Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The lessons we are not learning

Expand Messages
  • Kenneth Robertson
    If we do not go voluntarily, we will go, but it s gonna get ugly. Forget the New Ice Age -- Our Problem Will Be a Heatwave By Billy Briggs June 10, 2004
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 10, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      If we do not go voluntarily, we will go, but it's gonna get ugly.

      Forget the New Ice Age -- Our Problem Will Be a Heatwave

      By Billy Briggs
      June 10, 2004 11:25AM

      Scientists who drilled deep into Antarctic ice say the next Ice Age
      is thousands of years away -- but disastrous global warming could be
      right around the corner. Greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil
      fuels are the main culprit.

      The latest Hollywood disaster movie predicts worldwide storms and an
      unprecedented ice age brought on by global warming.
      However, according to the latest research, the likelihood of The Day
      After Tomorrow happening any time soon is a non-starter -- but a
      heatwave caused by greenhouse-gas emissions is more likely.

      Scientists who have drilled 3 km into Antarctic ice to produce the
      oldest continuous climate record say the next ice age is at least
      another 15,000 years away.

      An ice core dating back 740,000 years has revealed eight ice ages, or
      glacials, followed by shorter interglacial periods and changing
      concentrations of gases and particles in the atmosphere.

      The period that corresponds most to the present interglacial period,
      which started about 12,000 years ago, took place about 400,000 years
      ago and lasted roughly 28,000 years.

      The current interglacial period, or warm spell between ice ages, is
      twice as long as the average for such periods, according to the
      research.

      Dr Eric Wolff, of the British Antarctic Survey, who led the team,
      said, "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-quarters
      of a million years ago.

      "Our data says we won't go into another ice age. We have 15,000 years
      before that is coming."

      However, he said that there may be a heatwave if emissions of
      greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere are not curbed.

      Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide
      are at their highest levels for 440,000 years.

      "Our next step is to investigate carbon dioxide in the ice cores and,
      by understanding what has driven the natural changes seen in the ice
      record, we will create better models to predict climate change in the
      future," said Dr Wolff.

      By analysing ice cores, scientists can tell how temperature has
      changed in the past and how levels of gases and particles in the
      atmosphere have varied over time.

      Data from the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica)
      was published yesterday in Nature, the science journal.

      Scientists said the research into the ice core could give a better
      picture of the impact of humans on global warming.

      Commenting on the findings in the latest issue of Science, Professor
      James White, from Colorado University, said, "This has the potential
      to separate the human-caused impacts from the natural, and place it
      in a much clearer context."

      Professor White has conducted dozens of studies on ice cores from
      both Antarctica and Greenland. He said the Epica ice core did not
      extend to the bottom of the ice sheet.

      In future even older cores could be extracted, stretching back one
      million years and allowing insight into one of the most significant
      periods in the Earth's history, he added.

      Before one million years ago, there was no large-scale pattern of ice
      ages interspersed by interglacial periods, and the Earth had a more
      steady climate. Scientists claim something took place a million years
      ago which caused the Earth to have larger climate variations.

      "For our future it is very important that we understand how these
      huge glaciers start," said Professor White.

      Last month, Tony Blair acknowledged the threat of global warming to
      the long-term stability of the planet and promised to make climate
      change a priority.

      This followed comments from Professor James Lovelock, an eminent
      scientist and environmentalist, who reignited the debate on energy
      policy when he argued that a massive expansion of the nuclear
      industry was the only hope of combating global warming.

      Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, has repeatedly said
      that global warming poses a greater threat to the world than
      terrorism, but his views have found little favour among ministers
      ideologically opposed to the nuclear energy option.

      In March, it emerged that carbon dioxide emissions went up by 1.5%
      between 2002 and 2003, despite government efforts to cut levels of
      the gases blamed for global warming.

      At that time, the Scottish Executive also published figures for 2001
      that showed emissions had increased for a year, largely because of
      increased fuel use in the cement and iron and steel industries.

      Scottish Executive ministers have said they plan to review the
      Scottish Climate Change Programme later this year. The UK is
      committed to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide by a fifth of
      its 1990 output levels by 2010.




      © 2004 The Herald, via ProQuest Information and Learning Company
      i/a/w MarketWatch.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
      © 2004 NewsFactor Network. All rights reserved.
    • briman1970
      Here s an excerpt from a chat with a real live scientist! It would take a year to read everything this guy has written or been printed in. If you don t
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 19, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Here's an excerpt from a chat with a real live scientist! It would
        take a year to read everything this guy has written or been printed
        in. If you don't believe me, go check out his full bio (and the full
        chat) at the website link below:

        Moderator: Marian asks -
        When I was taking geology, there was a considerable amount of
        speculation regarding the long-term effects of global warming. The
        immediate agreed on effects seem to be an increase of heated water at
        the top of the oceans and an increase in melting of the ice caps
        which will affect water levels around the globe. I've also heard it
        suggested that the increase of fresh water from the melting ice caps
        into the worlds oceans might change the deep water currents that move
        throughout the world which would affect temperatures further.Have any
        of these theories been studied in-depth and is there any way to
        lessen or halt their progression? Is it reversable? Is there any way
        that global warming has a historical basis (beyond El Nino/La Nina or
        volcanic activity)?


        Dr. O'Brien Responds: If there is substantial global warming, I would
        guess the ocean will warm up and some glacial ice and floating ice
        will melt. There are many scare stories about sea level rise. Here is
        the best truth:

        Everyone who estimates sea level rise from tide gauge stations gets
        the same answer about 2.1 mm /year . This is about 10 inches in 100
        years. recently scientists have looked at altimeters which measure
        sea level everywhere and have found 14 inches sea rise in a hundred
        years. the difference is NOT global warming but a better measurement.

        All the scientists who have looked for acceleration of sea level rise
        have not found any. much of the observed sea level rise is due to
        crustal rebound from the ice ages.

        Other examples, New Orleans is sinking because they messed up their
        wetlands so sea level is rising in New Orleans. There are many other
        examples there are the theories you mention. They have not been
        measured in depth.


        http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=659




        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Robertson" <kenr61@h...>
        wrote:
        > If we do not go voluntarily, we will go, but it's gonna get ugly.
        >
        > Forget the New Ice Age -- Our Problem Will Be a Heatwave
        >
        > By Billy Briggs
        > June 10, 2004 11:25AM
        >
        > Scientists who drilled deep into Antarctic ice say the next Ice Age
        > is thousands of years away -- but disastrous global warming could
        be
        > right around the corner. Greenhouse-gas emissions from burning
        fossil
        > fuels are the main culprit.
        >
        > The latest Hollywood disaster movie predicts worldwide storms and
        an
        > unprecedented ice age brought on by global warming.
        > However, according to the latest research, the likelihood of The
        Day
        > After Tomorrow happening any time soon is a non-starter -- but a
        > heatwave caused by greenhouse-gas emissions is more likely.
        >
        > Scientists who have drilled 3 km into Antarctic ice to produce the
        > oldest continuous climate record say the next ice age is at least
        > another 15,000 years away.
        >
        > An ice core dating back 740,000 years has revealed eight ice ages,
        or
        > glacials, followed by shorter interglacial periods and changing
        > concentrations of gases and particles in the atmosphere.
        >
        > The period that corresponds most to the present interglacial
        period,
        > which started about 12,000 years ago, took place about 400,000
        years
        > ago and lasted roughly 28,000 years.
        >
        > The current interglacial period, or warm spell between ice ages, is
        > twice as long as the average for such periods, according to the
        > research.
        >
        > Dr Eric Wolff, of the British Antarctic Survey, who led the team,
        > said, "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-
        quarters
        > of a million years ago.
        >
        > "Our data says we won't go into another ice age. We have 15,000
        years
        > before that is coming."
        >
        > However, he said that there may be a heatwave if emissions of
        > greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere are not curbed.
        >
        > Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon
        dioxide
        > are at their highest levels for 440,000 years.
        >
        > "Our next step is to investigate carbon dioxide in the ice cores
        and,
        > by understanding what has driven the natural changes seen in the
        ice
        > record, we will create better models to predict climate change in
        the
        > future," said Dr Wolff.
        >
        > By analysing ice cores, scientists can tell how temperature has
        > changed in the past and how levels of gases and particles in the
        > atmosphere have varied over time.
        >
        > Data from the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica)
        > was published yesterday in Nature, the science journal.
        >
        > Scientists said the research into the ice core could give a better
        > picture of the impact of humans on global warming.
        >
        > Commenting on the findings in the latest issue of Science,
        Professor
        > James White, from Colorado University, said, "This has the
        potential
        > to separate the human-caused impacts from the natural, and place it
        > in a much clearer context."
        >
        > Professor White has conducted dozens of studies on ice cores from
        > both Antarctica and Greenland. He said the Epica ice core did not
        > extend to the bottom of the ice sheet.
        >
        > In future even older cores could be extracted, stretching back one
        > million years and allowing insight into one of the most significant
        > periods in the Earth's history, he added.
        >
        > Before one million years ago, there was no large-scale pattern of
        ice
        > ages interspersed by interglacial periods, and the Earth had a more
        > steady climate. Scientists claim something took place a million
        years
        > ago which caused the Earth to have larger climate variations.
        >
        > "For our future it is very important that we understand how these
        > huge glaciers start," said Professor White.
        >
        > Last month, Tony Blair acknowledged the threat of global warming to
        > the long-term stability of the planet and promised to make climate
        > change a priority.
        >
        > This followed comments from Professor James Lovelock, an eminent
        > scientist and environmentalist, who reignited the debate on energy
        > policy when he argued that a massive expansion of the nuclear
        > industry was the only hope of combating global warming.
        >
        > Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, has repeatedly
        said
        > that global warming poses a greater threat to the world than
        > terrorism, but his views have found little favour among ministers
        > ideologically opposed to the nuclear energy option.
        >
        > In March, it emerged that carbon dioxide emissions went up by 1.5%
        > between 2002 and 2003, despite government efforts to cut levels of
        > the gases blamed for global warming.
        >
        > At that time, the Scottish Executive also published figures for
        2001
        > that showed emissions had increased for a year, largely because of
        > increased fuel use in the cement and iron and steel industries.
        >
        > Scottish Executive ministers have said they plan to review the
        > Scottish Climate Change Programme later this year. The UK is
        > committed to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide by a fifth of
        > its 1990 output levels by 2010.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > © 2004 The Herald, via ProQuest Information and Learning Company
        > i/a/w MarketWatch.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
        > © 2004 NewsFactor Network. All rights reserved.
      • sleepywn
        hi, i m new here, so probably missed something that s already been discussed in depth, however want to ask a few questions regarding the article at end of this
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 27, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          hi, i'm new here, so probably missed something that's already been
          discussed in depth, however want to ask a few questions regarding
          the article at end of this thread:

          1) the scientists who debunk imminent threat of new Ice Age seem to
          be basing their conclusions on historical patterns. but haven't
          conditions on earth changed dramatically because of increased
          combustion (thx to human activity)? If so, how can conclusions
          based on conditions that no longer exist be accurate?

          2) Isn't belief that global warming may trigger new Ice Age based on
          prediction that cold Arctic water (from melting ice caps) will
          interfere with warm currents from equator that help regulate
          climate? Is this prediction not valid? -- Sleepy

          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "briman1970" <briman1970@h...>
          wrote:
          > Here's an excerpt from a chat with a real live scientist! It
          would
          > take a year to read everything this guy has written or been
          printed
          > in. If you don't believe me, go check out his full bio (and the
          full
          > chat) at the website link below:
          >
          > Moderator: Marian asks -
          > When I was taking geology, there was a considerable amount of
          > speculation regarding the long-term effects of global warming. The
          > immediate agreed on effects seem to be an increase of heated water
          at
          > the top of the oceans and an increase in melting of the ice caps
          > which will affect water levels around the globe. I've also heard
          it
          > suggested that the increase of fresh water from the melting ice
          caps
          > into the worlds oceans might change the deep water currents that
          move
          > throughout the world which would affect temperatures further.Have
          any
          > of these theories been studied in-depth and is there any way to
          > lessen or halt their progression? Is it reversable? Is there any
          way
          > that global warming has a historical basis (beyond El Nino/La Nina
          or
          > volcanic activity)?
          >
          >
          > Dr. O'Brien Responds: If there is substantial global warming, I
          would
          > guess the ocean will warm up and some glacial ice and floating ice
          > will melt. There are many scare stories about sea level rise. Here
          is
          > the best truth:
          >
          > Everyone who estimates sea level rise from tide gauge stations
          gets
          > the same answer about 2.1 mm /year . This is about 10 inches in
          100
          > years. recently scientists have looked at altimeters which measure
          > sea level everywhere and have found 14 inches sea rise in a
          hundred
          > years. the difference is NOT global warming but a better
          measurement.
          >
          > All the scientists who have looked for acceleration of sea level
          rise
          > have not found any. much of the observed sea level rise is due to
          > crustal rebound from the ice ages.
          >
          > Other examples, New Orleans is sinking because they messed up
          their
          > wetlands so sea level is rising in New Orleans. There are many
          other
          > examples there are the theories you mention. They have not been
          > measured in depth.
          >
          >
          > http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=659
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Robertson"
          <kenr61@h...>
          > wrote:
          > > If we do not go voluntarily, we will go, but it's gonna get ugly.
          > >
          > > Forget the New Ice Age -- Our Problem Will Be a Heatwave
          > >
          > > By Billy Briggs
          > > June 10, 2004 11:25AM
          > >
          > > Scientists who drilled deep into Antarctic ice say the next Ice
          Age
          > > is thousands of years away -- but disastrous global warming
          could
          > be
          > > right around the corner. Greenhouse-gas emissions from burning
          > fossil
          > > fuels are the main culprit.
          > >
          > > The latest Hollywood disaster movie predicts worldwide storms
          and
          > an
          > > unprecedented ice age brought on by global warming.
          > > However, according to the latest research, the likelihood of The
          > Day
          > > After Tomorrow happening any time soon is a non-starter -- but a
          > > heatwave caused by greenhouse-gas emissions is more likely.
          > >
          > > Scientists who have drilled 3 km into Antarctic ice to produce
          the
          > > oldest continuous climate record say the next ice age is at
          least
          > > another 15,000 years away.
          > >
          > > An ice core dating back 740,000 years has revealed eight ice
          ages,
          > or
          > > glacials, followed by shorter interglacial periods and changing
          > > concentrations of gases and particles in the atmosphere.
          > >
          > > The period that corresponds most to the present interglacial
          > period,
          > > which started about 12,000 years ago, took place about 400,000
          > years
          > > ago and lasted roughly 28,000 years.
          > >
          > > The current interglacial period, or warm spell between ice ages,
          is
          > > twice as long as the average for such periods, according to the
          > > research.
          > >
          > > Dr Eric Wolff, of the British Antarctic Survey, who led the
          team,
          > > said, "It's very exciting to see ice that fell as snow three-
          > quarters
          > > of a million years ago.
          > >
          > > "Our data says we won't go into another ice age. We have 15,000
          > years
          > > before that is coming."
          > >
          > > However, he said that there may be a heatwave if emissions of
          > > greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere are not curbed.
          > >
          > > Concentrations of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon
          > dioxide
          > > are at their highest levels for 440,000 years.
          > >
          > > "Our next step is to investigate carbon dioxide in the ice cores
          > and,
          > > by understanding what has driven the natural changes seen in the
          > ice
          > > record, we will create better models to predict climate change
          in
          > the
          > > future," said Dr Wolff.
          > >
          > > By analysing ice cores, scientists can tell how temperature has
          > > changed in the past and how levels of gases and particles in the
          > > atmosphere have varied over time.
          > >
          > > Data from the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica
          (Epica)
          > > was published yesterday in Nature, the science journal.
          > >
          > > Scientists said the research into the ice core could give a
          better
          > > picture of the impact of humans on global warming.
          > >
          > > Commenting on the findings in the latest issue of Science,
          > Professor
          > > James White, from Colorado University, said, "This has the
          > potential
          > > to separate the human-caused impacts from the natural, and place
          it
          > > in a much clearer context."
          > >
          > > Professor White has conducted dozens of studies on ice cores
          from
          > > both Antarctica and Greenland. He said the Epica ice core did
          not
          > > extend to the bottom of the ice sheet.
          > >
          > > In future even older cores could be extracted, stretching back
          one
          > > million years and allowing insight into one of the most
          significant
          > > periods in the Earth's history, he added.
          > >
          > > Before one million years ago, there was no large-scale pattern
          of
          > ice
          > > ages interspersed by interglacial periods, and the Earth had a
          more
          > > steady climate. Scientists claim something took place a million
          > years
          > > ago which caused the Earth to have larger climate variations.
          > >
          > > "For our future it is very important that we understand how
          these
          > > huge glaciers start," said Professor White.
          > >
          > > Last month, Tony Blair acknowledged the threat of global warming
          to
          > > the long-term stability of the planet and promised to make
          climate
          > > change a priority.
          > >
          > > This followed comments from Professor James Lovelock, an eminent
          > > scientist and environmentalist, who reignited the debate on
          energy
          > > policy when he argued that a massive expansion of the nuclear
          > > industry was the only hope of combating global warming.
          > >
          > > Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, has repeatedly
          > said
          > > that global warming poses a greater threat to the world than
          > > terrorism, but his views have found little favour among
          ministers
          > > ideologically opposed to the nuclear energy option.
          > >
          > > In March, it emerged that carbon dioxide emissions went up by
          1.5%
          > > between 2002 and 2003, despite government efforts to cut levels
          of
          > > the gases blamed for global warming.
          > >
          > > At that time, the Scottish Executive also published figures for
          > 2001
          > > that showed emissions had increased for a year, largely because
          of
          > > increased fuel use in the cement and iron and steel industries.
          > >
          > > Scottish Executive ministers have said they plan to review the
          > > Scottish Climate Change Programme later this year. The UK is
          > > committed to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide by a fifth
          of
          > > its 1990 output levels by 2010.
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > © 2004 The Herald, via ProQuest Information and Learning Company
          > > i/a/w MarketWatch.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
          > > © 2004 NewsFactor Network. All rights reserved.
        • Kenneth Robertson
          ... From the different studies I ve seen (but I ve not kept, sorry. Others on the board may have this), human activity has only served to accelerate the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 28, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "sleepywn" <laudace@e...> wrote:
            > hi, i'm new here, so probably missed something that's already been
            > discussed in depth, however want to ask a few questions regarding
            > the article at end of this thread:
            >
            > 1) the scientists who debunk imminent threat of new Ice Age seem to
            > be basing their conclusions on historical patterns. but haven't
            > conditions on earth changed dramatically because of increased
            > combustion (thx to human activity)? If so, how can conclusions
            > based on conditions that no longer exist be accurate?

            From the different studies I've seen (but I've not kept, sorry.
            Others on the board may have this), human activity has only served to
            accelerate the natural process to an unnatural level. Whether it be
            Ice Age or Heat Wave, it will be a sudden (historically speaking)
            rather than the gradual change the planet has endured before. This is
            why the skeptisism when folks say "the planet has gone through this
            before and come out OK" , the historical evidence says Yes, and No.

            >
            > 2) Isn't belief that global warming may trigger new Ice Age based
            on
            > prediction that cold Arctic water (from melting ice caps) will
            > interfere with warm currents from equator that help regulate
            > climate? Is this prediction not valid?

            Well, look around because the caps are melting. There has been a
            change in weather and climate.

            -- Sleepy
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.