Think the upcoming Ice Age theory has died?

September 25, 2002 4:38 PM

Think the upcoming Ice Age theory has died? It's been mentioned once or twice in discussion threads, but I spent some time in the library recently reading this very interesting article from Discover magazine. I was discussing it with a meteorolgist friend of mine, and supposedly the mini-ice age theory is very alive and has a lot of support. Should we start buying more electric blankets?
posted by mychai (12 comments total)

I saw the author of this book speak not so long ago. He had some pretty convincing arguments that significant climate could happen in a decade long period and last for as long as 100 years. The scenarios he described are pretty bleak, but he did it with enough enthusiam to convince me he wasn't just crying wolf or selling Y2K gear.

Basically, the argument goes that they haven't gotten enough resolution out of the cores or sediment readings in the past to see the short term changes, just the long term ones.

Of course, he is a theoretical neurobiologist, and as such this climate change thing is not entirely his ball of wax, but worth a look anyway. (See the book link for an explanation of why he's looking into it).
posted by daver at 5:21 PM on September 25, 2002

Not to worry. If another Ice Age pops up, all those "global warming is a proven fact!" folks will spontaneously combust from cognitive meltdown and warm us up.

I'm beginning to think the real cause of global warming is all the hot air from authoritarian environmentalists.
posted by Ayn Marx at 6:03 PM on September 25, 2002

The Discover article paints a 10 degree drop in the Northeast US as having major negative impacts on the environment and economy. Global warming experts say the same about a warming. What are we to do keep everything stable? Any change is going to hurt, by nature. By Crom.
posted by stbalbach at 6:20 PM on September 25, 2002

Not to worry. If another Ice Age pops up, all those "global warming is a proven fact!" folks will spontaneously combust from cognitive meltdown and warm us up.

I'm beginning to think the real cause of global warming is all the hot air from authoritarian environmentalists.

If you had actually read the article, you would have learned that the Woods Hole scientists who arrived at these conclusions agree that the Earth IS warming. It then goes on in some detail to explain how this trend could turn on it's head and lead toward cooling.

The point we 'authoritarian environmentalists' are ultimately trying to make is that humans are currently placing extreme stress on the environment and that the consequences of this stress could end up as being quite severe.
posted by mathis23 at 6:48 PM on September 25, 2002

...or that climate change is a natural part of the earth.
posted by trioperative at 7:38 PM on September 25, 2002

That's it, I'm buying some cans of hairspray and unloading those bad babies out my window.
posted by Hall at 8:01 PM on September 25, 2002

The point we 'authoritarian environmentalists' are ultimately trying to make is that humans are currently placing extreme stress on the environment...

Hey Mathis23...

I liked this article because it mentioned not a thing about humans causing global warming. It just said that the earth was warming up. It also said that there is a lot of evidence that the earth has done this before -- several times, actually. It would be rational to conclude that the warming cycle is just that, a cycle, and we mere humans are only along for the ride.

Ever hear that one major volcano eruption puts an equivolent of 50 years of human-produced CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere? How many of these volcanoes have we had erupt since, oh, 1980?

I'm not bashing, just trying to add as much of "the other view" into the discussion as possible.
posted by mychai at 8:09 PM on September 25, 2002

I read the article in the dentist's office awhile back. I like how the presented both the "warming will cause cooling" theory, but some other ideas as well. Regardless of cause or effect, climate change is something we should be paying more attention to, instead of just hoping the situation will take care of itself.
posted by jazon at 8:13 PM on September 25, 2002

Ever hear that one major volcano eruption puts an equivolent of 50 years of human-produced CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere? How many of these volcanoes have we had erupt since, oh, 1980?


I have heard that and have no reason to doubt it. Given the fact that volcanoes do this, and are not interested in trading emissions credits in exchange for refraining from eruption, how do we adjust the emissions outputs we can control? If there are non-human sources and human sources, and if we can't control the non-human sources, that leaves us with one slider we can move up or down: human sources. If there were no such things as volcanoes, the argument for doing nothing would be stronger.

Having said that, I do appreciate your approach to the issue, and the reminder that there are natural sources as well as human sources
posted by trondant at 9:16 PM on September 25, 2002

If there are non-human sources and human sources, and if we can't control the non-human sources, that leaves us with one slider we can move up or down: human sources.

trondant, what you have to also look at is the fact that in a lot of ways, human sources are a drop in the bucket. I think that's the point that mychai is trying to make.

Of course I'm a bit skewed since that also happens to also be what I believe, but that's neither here nor there -- especially since in so many ways it's a game of pick your experts/ pick your statistics...
posted by mr_mindless at 11:01 PM on September 25, 2002

Ever hear that one major volcano eruption puts an equivolent of 50 years of human-produced CO2 and sulphur into the atmosphere?

PINATUBO VOLCANO RESEARCH BOOSTS CASE FOR HUMAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING

I don't discount, for a moment, the fact that natural cycles have played a major, if not exclusive, role in the history of Earth's climate. And I don't discount the effect of meteor impacts, inconsistencies in the rotation and orbit of the Earth and other phenomenon. But at the same time, one cannot discount the enormous impact that human activity has had on the planet as well.

Have there been ice ages and periods of global warming in the past? Certainly. But this fact does not preclude the possibility that current climate changes are not naturally occurring. I've had headaches in the past. Sometimes for seemingly no reason. But if I catch a nice whiff of paint fumes and get a decent headache soon after, should I discount the fumes simply because I've had headaches in the past?

I just feel that we might want to be a little more careful until we can figure all of this out with more certainty. My two cents anyway. Thanks for the comments, mychai.
posted by mathis23 at 11:23 PM on September 25, 2002

In a spookily-timed but useful illustration of the vagaries of climate and climate change, two days ago Munich experienced extremely early-season snowfall.

Here are some pretty pictures.

The last time it snowed this early in Munich was in 1442, preceding one of the severest winters on record there and across most of Europe (snow was still piled up in Munich until the last week of May).
Does this mean that Europe will have another extremely cold winter? Probably not, but it does illustrate the complexity of the climate system and the counter-intuitive results of change. Reversal of the thermohaline ciruclation would be a pretty extreme example of this as far as global warming is concerned!
posted by barnsoir at 6:19 AM on September 26, 2002