Subman,

Some scientists are actually looking into volcanic activity as to why the "Little Iceage" occurred. I think it has led some to look at the volcanic erruption on the island of Tambora I think. And the possibility of desalination of the oceans disrupting the currents, which help to moderate the world temps. Coupled with the ending of the medieval warming, which started to turn cooler around 1300 A.D. So have we hit the equivalent of the warm period? Not unless you can grow wine grapes in the British midlands, and compete with the French Winemakers.

This is from the History Channel about the program they ran on it.


Scientists call it the Little Ice Age--but its impact was anything but small. From 1300 to 1850, a period of cataclysmic cold caused havoc. It froze Viking colonists in Greenland, accelerated the Black Death in Europe, decimated the Spanish Armada, and helped trigger the French Revolution. The Little Ice Age reshaped the world in ways that now seem the stuff of fantasy--New York Harbor froze and people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island, Eskimos sailed kayaks as far south as Scotland, and "the year without a summer" saw two feet of snow fell on New England one June and July.
Could another catastrophic cold snap strike in the 21st century? Leading climatologists offer the latest theories, and scholars and historians recreate the history that could be a glimpse of things to come. Face the cold, hard truth of the past--an era that may be a window to our future

It was quite good really. Some interesting ideas on what how and why. Nothing difinative though, as of course like you said, there weren't many records kept beyond the last 100 years in any form of mass volumes. Well, maybe the library of Alexandria, but that burned up long ago. But they do have some records like those of Galileo, and I think even old Thomas Jefferson too, that they reference to.

The point is that if "global warming", erm excuse me, "climate change" is indeed primarily caused by humans, and i'm not at all convinced that it is, then it is because of our numbers more than anything else. We can all trade in our air conditioners for paddle fans and keep our houses just above freezing in the winter, whatever, but it won't make a bit of difference as long as world population keeps rising.

Science is getting better at documenting changes in our environment but it can't make more than the most generalized of forecasts and even then they are wrong as often as not.

To think about
 

If you think about it what we humans are doing is speeding up climate change. The temps fluctuate, I think all we are doing is changing the pace that which it happens.

You guys might find this crazy but here something to think about. I think a Ice Age is going to happen sooner rather then later. Sound crazy? Consider this, pollutants block the suns UV rays. but they also keep the warm air in. When the oceans rise from the melting ice they cool, which will lower the temps in the north and change the weather pattern as well as keep the warm tropic ocean currents to the south. It will be colder and the suns uv rays will be blocked by our pollution so in the end global warming is not my worry, there will be less UV rays hitting the earth then ever before, its the cooling I am worried about, the last ice age didn't have mans pollution to block the suns rays. If I read correctly we get 17& less sunlight hitting the earth compared to the early 50s.

And volcanos are like cars they block the suns rays. Imagine there were no cars before.

Well, humans definitely do play a part in changing the climate. However, the Earth also goes through natural cycles that change it. Really, both are to blame.

Im not here to praise Cesar only to bury him......the great lakes in NA were carved out by glaciers and then filled with fresh water by........anyone, anyone, global warming. Before man ever fuc%ed up anything else. I do agree, over population will screw a lot of things up, but mother earth is large, been here a long time, and can take care of herself.

Roger that!:up:

Even if global warming/climate change is a fallacy, changing and diversifying your energy sources is not. The US clinging to oil, reminds me the British Empire clinging to its coal. Probably one reason for its demise. Probably one reason that the US administration avoids the issue. It goes to heart of the strategic posistion of the US, politically, economically and militarily.

BTW the insurance companies think there is an issue. Google "insurance companies climate change" and read some hits.

And finally, why do you need a 230km/h car when the speed limit is 90km/h ?:hmm:

that is not crazy at all, but the basic mechanism behind the observed thieckening of some ice areas. Air and sea becomes warmer, more koisture in the air greater temperature difference between existing ice surface and surrounding environment, more condensating moisture on the ise, thickeining of the ice. However, the point is that despite this going on, an even greater ammount of old ice disappears (that'S the keeping the sturctural integrity of huge ice fields, not the young ice which is softer and weaker), and bigger fields of sea ice disappear as well, which both are scientific facts. that means there is more open water that gets radiated by the sun, and water does not reflect sunlight as much as ice, so more sun eneergy gets into the ocean due to the shrinking ice shield, and there you go: ocean temperarure rises, even more moisture in the air, even more condensating, etc. nevertheless it is an effect by warming, and it is temporary.

But for exampe the gulf stream. It's dynamic is caused by tropical wrm waters coling down in the north, faling 3 km into the deep, which is also caused by altered salinity, and different water density. When the North becomes warmer, the difference between the Caribean warm water and the northern water is less, and thus, the dynamic becomes less as well: the gulf stream weakens in activity, which means the heating effect for europe weakens as well. Wether or not this will cause a colling in europe in theling run remaisn to be seen, but still: the sequence is caused by a warming of climate.

However, at the same time we do ourt best to plaster the atmosphere with every emission possible that relfects warmth back to eartch, even more, the warmijg has reached the areas of permafrost ground, and since years cinstantly thaws them up. In them, huge reservoirs of methane are stored, in form of hydrate. when the frozen hydrate thaws and turns into a gas again, it increases its volume by a factor of 160, so the several hundred gigatons of hydrate that are estimated to be found in permafrost areas and the ground of the deep sea, can release an enormous ammount of greenhoiuse gas that is mutlitple times as potent as CO2 is. THIS is the reason why methane is so dangerous, not just some cows in central asia or the american midwest. we have had a phase in earth'S history when pratcically all methane that today is frozen hydrate was in the atmosphere, and it turned the world ointo a baking oven, killed almost all igher life forms on earth, and let the temperature in the very deep sea which today is around 1-2°C climb to levbels arund 15-20 - in several thosuand meters depth!

So witz the thawing of the permafrost areas, and more and more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the eventual colling effects of temporarily growing ice areas already is countered, and probably overcopensated for. We also do not know if even without this additonal factor the growing condenstating of air moisture on ice areas would be sufficient to overcome the growing wamring of the ocean that takes place due to the longer radiation of sun over a bigger area in summer, due to the since years shrinking ice coverage in summer. what we know is the trend form the past 4-10 decades. and that trend is very visible and very clear: glaciers retreating or disappearing pratcically all over the world, the altitiude at whoich snow begins in the mountain, goes up, and in tourist ressorts the coretime were winter sport conditions are guaranteed, shrinks in length, and in the Alps for exmaple since years have made villages and communities to start to develope alternative tourist attractions for the time after there will be no more snow at all. And that is projected to be the case in just 20-30 years. Many Alpine glaciers - already are almost no longer there right now.

A weather report from just one year, does not change the trends. You could as well look out of the window and by what you see you make an assumption for the weather of all the year altogether. Trying that, is simply incompetence - or bad intention.

I agree, Earth will survive mankind, this or that way. But manklind cannot survive earth. So, not nature has a problem - WE have a problem.

Wow nice pics Skybird!!

But think of all that waterfront realestate that just opened up. Shweet! :up:

Precisely! These are the same kind of "Scientists" who on one hand said "Margarine is better for you than butter", then realize that the reverse is true years later. Or design a drug that is supposedly good for you, then realize years later it can kill you. No, the time cycle of the earth is showing that we are headed into a cooling period.

Perfect analogy! :up::up::up:

-S

Only thing is, nobody knows, is how long, or much warmer it will get before it cools again. Also what needs to be taken into account is the sun's activity. During the "Little Iceage" one of the things learned from the early records of the old telescopes, was that the sun had entered a cool period where there was less activity in the form of sunspots. More sunspots, reflects in warmer planetary temperatures. Less or fewer sunspots reflects in cooler planetary temps.

Also the earth's orbit around the sun changes from more oblong in the orbit, to times when it is more circular, so distances from the sun need to be added to the mix, aside from what just happens on the planet itself.

Man's effects on climate are miniscule. Now that the witchhunt attitudes by the ultrapro-humans are causing this crowd, and other scientists who were ridiculed for not jumping on the global warming scare bandwagon are getting their say, and many give us humans a 2% impact effect on the planet.

The thing that gets me, is the government wants to impose a "carbon" tax. The UN is real big behind this one, as the UN will reap the benefit of the tax. So the best way to get people to go along with it, is to hype them up on fear. Get the media involved, and lamb-baste anyone who disagrees.

That is a claim, and not more than that. Give us something better than just that. the ajority of scientists, the vast majority, argues in favour of a decisive human influence, and they have well-thougt out theories for that, hints, sometimes evidence (especially in miniature models), and plenty, PLENTY, or correlations. Compared to that, "sceptics" are strong in one thing: expressing their doujbts. But their theories are often adventurous, to put it mildly, and get payed by undisurtial circles who have a storng and defined interst to rejet human actiivty being respjnsible, and to prevent policies trying to adress the issue - sinbce thios would impact on industrial dtandards, and thzat is not wanted for prit interests. That not adressing these issues will cost the industry at least ten times as much as calculations showed, gets ignored, even more since one has established apattern since long to privatize profits, but to externlaise costs andmlosses and let the national community - the tax payer - pay for it. the behavior here is the same, in principle, as was to be seen in creating the finance crisis. Capitalism knows no conscience and no morals, and it eats it's children.

What perfectly describes the attitude of so-called "climate-sceptics"

Either way, there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove that man and solely man is the cause for our current planetary status. It to me is just another way to grab money from people without their consent. Not just in the Americas, but the Sovereign Nations of Europe, Africa, and Asia.