Does Science Say There Will Be A Next Ice Age?

Cusa

10th December 2008 - 06:13 AM

At wikipedia the peak of the last ice age was 20 thousand years ago. I am looking for future scientific predictions for the next ice age. Is humanity going to live through long winters on a continuous basis? Or will what man is doing somehow keep them away? Green house? If not we might be spending most or our time inside.

Enthalpy

12th December 2008 - 11:42 AM

The astronomical causes for ice ages still exist.

But nobody knows how much excess CO2 Mankind will have put in the atmosphere in 10,000 or 50,000 years nor if Mankind will still exist then. At the actual pace of technological progress, my estimation for 10,000 years from now is that Mankind would be able of catching all the excess CO2 back or inject the necessary amount in the atmosphere.

So most scientists would probably refrain from making a prediction based on non-man-made causes.

Cusa

14th December 2008 - 11:37 PM

Who has predicted the next ice age?

Mitch Raemsch

philip347

15th December 2008 - 04:34 PM

www.iceagenow.com/Pentagon.htm

www.csmonitor.com/2004/0318/p13s01-sten.html

Quatermass

13th February 2009 - 11:33 AM

The last Ice Age ended just 10,000 years ago and there has been various mini-Ice Ages since then. After the last Heat Age (9th to 14th century), there was a mini Ice Age from 14th to early part of the 19th century. Frost fairs were held on the River Thames between 1608 and 1814. Sometimes bonfires were lit on the ice. It is said that the ice must have been at least 12 feet thick for this.

The great frost of 1709 froze the whole of Europe, killing millions of people and animals and killing crops and vegetation (the ground froze over 3 feet deep) and the sea froze. Temperatures were around -25.C for months.

SteveA2

13th February 2009 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (Cusa+Dec 14 2008, 11:37 PM)

Who has predicted the next ice age?

Mitch Raemsch

I've read a couple articles regarding some predictions of a colder period over likely 25-50 years minimum.

Supposedly the number of sunspots has been dropping for close to a decade and the last time it was this low Earth entered a cold period with many associated problems for something like 200 years (sorry I should find a link or two to this, but I've got to run).

Oh well, what happens - happens. There are limits to how far a swing temperatures can change because of negative feedback, though it's inevitable we'll have temperature changes - that's the weather and we've still got problems predicting it 2 weeks ahead of time, though its a bit easier to determine the approximate long term cycles for sunspots, but I'm certain they're somewhat chaotic also.

philip347

13th February 2009 - 06:04 PM

I believe we are in an ice age now.
I don’t know the strength of it, however I have seen two phenomena or more, that makes me post alarm.

One phenom is, the rise of a single ice lithe right out of the center of a pet watering bucket, as noted the next morning.(six to seven inches in hight)

The second is diagonal ice shards, which I can only draw a similar analogy to the crystal shards in superman’s fortress of solitude, “Yeah’ I know, go ahead and laugh”, but I have never ever seen diagonal ice shards form on freezer ice before..?

I have noted the ice to seem a little more cohesive and clingy, even when a warm wave had come to thaw this roof ice overhang.
The weight of the ice overhang was in the hundreds of pounds and should have fallen by now?

Lastly I had noticed last year, a great rise in both men’s urogential complaints along with reported instances of gout.

Why these reports would be concurrent in logic as having scientific validity, is that crystallization might occur more reducibly as an ice age, is really a change in frequency.

An analogy could be drawn with respects to slightly changing the dwell angle on the distributor of an automobile.
The climate would still work, however at a differing frequency angle.

Somebody in organized gub, should have caught onto this and published this by now?

Trippy

13th February 2009 - 08:14 PM

If one accepts that the Ice ages are, in part controlled by (for example) the Milankovitch cycles, then that makes the prediction that at some point in the next 10^5 - 10^6 years, we will enter another ice age.

There was recently an article posted here on Physorg that, essentially said that if we burn off all our fossil fuel reserves BUT we do it in the way that's being suggested by some countries (I think cutting back to 1990 levels was what was suggested) then that, combined with carefully timed 'injections' of CO2 into the atmosphere could delay the next ice age for up to 500,000 years.

philip347

13th February 2009 - 08:38 PM

Re trip' I think it does not work the way your describing.

This phenomenon seems to be electromagnetic by nature.
This would indicate planetary mechanics, which a little non-off world traveling culture like ourselves, may not have knowledge of.

You can't forgo this, if this is under the heading of planetary mechanics And this process could boomerang back on us at any time.

Trippy

13th February 2009 - 09:03 PM

QUOTE (philip347+Feb 14 2009, 09:38 AM)

Re trip' I think it does not work the way your describing.

This phenomenon seems to be electromagnetic by nature.
This would indicate planetary mechanics, which a little non-off world traveling culture like ourselves, may not have knowledge of.

You can't forgo this, if this is under the heading of planetary mechanics And this process could boomerang back on us at any time.

I suggest you research the Milankovich Cycles, and then re-read your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovic_cycle

philip347

13th February 2009 - 09:21 PM

I do not feel after looking at the article that’s it tilt alone.
I feel it’s a new change in geomagnetic status.

This is not fallacious thinking on my part, as I have seen close up, very different changes in how the ice is freezing.
If this is the case, then more drastic modes of climatic expression could occur.

If you read the article, again and again, they admit that there is nondefinate inconclusive data so far.

There was a commuter plane that had ice boots on the leading edges of its wings that had crashed at a lower altitude today.
This in no way may be related to what I’m saying here, however if the formations in the ice are changing into atypical shapes, then there has to be a new modulus set, to current existing data, that we know little about.

Trippy

13th February 2009 - 10:00 PM

QUOTE (philip347+Feb 14 2009, 10:21 AM)

I do not feel after looking at the article that’s it tilt alone.
I feel it’s a new change in geomagnetic status.

This is not fallacious thinking on my part, as I have seen close up, very different changes in how the ice is freezing.
If this is the case, then more drastic modes of climatic expression could occur.

If you read the article, again and again, they admit that there is nondefinate inconclusive data so far.

There was a commuter plane that had ice boots on the leading edges of its wings that had crashed at a lower altitude today.
This in no way may be related to what I’m saying here, however if the formations in the ice are changing into atypical shapes, then there has to be a new modulus set, to current existing data, that we know little about.

Clearly then you haven't understood what you've read, because it isn't attributed to tilt alone (for a start off).

philip347

13th February 2009 - 10:21 PM

I know its a change in geomagnetics, or ice would not be forming as it is.

I think what’s in the article are glossed over processes, not what is currently going on, which I think is a definite electromagnetic change, in how ice forms.

There is nothing mentioned on electromagnetic input in ice formation, within the wikipedia article.

MisterBelfry

4th March 2009 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE

I believe we are in an ice age now.

Yes.

On the other hand, it looks like George Will has stepped into a cauldron.

Relying on a Mike Asher {maybe it wasn't just Mike, he[G.W.] ends his second article with an update that a satellite perfomance missed an arctic ice coverage this year the size of California(although extent is not volume which could easily melt this summer depending on the obvious tipping point—Cloud Cover and not the idiotic carbon dioxide fetish but again this all depends on their being one ice age and it is NOW not long ages of Evolution rank speculation which side the columnist, George Will, should join as being towards a pro Intelligent Design argument and really make me a happy camper!)} article---->

The Columbia Journalism Review had this to say,

Worse still, Asherâ€™s failure to include such key details leads the reader to believe that recent recovery has brought Arctic sea ice extent back to 1979 levels. That is simply not true. Asher is clearly mixing up global and regional trends. In response to his post, scientists at the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center issued a letter (pdf)clarifying the significance of their data:

<blockquote>Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N. Hemisphere reduction.</blockquote>**

Although Asher does not mention climate change specifically in his post, his muddled coverage leaves the impression that the sea-ice data somehow refutes other evidence of global warming. Maybe that was not his intention, but scientists at the University of Illinois were clearly worried about that possibility. In their clarification letter, they noted:

<blockquote>One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator.</blockquote>

http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/global_...onal_trends.php

**AND
Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice. (Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/...50630064726.htm )

Trippy

4th March 2009 - 05:00 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 5 2009, 01:46 AM)

Yes.

Actually no.

Even a cursory perusal of (for example) any source regarding the Milankovic cycles will tell you that current conditions are unfavourable for large scale glaciation.

Therefore, no ice age.

MisterBelfry

5th March 2009 - 12:18 PM

>>> Actually no. <<<

Actually yes(or who in the hell knows(without an Amos event(6:11) where even the Church is scared shitless)). And I probably could do no better than let G.W. & etc. do the research:

"Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare."

#2
"Which returns us to [Andrew] Revkin. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts — how does he know this? — that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just "a pause in warming." His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the [New York] Times began printing his story,..."

Trippy

5th March 2009 - 05:13 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Mar 6 2009, 01:18 AM)

>>> Actually no. <<<

Actually yes(or who in the hell knows(without an Amos event(6:11) where even the Church is scared shitless)). And I probably could do no better than let G.W. & etc. do the research:

"Real calamities take our minds off hypothetical ones. Besides, according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade, or one-third of the span since the global cooling scare."

#2
"Which returns us to [Andrew] Revkin. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts — how does he know this? — that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just "a pause in warming." His attempt to contact this writer was an e-mail sent at 5:47 p.m., a few hours before the [New York] Times began printing his story,..."

No, no, and er, no.

Cusa

5th March 2009 - 09:38 PM

It might be that manmade greenhouse affect might cancel out an ice age; possibly permanently.

I sure don't want to live in an ice cold world!

MisterBelfry

6th March 2009 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE

If you read the article, again and again, they admit that there is nondefinate inconclusive data so far.

Yeah, I don't feel I have any reason to take Trippy's sources as reliable anymore than my own. I don't know anyone that takes Milankovich seriously... from my harddrive:

The Milankovich Theory [Google cache of...as retrieved on August 11, 2004]
The big questions are, of course, what caused those glaciers to spread, and will it happen again? Actually, no one is yet completely sure. But an intriguing idea, due to work in the 1930s by the Serbian astronomer Milutin Milankovich, may link them to the precession which Hipparchus discovered.

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm

It is just a place holder until something better comes along!
From what I understand, the spread is not so much a mystery as the start of glaciation in the first place with Creationists saying none of this happened before the Flood that wiped out the conditions for mega-growth in a very warm, moist world.

The working model of Devolution by means of Supernatural Selection (as I would like to see it) puts that boundary in the Cretaceous. Others in effect deny the geologic column much authority and therefore only ONE ice age happened and it is NOW.
They would say the Flood story with Noah as head of the last and first family accounted for much of the column for a young Earth. I unfortunately still remain agnostic to the Earth's age: geology proposes | physics disposes

This PAGE 2 @ AMAZON review is from: The Seashell on the Mountaintop: A Story of Science, Sainthood, and the Humble Genius Who Discovered a New History of the Earth (Hardcover)
"This geologist is a wonderful storyteller. Cutler lets the reader feel the doubt, grace and turmoil (of which there was much) in Steno's life. Steno's Principals (superposition, original horizontality, and lateral continuity), seem to us now to be simply common sense. However, the prevalent religious thinking at the time they were announced was in strong conflict. Superposition is not obvious if you believe the entire earth, including all the layers, was created on the same day. ..."

I would say as a species, we haven't moved on much!! Knowledge, at least from that day meant books, experimental science was not heard from in academia as part of the early university system Cutler notes on page 19.
It is a shame the Creationist see the need to lead the way in experimental science when it comes to geology and its uniformitarian doctrine and having to wait for a catastrophe to do the study with limited resources and limited brain power mostly tied up because they do not see an old Earth in reading Scripture and the government funded scientists only see the opposite and avoid Scripture altogether(at least as the media portrays).

MrB.

-------->Showtopic= 25120 currently, afaik, near the end of the thread @ forum= 24.

ALSO

-------->Showtopic= 22842 if avialable at "Space & Earth Sciences News" forum section with thread title, "Global Warming? Or New Freeze?"

Trippy

6th March 2009 - 11:29 PM

YOUR OWN SOURCE aknowledges the role the Milankovich cycles play in climate change.

YOUR OWN SOURCE aknowledges that the Milankovich cycles are about more than just precession (they're also about orbital eccentricity).

YOUR OWN SOURCE backs up everything i've had to say.

MisterBelfry

7th March 2009 - 01:16 PM

"I found it significant that Creationists concentrated their defense of Genesis 1:1-19 on the age of Planet Earth, but not on its place. Yet where in the text of Genesis, or for that matter in the whole Bible, is there even the faintest hint that God, having created the Earth in the beginning, demoted it on the fourth day to one spinning, whirling and cork-screwing lump of matter out of many?..."

in PDF:
for the file http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/or...pdf/galileo.pdf

<--------------------showtopic= 22482--------
>>> I sure don't want to live in an ice cold world! <<<
------------->

"the scenario you describe is possible, but it is surprisingly difficult to predict. as it relies on an extremely complex system ie ice, water, land mass and the atmosphere. if we can not model the ice bit, i would not say we could model the entire system with accuracy."--kjw

MisterBelfry

7th March 2009 - 02:13 PM

>>> showtopic= 22 48 2 <<<

showtopic=22842&view=findpost&p=367742 kjw's post, second in thread.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.