

Finally (!): The environment is not in as good a state as it could be. I don't think that things are perfect, and neither does Lomborg. The point being made here is that the environment is not as bad as its being made out to be.

Bill: I look at that Calvin link you supplied, about the cycle of ice ages and Milankovich cycles. Interesting stuff - I can't really comment though, I don't know much about the subject and the Skeptical Environmentalist doesn't cover it. AFAIK, exactly where we are in terms of an incoming ice age is not precisely agreed upon and it would probably take a few hundred years at least to get really nasty, but we'll just have to wait and see - I could be wrong!

Bill White · 2002-06-19 14:02:20

Let me flog William Calvin's horse a bit more - the quotes are from the last chapter of his book which is conveniently "on-line" at the link I gave before:

Stabilizing our flip-flopping climate is not a simple matter. We need heat in the right places, such as the Greenland Sea, and not in others right next door, such as Greenland itself. Man-made global warming is likely to achieve exactly the opposite ? warming Greenland and cooling the Greenland Sea.
A remarkable amount of specious reasoning is often encountered whenever we contemplate reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. It?s not a simple matter of global temperature ? I hope it?s now clear that no simple-minded argument in favor of more global warming (to ?avoid cooling,? or ?increase agricultural productivity?) should be taken seriously. These clangers are sometimes beginners? mistakes, but can also be confuse-the-issue propaganda designed to ?buy time? for polluters.
That increased quantities of greenhouse gases will lead to global warming is as solid a scientific prediction as can be found, but other things influence climate too, and some people try to escape confronting the consequences of our pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by supposing that something will come along miraculously to counteract them. Volcanos spew sulfates, as do our own smokestacks, and these reflect some sunlight back into space, particularly over the North Atlantic and Europe. But we can?t assume that anything like this will neatly counteract our longer-term flurry of carbon-dioxide emissions. Only the most na?ve gamblers bet against physics, and only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren?s resources.

Calvin also mentions the statistician who drowns in water having an "average depth" of only 1 feet. "Average" global temperatures are irrelevant. Extra-hot summers can balance extra-cold winters to show no change in the figures even as crops wither and die.

Warming the equator and freezing Europe seems like a bad idea even if "average" global temperatures remain constant.

To the long list of predicted consequences of global warming ? stronger storms, methane release, habitat changes, ice-sheet melting, rising seas, stronger El Ni?os, killer heat waves ? we must now add abrupt, catastrophic coolings. Whereas the familiar consequences of global warming will simply force expensive but gradual adjustments, the abrupt cooling and drying promoted by human-enhanced warming looks like a particularly efficient means of committing mass suicide.
We cannot avoid trouble by merely cutting down on our present warming trend, though that?s an excellent place to start. Paleoclimatic records reveal that any notion we may once have had that the climate will remain the same unless pollution changes it is, well, wishful thinking. Judging from the duration of the last warm period, we are in the declining centuries of our current one. Our goal must be to stabilize the climate in its favorable mode and ensure that enough equatorial heat continues to flow into the waters around Greenland and Norway. The stabilized climate must have a wide ?comfort zone,? and be able to survive the El Ni?os of the short term. We can design for that in computer models of climate, just as architects design earthquake-resistant sky scrapers. Implementing it might cost no more, in relative terms, than building a medieval cathedral.
Yet we may not have centuries for acquiring wisdom, and it would be wise to compress our learning into the years immediately ahead. We have to discover what has made the climate of the past 8,000 years relatively stable, and then figure out how to prop it up.

The last 8000 years have had exceptionally stable climates compared to many millenia of Earth's history - this may also account for our being here as a species that can read and write. Also, the ice core data is fascinating. Looking at 250,000 years of ice cores - cooling and drying can be expected as the normal result of climatic oscillations - human fueled global warming 'might' cause this natural process to happen more rapidly.

Remember, this is tipping point stuff - if an Ice Age were 400 years away, naturally, human activities "might" cause a much faster onset of a natural event. Also, keep in mind that if abrupt European cooling occurs, glaciation may take hundreds of years but crop failures - and mass starvation - would be immediate.

On risk/reward calculations:

Just because great climate flips can happen in response to global warming doesn?t mean that they are the most probable outcome of our current situation, what one might ?forecast? (that?s one of the reasons why I?ve been careful not to ?predict? a cooling in the next century). Climate scientists have a maddening tendency to focus on ?the most likely? outcome in the next century, just as economists and politicians tend to do, and I believe that is a serious mistake.
* * *
The issue here is managing high-risk situations, not the usual stuff:
* * *
A homey example would be when you are awakened during the night to hear some strange gurgling noises. The most likely source, you realize as you lie there in bed, is simply a downspout clogged with leaves. Not a serious matter, something that can wait for a sunny weekend. But you also know that the sounds could be coming from a ruptured hose to the washing machine, and you know what a mess a flood can make, in short order. Even though there?s a 80 percent chance of the noise being innocuous, you crawl out of your warm bed and go check things out.
And you see the same focus on the ?less likely,? both in medical diagnosis and therapy, where the physician must often act on incomplete information because of the serious consequences of delay. Suppose that with your symptoms and lab findings, the chances are 80 percent that you?ve got disease X, a nuisance in the long run but not catastrophic. The trouble is, the symptoms are also consistent with another more serious disease, lymphoma, which can quickly kill and needs early treatment. Even though the chances are only 20 percent that you?ve got lymphoma, your physician may tell you that you are going to need chemotherapy ?for insurance against cancer.? You can?t just wait to see what develops. The possible consequences of delay are simply too great. The physician who waits until ?dead certain? of a diagnosis before starting treatment may wind up with a dead patient.
That?s our situation with gradual warming and abrupt cooling. It isn?t that abrupt cooling is the most probable outcome in the next century but that an atmospheric warming from any cause looks capable of triggering a loss of the warm water loop through the Labrador and Greenland Seas (the front-runner candidate for what has caused the observed global abrupt coolings of the past).

Abrupt coolings have happened repeatedly in the last 100,000 years. Perhaps CO2 discharges by humans will not cause this to occur - but they cannot help us solve the problem, even if it is utterly natural in origin. Abrupt cooling has occurred and the salt circulation model simply is the best theory as to why.

One should not get distracted by which-came-first issues (Is the warming ?our fault??) but focus on consequences ? and particularly the possible consequences of postponing action, of simply waiting to see what develops. The failure to flush the cooled-down water from the ocean surface isn?t even the 20 percent possibility at the moment; it?s the best-understood candidate for what can trigger global abrupt cooling. The alternative candidates should not be used to discourage preventative action on the rapidly-fatal scenario. Promptly studying how to stabilize the North Atlantic Current ought to be high on the agenda.
Focusing on ?the most likely? outcome is a beginner?s mistake when the stakes are so high. Climate scientists have not, heretofore, had to cope with managing high-risk situations because they?ve had few interventions to offer. As that changes, thanks to the magnificent science now being done on climate, they?ll need some appreciation for how to manage situations described 2,500 years ago by the Hippocratic aphorism,
?Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult. The physician must be ready . . . .?

The ability to act correctly with incomplete information is a key attribute of being human - Maybe humanity is now facing yet another "Drake's Equation" moment.

Palomar · 2002-06-19 14:14:16

Mark S: "Still, the world community is convinced of the theory's veracity and has drafted the Kyoto Protocol in response. The treaty dumps the burden of reducing emissions on the United States and other western countries that have taken great steps to fight air nd water pollution. But countries like China, which continue to flaunt air pollution standards, are exempted because they are "too poor" to comply."

*Sure, it's easier to point fingers at the wealthy nations. I'm not seeking to undermine the problems of pollution and global warming, mind you -- however, portions of the conversation remind me of the attempt by various African nations to get the US and England (primarily) to pay restitution for the trans-Atlantic slave trade. This demand, even though many African nations still take and hold other Africans in slavery, and had done so for centuries before Europeans set foot on their shores to buy slaves from African tribal chieftains.

It's obvious to me that the Western nations formerly involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade are *only* being given these demands for slavery reparations/restitution because we've got deep pockets. If this *isn't* the case, then I'd like to hear how it is that African-to-African slavery is "okay" and why non-African-to-African slavery isn't. This is hypocrisy, pure and simple.

So, yes, I have absolutely ZERO doubt that the USA and other Western/developed nations get an extra tromping on due simply to politics, jealousy, our deep pockets, etc. Sure, the US has contributed its share to the pollution problem, and we should own up to it, deal with it, try to correct it, etc. But, yes, there are many political undercurrents at play as well...and some of them are purely anti-Western.

Okay, off my soap box now. Sorry if this was a bit of a digression, but I felt it should be said.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Bill White · 2002-06-19 14:28:00

Adrian writes:

Interesting stuff - I can't really comment though, I don't know much about the subject and the Skeptical Environmentalist doesn't cover it. AFAIK, exactly where we are in terms of an incoming ice age is not precisely agreed upon and it would probably take a few hundred years at least to get really nasty, but we'll just have to wait and see - I could be wrong!

The physician who waits until he/she is dead certain of a diagnosis may well wind up with a dead patient!

I am NOT a big fan of Kyoto - but I am terrified of "lets do 10 or 20 more years of science - and only then will we discuss whether there is a problem."

Phobos · 2002-06-19 19:29:50

So, yes, I have absolutely ZERO doubt that the USA and other Western/developed nations get an extra tromping on due simply to politics, jealousy, our deep pockets, etc. Sure, the US has contributed its share to the pollution problem, and we should own up to it, deal with it, try to correct it, etc. But, yes, there are many political undercurrents at play as well...and some of them are purely anti-Western.

I couldn't agree more. Even though people don't believe it, there are a lot of strict environmental regulations in place in the USA. Virtually all industrial and energy producing factories under construction as well as many existing ones are required to add scrubbers to their exhaust stacks to react the pollutants with chemicals and thereby remove them from the environment. Not to mention that we require smog checks and smog devices on our cars to reduce emissions and fuels formulated with various chemicals to reduce emissions even further. I could add a million other points, and we still have a long way to go, but for other countries to smugly point their self-righteous fingers at the USA while ignoring their own often worse environmental messes is the height of hypocrisy.

Mark S · 2002-06-21 14:40:09

I couldn't agree more. Even though people don't believe it, there are a lot of strict environmental regulations in place in the USA.

I can say from experience that Phobos isn't bluffing. The establishment where I work has very stringent policies on disposing of chemicals. Everything has a proper place and procedure.

I also think that the United States has done a commendable job at environmental protection over the past thirty years. The Endangered Species act has been a prime example. Of all the endangered animals that we are bent on protecting, almost none of them are native to the United States. I cite the examples of the rhino, the Panda, and the tiger. In the past thrty years, the bison, bald eagle, and Peregrine Falcon have all made a comeback within the United States.

Our air and water quality still have a ways to go, but most businesses know better than to pollute the air and water, or they will be hit with heavy fines. Ethanol additives in the gasoline will reduce air pollution in the near future, and hopefully the country will shift to a pro-nuclear energy policy that reduces our need for fossil fuels.

Phobos · 2002-06-21 19:56:07

Our air and water quality still have a ways to go, but most businesses know better than to pollute the air and water, or they will be hit with heavy fines. Ethanol additives in the gasoline will reduce air pollution in the near future, and hopefully the country will shift to a pro-nuclear energy policy that reduces our need for fossil fuels.

I wonder if the anti-nuclear crowd would be as opposed to nuclear fusion as they are with fission for energy production. Since nuclear fusion, if you use the right elements, produces no nuclear waste or other extraneous nuclear problems, it would be the ultimate in clean power. Somehow though I still see the anti-nuclear fanatics lobbying Congress to kill such technology while they continue to whine that the pollution from coal burning plants is just unacceptable. I read somewhere that the first experimental nuclear fusion powerplant that is expected to produce more energy than it consumes is under construction. I hope it pans out.

Palomar · 2002-06-26 09:56:43

I wonder if the anti-nuclear crowd would be as opposed to nuclear fusion as they are with fission for energy production. Since nuclear fusion, if you use the right elements, produces no nuclear waste or other extraneous nuclear problems, it would be the ultimate in clean power. Somehow though I still see the anti-nuclear fanatics lobbying Congress to kill such technology while they continue to whine that the pollution from coal burning plants is just unacceptable.

Your post reminds me of the protestors in California, during the 2000 and early 2001 electricity crisis and corresponding "rolling blackouts"; everyone agreed that more power plants needed to be built, but nobody wanted one "in their backyard". It was rather amusing; I recall seeing protestors yelling and waving placards about not having enough electricity ::and:: these were the same goofs ranting against plans for a new power plant to be built in their county! Well, the power plants have to be built SOMEWHERE...and Arizona sure wasn't going to volunteer its borders for California's sake. What was particularly galling to me was some of the protestors claiming the rest of the United States "owed" them electricity, as it is one of the largest states and has the best economy of all states. How ridiculous.

I think "protecting the individual against society versus protecting society against the individual" fits in here somewhere...

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-06-26 19:11:15

Your post reminds me of the protestors in California, during the 2000 and early 2001 electricity crisis and corresponding "rolling blackouts"; everyone agreed that more power plants needed to be built, but nobody wanted one "in their backyard". It was rather amusing; I recall seeing protestors yelling and waving placards about not having enough electricity ::and:: these were the same goofs ranting against plans for a new power plant to be built in their county!

Reminds me of how much I'd hate to be a politician. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. Plato would probably have a field day using these kinds of examples to argue against democracy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-06-17 11:04:18

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#2 2002-06-17 11:14:06

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#3 2002-06-17 13:08:11

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#4 2002-06-17 14:50:46

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#5 2002-06-17 17:25:38

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#6 2002-06-18 10:21:42

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#7 2002-06-18 12:57:42

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#8 2002-06-18 13:51:33

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#9 2002-06-19 00:47:25

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#10 2002-06-19 09:25:13

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#11 2002-06-19 11:00:02

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#12 2002-06-19 11:16:00

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#13 2002-06-19 14:02:20

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#14 2002-06-19 14:14:16

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#15 2002-06-19 14:28:00

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#16 2002-06-19 19:29:50

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#17 2002-06-21 14:40:09

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#18 2002-06-21 19:56:07

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#19 2002-06-26 09:56:43

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

#20 2002-06-26 19:11:15

Re: Global warming? - New Ice Age?

Board footer