Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aggie

Earth's temperature hasn't risen in 15 years.

40 posts in this topic

Remember, you did this too yourself.

If we left an ice age ten thousand years ago, and the temp has been dropping for eight thousand years. That means we are in an ice age now, and the earth needs to warm up for us.

The great lakes have been moving south for ten thousand years as the ice pack up north melts. Melting ice means no ice age.

Not really daniel, it doesn't have to drop much each year for a trend to develop. We are not in an ice age otherwise you would be living under an ice pack which you clearly are not.

Marcott.png

Br Cornelius

We are in an ice age. As long as we have extensive ice sheets in both hemispheres we are by definition in an ice age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Wait a second, I thought you blamed humans for co2 in the air. Ten thousand years ago we were using small camp fires.

If the melting ice released co2 ten thousand years ago. And, it got stuck in the ice again. Couldn't the ice be releasing tgat co2 again.

By the you cannot facter all of the naturel process out of temp grow because we don't know them all

Invoking magic causes when we have a consistent explanation for what is happening. Funny thinking again.

The reason why we are so certain that mans Athropogenic CO2 is a problem is because we can look back at the paleoclimatic record, as marcott has done, and see what effect natural rises in CO2 had in the past. It is another straw man argument to say that climate scientists do not acknowledge the role of natural CO2 cycles - it is the very basis of their understanding of the outcomes of changing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in an ice age. As long as we have extensive ice sheets in both hemispheres we are by definition in an ice age.

They are not extensive enough to constitute an ice age - which is by definition an arbitrary made up term. We are officially in an interglacial.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not extensive enough to constitute an ice age - which is by definition an arbitrary made up term. We are officially in an interglacial.

Br Cornelius

I disagree here.

Within ice ages you have short term warm periods which, as you state, are called interglacial periods.

So I would still say we are in an ice age and have been for millions of years now.

We are in a interglacial period within ice age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree here.

Within ice ages you have short term warm periods which, as you state, are called interglacial periods.

So I would still say we are in an ice age and have been for millions of years now.

We are in a interglacial period within ice age.

Were going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are in an ice age. As long as we have extensive ice sheets in both hemispheres we are by definition in an ice age.

The last remnant of the Laurentide Ice Sheet still exists on Baffin Island. But it is melting. Won't be long before we're out of the ice age, using your definition.

The geologists define the Wisconsinan Ice Age as ending at the end of the Younger Dryas about 10,660 YBP. This process took about 40 years. A remarkably sharp boundary.

Of course, there is more to it than that. The melt-off after the last glacial maximum (c. 19,000 YBP) took thousands of years. My farm in Ohio melted out about 14,000 YBP. Until about three thousand years ago, sea levels were still rising, indicating that somewhere ice was still melting. The all-time record high stand was during the Roman Period (250-400 AD) when sea level reached 5.6 feet above modern, a level it hasn't reached since.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you pay attention to whatis going to happen over the newet obama care. The democrats wil clim the repubicans want to tarve childern, which isn't true.

Well, that was no response at all, Daniel, to my query. I'm not quibbling with your politics or worldview, you're entitled. I'm simply wondering how you would feel if I condemned a whole group of say, Mormons and their faith, because a handful of them stated an opinion or took an action I disagree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great lakes have been moving south for ten thousand years as the ice pack up north melts. Melting ice means no ice age.

The first of the Great Lakes was Glacial Lake Maumee I. It's outlet was through the Wabash River in Indiana, if memory serves. That was about 16,000 YBP. Since then, the lakes have moved northward. Lake Erie at Sandusky Bay is now the southern-most point in the Great Lakes. The melt-off of the glaciers, though rapid in geological terms, still took almost 11,000 years. That's from the southern-most advance of the ice sheet in Kentucky to the collapse of the Agassiz-Ojibway ice dam about 8200 YBP. There's a lot of room for argument concerning the end of the ice age.

I find the retreat of the ice sheet to be a fascinating topic. One particularly interesting part was the "Kankakee Torrent," a flood caused by the wash-out of a morraine. A large part of Indiana and Illinois went underwater. Water levels in the Kankakee River were fifty feet above the modern flood plain.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the ice melts up north, that part of north american rises pushing the great lakes south. The lake your talking about may have become the great lakes. But, I am sure it was an inland sea, as was lake bountiful in utah,navada, and organ. It became the great salt lake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the ice melts up north, that part of north american rises pushing the great lakes south. The lake your talking about may have become the great lakes. But, I am sure it was an inland sea, as was lake bountiful in utah,navada, and organ. It became the great salt lake.

The movement southward is miniscule. But it does push Lake Erie's water surface up against the south shore during high-water periods. And that causes shore erosion which occasionally topples a house into the lake. I grew up in Ashtabula, Ohio, a port on Lake Erie. Since I started grade school, Point Park has fallen into the lake, as did my uncle's rental cottages. The old bridge at Whitman's Creek stood right on the shore when I was in college, but is now about forty feet out in the lake - one storm did that. I doubt that the current shoreline is more than a couple hundred yards from where it was at the end of the Younger Dryas.

It's hard to decide if Lake Maumee was really an ancestor of Lake Erie, or something else. The two did not occupy the same basins. However there were around a dozen intermediate lakes whose basins overlapped. When Lake Maumee existed, my farm was covered by about two miles of ice, but the area was ice-free for the Lake Arkona phase.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of this thread:

You guys finally drove me to distraction. I ran the numbers for the "slow-down" in global temps. Results are going to disappoint both sides of this argument.

I used NOAA's globally-averaged temperature anomalies for two time periods: 1976-2012 and 1998 to 2012. 1976 was Year 0 for the current temperature excursion. 1998 was the one the cherry-pickers use to say there has been a "slow-down" in global warming.

The best fit for 1976 to 2012 is a straight line with a slope of 0.0185 degrees C. per year, starting from a temp in 1976 of 0.1473 degrees above the 1951-1980 mean: the "slow-down" is not enough to overcome earlier warming.

To make matters worse for the anti-s, an exponential model shows temperature rise to be accelerating at an average of 4.3% per year. The fit of the exponential model is not as good as the straight line, but both are significant at the 95% level. I cannot tell if the rate of increase is accelerating or not, but it is certainly not decreasing.

The 1998-2012 period showed no measurable increase or decrease in temps using a straight-line model: THERE IS NO "SLOW-DOWN" in temperature rise. On the other hand, there is no increase either. An exponential model showed a slight acceleration in warming since 1998 (1.3% per year), but the results were not significant at the 95% level. So temperatures MIGHT have risen since 1998, but we can't be sure.

Beyond this, there is too much variation in the data to make bold pronouncements about temperature rise. Both sides can yell "You can't prove it" at the other one and both would be right.

We are still under the control of that sharp temperature rise from 1976 to 1998 and so far, the downturn is not significant. We'll have to wait a few more years before we have the data to resolve the issue.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, in 75 they were yelling we were headed for an ice age. So it seems cherry picking is going on all over the place.

Besides, your post and math show no rise since 98 which ic what the op says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, in 75 they were yelling we were headed for an ice age. So it seems cherry picking is going on all over the place.

Besides, your post and math show no rise since 98 which ic what the op says.

If by "they" you mean Reader's Digest, My Weekly Reader, Newsweek and Time, you're right. But Schneider's paper (1975) only said that particulates cool the planet. It didn't say they were causing an ice age. The last time the ice advanced the entire length of Lake Erie, the process took 3000 years - that was well known even back in 75. So even if we had been and still were headed toward an ice age, we'd still have an awful long way to go. Another thought: The low-temp for that period was about 1967 or 8. By 1975, temps were already headed up again. By 1975, the scientific community would be wondering whether they were looking at an upturn, or just a statistical blip - sort of like what we're doing now.

As we speak, we still cannot rule out the possibility that meltwater from Greenland will shut down the Gulf Stream, plunging us into a warming-caused ice age. Don't think it's likely, but ....

And the stats DON'T say there has been no rise. What they say is we can't tell. The data is too variable. The only two significant models were the 1976-2012 straight line that shows warming still continuing and the exponential that shows it accelerating. As of yet, the "slow-down" has not overcome those two trends. Maybe in another ten-to-fifteen years, bit not as of 2012.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I mean abc, nbc, and cbs, and the local paper.

This was when the jet crashed and broke the ice on the potamic

Edited by danielost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I mean abc, nbc, and cbs, and the local paper.

Same ilk.

This was when the jet crashed and broke the ice on the potamic

Air Florida Flight 90 went into the Potomac in January 1982. By that time, temps had been rising sharply for six years already. The popular press was beginning to wonder if we really were going into an ice age.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.