Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: charli on 02/06/2021 08:55:59
-
Listener Allyson asks:
"Will there be another ice age?
If so, is global warming postponing it?
If not is Earth only getting warmer from here?"
-
Hello Allyson!
🙏
Thanks for your Question.
Though, the Question seems small & simple...
I'm afraid the answer would be quite long & broad.
🙂
I personally would need a lil time & Alot of reading & facts checking to do.
😓
(Hope somebody else figures this out, before i have to)
Your Patience would be much Appreciated!
🙏
P.S. - Being Patient isn't about simply waiting...rather it's the ability to keep a good attitude while waiting.
✌️
-
The history of global temperature over the last 500,000 years or so is a series of very rapid warmings followed by slow cooling, the whole cycle taking about 100,000 years. Right now we are in a particularly rapid warming so it is unlikely, based on past evidence, that there will be another ice age for at least 50,000 years.
-
🙄
[ Invalid Attachment ]
P.S. - 🤐
-
One of the drivers of ice ages is the Milankovitch cycle, which describes oscillations within the orbits of the planets, lasting 10,000 - 100,000 years. They suggest that there will probably be another ice age, some time.
But they are not the only factor. The distribution of the continents, and the collapse of ice sheets have been identified as contributing factors to Earth's climate.
Human activities have increased the temperature of the planet to a measurable degree, so we are:
- Accelerating any warming which would have happened anyway
- Slowing any cooling which would have happened anyway
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
-
In the 1950's there were 2.5 billion people world wide now there are 7.8 billion. We all need to breath, grow and eat food, eat meat, keep warm, build houses and drive cars.
So there is 3 times as much CO2 in the air now than then which could have resulted in global warming.
The ice-core sampling at the poles may be able to tie up with archaeological records to confirm some; possibly delayed; ice ages developing in periods when there are very few mammals and humans about.
-
ice ages developing in periods when there are very few mammals and humans about.
And a lot more CO2.
-
In the 1950's there were 2.5 billion people world wide now there are 7.8 billion. ...
So there is 3 times as much CO2 i
That's not how it works.
Did you consider finding out what you were talking about before posting?
-
ice ages developing in periods when there are very few mammals and humans about.
That is not accurate.
-
Hi everyone;
Yes, by the recent researches the next ice age would usually start within 1400 years.
-
I think it would be vice versa, we will burn under the sun
-
Hi everyone;
Yes, by the recent researches the next ice age would usually start within 1400 years.
Give the source, please. 'Cause I found that in about 500 years.
-
All depends on what you mean by "start"! The usual reference is the Vostok ice cores, which show how temperature and carbon dioxide have varied over the last 400,000 years. There are other ice core studies that show similar 100,000 year cycles in other parts of the world. What happens is that temperatures rise increasingly steeply of about 10 - 15,000 years to a fairly consistent maximum, then decrease asymptotically towards an equally consistent minimum. The range is about 10 - 12 degrees.
Right now we are approaching the historic maximum, but "ice age" is not clearly defined: is it the point at which temperatures begin to decrease, or when the global mean temperature falls below the range mean, or when it is, say, within a degree of the minimum?
The unmentionable truth is that the carbon dioxide level actually follows the temperature level, about 500 years later. It's currently out of sync a bit, thanks to farming and industry, but the historic record suggests that it is irrelevant anyway.
-
The usual reference is the Vostok ice cores, which show how temperature and carbon dioxide have varied over the last 400,000 years.... the historic record suggests that (farming and industry) is irrelevant anyway.
Please point to historical precedents for the current level of farming and fossil-fuelled industry.
-
Since the CO2 curve always lagged behind the temperature record, history suggests that CO2 is not the driver of temperature. And the seasonal variation of recent Mauna Loa data suggests that temperature still drives CO2, not the other way around.
-
The usual reference is the Vostok ice cores, which show how temperature and carbon dioxide have varied over the last 400,000 years.... the historic record suggests that (farming and industry) is irrelevant anyway.
Please point to historical precedents for the current level of farming and fossil-fuelled industry.
Deforestation and draining of bogs.
-
Apparently there are now more trees than there were 50 years ago, and thanks to increasing CO2 levels, they are growing faster. Australia was once mostly under water but I don't think the 2,000,000 square mile bog was drained by humans, or even recently. AFAIK Canada is still mostly bog and forest.
-
In the 1950's there were 2.5 billion people world wide now there are 7.8 billion.
More alarmingly only 1 billion people use over half the world recources, the other 7 billion will wish the same quality of life.
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/social-and-economic-policy/the-environment/general-analysis-on-the-environment/45393-how-much-of-the-worlds-resource-consumption-occurs-in-rich-countries.html
-
Apparently there are now more trees than there were 50 years ago, and thanks to increasing CO2 levels, they are growing faster. Australia was once mostly under water but I don't think the 2,000,000 square mile bog was drained by humans, or even recently. AFAIK Canada is still mostly bog and forest.
Yes, and they are growing trees in China and Africa to halt the spread ofdeserts and reverse desertification due to the effect human actions has had upon it, this will help lower co2.
-
If the planet is inhabited by a large number of mammals and animals then the CO2 level goes up from 200 ppm to say 300 ppm and this causes a temperature rise or global warming naturally and the planet responds by unfreezing the tundra to allow more vegetation to grow thus repalancing the oxygen to carbon dioxide ratio.
Maybe older peaks were caused by previous civilisations who can tell as last 300 ppm peak was long ago.
-
unfreezing the tundra
There are some projects to melt tar sands in the Canadian arctic
- To extract oil (to burn)
- And using the burning oil to melt more tar sand so they can extract more oil
- Extremely inefficient!
The other concern is that some areas of frozen tundra have kept a lot of carbon frozen
- If we melt the tundra (which was once a bog)
- Or it gets hot enough to burn
- Or if we drain the melted tundra to plant crops or grow beef
...then that frozen-in carbon/organic compounds could be freed to get into the atmosphere as CO2
So I'm sure some people would benefit, but it may harm the planet's temperature overall.
-
Maybe older peaks were caused by previous civilisations who can tell as last 300 ppm peak was long ago.
120,000 years - no civilisation can possibly be blamed.