< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

Are we cooking ourselves?

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2012 18:47
 
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 05:14 PM
Answerer - 30 January 2012 04:54 PM

If it gets that bad, I think we’re looking at a Soylent Green scenario.

It has been the subject of quite a few apocalyptic books and movies lately.

I don’t think I could eat just anyone, they would have to be clean living…. vampire

Did I submit a post somewhere re your avatar, Martin. I think you should get something cute and sweet, or maybe colorfully Techno or Anime like one of these characters ... not work your way up the evolutionary ladder in snail time.

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 18:48
 
burt - 30 January 2012 05:43 PM

The Ice Age will cool things off.  First more heat means more evaporation meaning more snowfall at high latitudes and eventually so much will fall that it doesn’t all melt over the short summers so there will be yearly accumulations of several feet of ice (compacted snow).  Once it gets started, the ice will reflect much more sunlight back into space and more ice will accumulate.  Glaciers will advance and grind civilization to dust.  Be the first to buy the portable flame throwers I’m selling, hold back the ice!

I wonder how much we do has an effect, the cycle just seems to go on.

I’ll have one please Burt, a low emissions version if you can manage that please…

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2012 18:49
 
burt - 30 January 2012 05:43 PM

The Ice Age will cool things off.  First more heat means more evaporation meaning more snowfall at high latitudes and eventually so much will fall that it doesn’t all melt over the short summers so there will be yearly accumulations of several feet of ice (compacted snow).  Once it gets started, the ice will reflect much more sunlight back into space and more ice will accumulate.  Glaciers will advance and grind civilization to dust.  Be the first to buy the portable flame throwers I’m selling, hold back the ice!

In that case, I’m selling Freeze Foam ... Hurry, Hurry, Hurry!

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 18:57
 
Answerer - 30 January 2012 05:47 PM
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 05:14 PM
Answerer - 30 January 2012 04:54 PM

If it gets that bad, I think we’re looking at a Soylent Green scenario.

It has been the subject of quite a few apocalyptic books and movies lately.

I don’t think I could eat just anyone, they would have to be clean living…. vampire

Did I submit a post somewhere re your avatar, Martin. I think you should get something cute and sweet, or maybe colorfully Techno or Anime like one of these characters ... not work your way up the evolutionary ladder in snail time.

Ah… your the only one who noticed those slow changes to the avatar so far Ans, you win a coconut… cheese

I think your right, I’m a fairly light hearted guy I suppose, so I will take any suggested images into consideration, I am a bit of a monkey too at times though, so it’s a tough decision.

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:08
 
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 05:57 PM
Answerer - 30 January 2012 05:47 PM
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 05:14 PM
Answerer - 30 January 2012 04:54 PM

If it gets that bad, I think we’re looking at a Soylent Green scenario.

It has been the subject of quite a few apocalyptic books and movies lately.

I don’t think I could eat just anyone, they would have to be clean living…. vampire

Did I submit a post somewhere re your avatar, Martin. I think you should get something cute and sweet, or maybe colorfully Techno or Anime like one of these characters ... not work your way up the evolutionary ladder in snail time.

Ah… your the only one who noticed those slow changes to the avatar so far Ans, you win a coconut… cheese

I think your right, I’m a fairly light hearted guy I suppose, so I will take any suggested images into consideration, I am a bit of a monkey too at times though, so it’s a tough decision.

Check these out.

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:18
 

I picked one , see what you think…

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:24
 
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 06:18 PM

I picked one , see what you think…

Where? It’s the same with a scrunched face.

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:31
 
Answerer - 30 January 2012 06:24 PM
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 06:18 PM

I picked one , see what you think…

Where? It’s the same with a scrunched face.

Ha! Ha!...I just need time to change Ans, my nature is quite autistic in relation to change, you should see my wardrobe, lots of blue tee-shirts and combat trousers… LOL

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:40
 

Global warming holding off the next ice age for 1,500 more years. Please say it ain’t so!


By Nina Chestney
LONDON (Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.
Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping out emissions today, according to the U.N.‘s weather agency.
An ice age is a period when there is a long-term reduction in the earth’s surface and atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers.
There have been at least five ice ages on earth. During ice ages there are cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating.
Officially, the earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, and estimates vary on how long such periods last.
“(Analysis) suggests that the end of the current interglacial (period) would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts per million by volume (ppmv),” the study said.
However, the current carbon dioxide concentration is of 390 ppmv, and at that level an increase in the volume of ice sheets would not be possible, it added.
The study based on variations in the earth’s orbit and rock samples was conducted by academics at Cambridge University, University College London, the University of Florida and Norway’s University of Bergen.
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood but concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun, and the movement of tectonic plates are all thought to contribute.
The world is forecast to grow hotter as greenhouse gases continue to rise, increasing threats such as extreme weather events and sea level rise.
Scientists have warned that global temperature rise should be limited to within 2 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst effects of climate change but delays in curbing emissions growth are putting the planet at risk.

 
 
JayD
 
Avatar
 
 
JayD
Total Posts:  442
Joined  12-05-2009
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:44
 

Our economies aren’t fragile, just disorganized. The United Kingdom produces enough food to satisfy 60% of its food needs, even though agriculture is only about 1% of its economy. It wouldn’t be difficult to effectively abolish work, or at least cut down 40 hours for everyone to 10 hours for imperative occupations only. Nobody talks about it because you’re all morons.

A “quick fix” to all these problems would be electing me as Spiritual Leader so I can teach you to harvest your full potential by unlocking the hidden powers of the astral-phenomenal plane.

 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 19:55
 
Avogadro’s number - 30 January 2012 06:40 PM

Global warming holding off the next ice age for 1,500 more years. Please say it ain’t so!


By Nina Chestney
LONDON (Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.

Obviously polluting our planet is causing harm in many ways.
But it really makes me wonder at times whether anything we do or fail to do can really makes much difference to the bigger picture.
Will the cycles not continue despite all our efforts or lack thereof?

 
eudemonia
 
Avatar
 
 
eudemonia
Total Posts:  9031
Joined  05-04-2008
 
 
 
30 January 2012 20:06
 

More on the next ice age thinking-from skeptical science

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

  1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
  2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

 
 
MARTIN_UK
 
Avatar
 
 
MARTIN_UK
Total Posts:  5030
Joined  19-08-2010
 
 
 
30 January 2012 20:15
 

Thanks Avogadro, this seems clearer-

“It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.”

 
goodgraydrab
 
Avatar
 
 
goodgraydrab
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  19-12-2007
 
 
 
30 January 2012 20:26
 
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 06:31 PM
Answerer - 30 January 2012 06:24 PM
MARTIN UK - 30 January 2012 06:18 PM

I picked one , see what you think…

Where? It’s the same with a scrunched face.

Ha! Ha!...I just need time to change Ans, my nature is quite autistic in relation to change, you should see my wardrobe, lots of blue tee-shirts and combat trousers… LOL

You’re fine, Martin. Don’t change a thing. I like you the way you are.  wink

 
 
Jeff M
 
Avatar
 
 
Jeff M
Total Posts:  1644
Joined  08-10-2010
 
 
 
28 February 2012 15:55
 

A few weeks back, The Wall Street Journal, (AKA Murdoch’s New Mouthpiece) published an OP-ED by a handful of scientists that published a misleading chart with the message ‘No need to panic on global warming’.

In the following link Barry Bickmore dissects their claims and exposes the the way the OP-ED misleads readers.  He also makes the point that these scientists likely (because they are scientists) are aware of how misleading their graph is.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/bickmore-on-the-wsj-response/

 
 < 1 2 3 >