Could there be pressure to enter another Ice Age?

[SteveA]

I don't normally do 'fanatic hype' but I've been noticing a lot of statistically nagging thoughts reaching a point where they appear to be on the fringe of being statistically offensive and my main concern is whether or not there could be a concerted effort to push for entering another Ice Age.

There seems to be a lot of 'uncanny' political coincidences that appear to be more than simply ignorance or greed and these appear to be simply destructive ... I admit not being able to come up with a good explanation for the events, though a lot of things point toward potentially pushing the Earth into another Ice Age (if we assume historical records are accurate). Most the pressures appear to be top-down government entities.

We have the claims of global warming and attempts to reduce CO2. CO2 appears to, in reality, have almost entirely beneficial effects on life and very little of any undesirable effects.

We also have many pressures for carbon taxes that, at least from what I've heard regarding them, seem very much detached from actually addressing the claimed issue.

We also have many apparent efforts at monopolizing energy resources around the world (not simply oil resources, but other forms of energy as well) and as well as having many technologies held 'off-limits' due to concerted efforts to legally monopolize various "intellectual property" claims.

There have been comments on this site regarding chemtrails, and it came to mind that such could be used to encourage or discourage condensation and alter the albedo of the planet (which could pressure for more easy cloud formation and cooling in that form)

Apparently some others have had similar thoughts:

http://crisisjones.wordpress.com/201...made-disaster/

Claims appear to be of increased ice formation in the antarctic.

Here's an article that's interesting to consider and claims that 3 significant cyclic influences for temperatures will be coinciding to cool the Earth.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/36664

Some "anecdotal", yet significant events in the last few years have been some record cold spells in China and the Middle east and other events:

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature...ticle10866.htm

Quite a collection of interesting observations:

http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

I know we had snow here in Malibu a couple years ago (unusual for snow plows to be on the beaches around here in California) and this summer appears to be starting out very cool and last summer was quite cool as well.

There have been claims that Solar activity is reaching a minimum, which may last for quite a while as well.

Some proposals for "assisting" in combating supposed global warming have been numerous and include things like mirrors in space to block/reflect sunlight as well as chemical alterations of the ocean etc.

..... it's seemed that the rather concerted efforts/hype to cool the Earth could potentially have catastrophic effects.

Could there be such a thing as a 'Last Ice Age' on Earth (or at least one from which no species was ever capable of developing technology to avoid a slow death?) How many relatively frozen and lifeless planets are around already?

From the fossil records we could assume that there was sufficient biomass available to support life for large dinosaurs, yet over time, the Earth should have cooled and lost CO2 (if we assume the conventional Earth history is correct) and along with that we find that many of those larger forms of life appeared unable to survive.

Could it be that there really is a clock ticking for Earth before 'life as we know it' here is effectively doomed to become extinct?

It's an interesting question as to whether or not all the concerted efforts to cool Earth could have disasterous consequences on life.

[Graybeard]

From the fossil records we could assume that there was sufficient biomass available to support life for large dinosaurs, yet over time, the Earth should have cooled and lost CO2 (if we assume the conventional Earth history is correct) and along with that we find that many of those larger forms of life appeared unable to survive.

Why would the earth lose carbon and oxygen if it cooled ?

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

Both carbon dioxide and oxygen are chemically reactive and combine with elements in the crust over time to become embedded in the crust/mantle.

The conventional theory for the evolution of Earth was that Earth was formed similar to Venus and very hot. If we find that the core is hotter than the surface, that tends to verify that the Earth was hotter in the past.

CO2 is something like 97% of the atmosphere of Venus and it's atmospheric pressure is something like 40 times that of Earth. (That's just what I believe it was from memory)

If you heat most carbonates, you release the CO2 and similarly over time as rain and surface water "scrub" the atmosphere of CO2 and Oxygen as well, this makes water chemically active and reactions with the crust occur, which lower these densities over time.

80% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen ... Nitrogen is chemically inactive and remains in the atmosphere. Over time, natural reactions would tend to leave an atmosphere of Nitrogen only.

Basically, the core isn't going to stay hot forever and like the crust or the Moon (at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth), volcanic activity should decrease over time and little of anything wouild replace lost CO2.

The fact that CO2 is currently increasing would appear to be 'against the historical grain'.

Another reason why we could lose CO2 and Oxygen in a cooler environment is that both are more soluble in water at colder temperatures (though that could take lots of time to significantly alter that density).

I think the snowball model of Earth is likely what causes the periodic Ice Ages. If temperatures drop and we get more snow cover, this reflects much of the sunlight and stays cooler. A colder atmosphere would have most the water vapor condensed and so we'd have a dry atmosphere with little rain, but lots of already fallen snow. There would be little of anyway to break out of that state, though possibly wind and surface dirt could slowly wear at that.

Notice that all the hype over humanly contributed CO2 is in regard to about, at most, 0.01% of the atmosphere, there's still the other 99.99% to consider and water vapor is about 20 times as influencial as a greenhouse gas. If temperatures shifted cooler for a while and we had lots of snow with less evaporation, a drier atmosphere would be positively reinforcing toward getting "stuck" with cold temperatures.

If we're intentionally assisting a shift toward a lower steady state temperature in ways that could have long term effects (for example, large orbitting solar reflectors seems like a "bad gameplan" for life), who knows if there could even be a final ice age that never recovers.

Look at the historical trend and life sciences and pretty much everything points toward the Earth being better off with higher levels of CO2 and the levels of environmental propaganda and pressure for more centrally burdening government agencies seems to go beyond simple ignorance or greed.

[SteveA]

Iron "Fertalization"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Aluminum Oxide seeding of the atmosphere
http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic...-modification/

Solar output low
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8008473.stm

Antarctic ice increasing
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

A few anecdotal articles (I wonder why your home insurance rates are going up there, Lorrina?)

Increasing snow damage in Canada?
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/201...apsing-110219/

A similar article in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/p...-premiums.html

http://beach.orangecounty.com/2010/1...e-world/31656/

Why would anyone be pushing for a global agency to restrict CO2 output? It doesn't even seem ignorance or greed could be the reason.

[SteveA]

This looks like a very detailed description of many of the inconsistencies or counter evidence regarding claims of anthropogenic global warming:

http://isthereglobalwarming.com/yaho....105183030.pdf

[Graybeard]

Both carbon dioxide and oxygen are chemically reactive and combine with elements in the crust over time to become embedded in the crust/mantle.

If you heat most carbonates, you release the CO2 and similarly over time as rain and surface water "scrub" the atmosphere of CO2 and Oxygen as well, this makes water chemically active and reactions with the crust occur, which lower these densities over time.

But the lowering of the carbon embedded in the tectonics is also lowered by life ... which takes it up in plant form. More plants, greater containment of CO2, .. less in the atmosphere. All life is made of carbon. The carbon in a banana could be millions of years old, even more, the last time it was at this stage of its cycle. This cycle has continued for billions of years. And at times, much worse than now. We know its average values at any place in the cycle, and can measure it going back to the dawn of time.

Its the unnatural, or extraordinary, collection of carbon in the atmosphere that is causing the temperature to rise ... Venus went thru this stage and a runaway effect occurred ...

So the problem is not so much CO2, Carbon dioxide, but just C, Carbon ... the O2 is just Oxygen, no problem.

So to me, the answer to global warming .. not your specific point I know, is to balance the carbon cycle towards the normal amounts in any part of the Cycle. This can be done by an amazing idea ... the matching of entrepreneurial greed and tax

If you cut down a tree, the amount of carbon lost to the cycle is taxed ... this tax breeds new business. New Business's are already establishing to 'contract' your duty to replace the carbon ... It doesn't really matter that things will be more expensive .. the floor of the whole playing field is lifted, and everybody has to play by the new rules .. so new research will develop new efficiences, create more profit .. and capatialism will swing slowly but surely towards conservation efficiency ... as it always swings towards minimising any new tax ... because it is now a legitimate cost in the economic system.

But if it is not in the system ie: not taxed .. corporations will continue to pay lip service only to the guidelines.

80% of the atmosphere is Nitrogen ... Nitrogen is chemically inactive and remains in the atmosphere. Over time, natural reactions would tend to leave an atmosphere of Nitrogen only. Basically, the core isn't going to stay hot forever and like the crust or the Moon (at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth), volcanic activity should decrease over time and little of anything wouild replace lost CO2.

But the CO2 .. (actually the Carbon and the Oxygen) are never lost ? The Earth radiates heat, heat loss thru radiation ... it is also absorbing heat, thru radiation ... radiant heat is not transferred like conductive heat.

But the Elements themselves remain on earth ? It is the element Carbon, that is out of whack in the cycle.

I think the snowball model of Earth is likely what causes the periodic Ice Ages. If temperatures drop and we get more snow cover, this reflects much of the sunlight and stays cooler. A colder atmosphere would have most the water vapor condensed and so we'd have a dry atmosphere with little rain, but lots of already fallen snow. There would be little of anyway to break out of that state, though possibly wind and surface dirt could slowly wear at that.

I agree that snow reflects sunlight .... but in doing so it pays a price .. it melts. Ice Ages causes are complex and I don't think there is a simple analysis. But I agree that ice ages come and go and are consistent with the rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere. But this link is statistical ... because there are complex reasons for the build up of Carbon in the atmosphere.

If we're intentionally assisting a shift toward a lower steady state temperature in ways that could have long term effects (for example, large orbitting solar reflectors seems like a "bad gameplan" for life), who knows if there could even be a final ice age that never recovers.

Look at the historical trend and life sciences and pretty much everything points toward the Earth being better off with higher levels of CO2 and the levels of environmental propaganda and pressure for more centrally burdening government agencies seems to go beyond simple ignorance or greed.

Why do you think everything points towards the earth being better off with higher carbon emissions ?

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

But the lowering of the carbon embedded in the tectonics is also lowered by life ... which takes it up in plant form. More plants, greater containment of CO2, .. less in the atmosphere.

What retains carbon on the surface though? Plants also pull carbon to the surface from organic material.

Also, what produces oxygen?

As a sidenote, some comments indicated that photosynthesis requires at least 150ppm CO2 density in order to occur and during the last drop in CO2, it went down to around 180ppm.

All life is made of carbon. The carbon in a banana could be millions of years old, even more, the last time it was at this stage of its cycle. This cycle has continued for billions of years. And at times, much worse than now. We know its average values at any place in the cycle, and can measure it going back to the dawn of time.

Yes, and the records appear to agree with life sciences and chemistry that life flourishes with higher CO2 levels. In some greenhouses they use 1,000ppm of CO2 to stimulate plant growth.

How could giant carnivores like the T-Rex survive without lots of biomass on Earth?

Its the unnatural, or extraordinary, collection of carbon in the atmosphere that is causing the temperature to rise ... Venus went thru this stage and a runaway effect occurred ...

No, the reason Venus is hotter is because it's much closer to the Sun. Temperature shifts over time closely match solar activity and not CO2 levels.

Notice that if a strong correlation with CO2 levels was present, we should be seeing the Earth getting warmer instead of cooling.

So the problem is not so much CO2, Carbon dioxide, but just C, Carbon ... the O2 is just Oxygen, no problem.

In what manner is CO2 a problem again?

So to me, the answer to global warming .. not your specific point I know, is to balance the carbon cycle towards the normal amounts in any part of the Cycle. This can be done by an amazing idea ... the matching of entrepreneurial greed and tax

If you cut down a tree, the amount of carbon lost to the cycle is taxed ... this tax breeds new business. New Business's are already establishing to 'contract' your duty to replace the carbon ... It doesn't really matter that things will be more expensive .. the floor of the whole playing field is lifted, and everybody has to play by the new rules .. so new research will develop new efficiences, create more profit .. and capatialism will swing slowly but surely towards conservation efficiency ... as it always swings towards minimising any new tax ... because it is now a legitimate cost in the economic system.

How do we compensate people harmed by lower CO2 levels and also does the tax money go to "Bush and buddies" or does it go to compensate rather solid claims of harm to various interests regarding overly high temperatures? If we were to do that, we should also have another tax for excessive cold and snow damages in order to balance the picture.

Also, there should be a very clear traceability involved as to who's paying who and for what reason.

I do agree with you on the general idea of using rather free market mechanisms to drive it and people have different interests in the world could be affected in different ways. Areas where food is scarce and the climate colder could prefer more CO2 in the environment, whereas hotter areas of the world could prefer less and many people may feel the temperature shifts or prediction reliability aren't significant enough to warrant immediate action.

If people wanted, a few large scale funding projects could exist in which people contribute in the manner they deem most beneficial. Those who would like to lower CO2 could pay for activities like burying vegetation and producing fast growing trees for lumber and/or using landfills, instead of recycling to remove organic material and those who'd prefer seeing CO2 levels the same or higher could go on as usual.

I tend to think that government involvement should not be highly preemptive and that trying to overly generalize popular stances as portrayed by media is a mistake as well. More or less, if we're going to be using guns to enforce a global tax, there should be some evidence of harm and especially given the current cooling trends the harm could potentially be considered to be in the other direction.

Notice also the danger of having (non-specific) "climate change" be the rational for chemically seeding the environment in various ways and imposing lots of additional burdens on people. What if the "climate change" was toward another Ice Age and we continued to use the simple fact that the climate changes as an excuse to continue with that 'status quo'.

So I think you need to put some additional thoughts into the ramifications of your suggestion as well as the diverse interests involved. China recently had many people die from food scarcity and cold and other areas of the world experience damage from cold temperatures as well. Also, reducing CO2 would lower agricultural efficiency and impose additional burdens for people/consumers.

Maybe you've got some other suggestions? I'd assume for government action to enter the picture we should have some more solid evidence of damages and the causes. Did you read much of that PDF link I posted or are you very familiar with the science behind the AGW debate? If you were on a jury, would you have the ability to personally establish or understand enough of the various claimed causes and effects to warrant giving a guilty verdict?

What is the form of science (first hand observations, hypothesis testing, personal evidence or familiarity with the various environmental mechanisms involved etc.) you've applied to this?

If you're doing second-hand science and relying upon the credibility of various agencies in their claims/predictions of various environmental effects, what has been your estimate of their ability to make these predictions accurately?

Have you tried testing the hypothesis that this is (yet another) political power play instead?

[Graybeard]

What retains carbon on the surface though? Plants also pull carbon to the surface from organic material.

Also, what produces oxygen?

Plants release oxygen from CO2 and retain the carbon .. ? That's why they can be used to remove the 'greenhouse' effect.

How could giant carnivores like the T-Rex survive without lots of biomass on Earth?

I don't understand this reference ... they ate herbivores. All Life is part of the carbon cycle ?

No, the reason Venus is hotter is because it's much closer to the Sun. Temperature shifts over time closely match solar activity and not CO2 levels.

It receives more radiation from the sun which may have played a part in its greenhouse death ... but the atmosphere retains the heat and the heat creates the atmosphere ... catch22 ... this is why it is called a runaway effect.

So I think you need to put some additional thoughts into the ramifications of your suggestion as well as the diverse interests involved. China recently had many people die from food scarcity and cold and other areas of the world experience damage from cold temperatures as well. Also, reducing CO2 would lower agricultural efficiency and impose additional burdens for people/consumers.

Maybe you've got some other suggestions?

All your concerns may be valid and genuine ...but they are all second order questions ... because if we don't solve the problem, then death to most mammal species ... second order questions then become irrelevant. But as we both agree the main solution to the problem is a Carbon Tax or some other free market variant we only have to decide if the planet is warming, and is it due to CO2 man made or not ?

If you were on a jury, would you have the ability to personally establish or understand enough of the various claimed causes and effects to warrant giving a guilty verdict?

I would have to take advice ... But I think I would decide in the following way

Is there a reasonable chance that man made CO2 emissions are unnaturally affecting the planet to the detriment of most mammalian life ? Yes.

Is there a reasonable chance that natural CO2 emissions are affecting the planet to the detriment of most mammalian life ? Yes.

Can the carbon level in the atmosphere be controlled ? Yes .. but action would be needed now.

So given the greater probability, then better to act sooner than later. Carbon control is not an unnatural intervention .. it just means preventing my car from dumping 1 kilo of carbon into the atmosphere every 100 klms (60 miles) ... and preventing the unnecessary removal of trees and forests, etc, unless the full sustainable cost is paid ... for every tree you cut down ... another must be planted and sustained by the carbon tax until it is as mature as the one you cut down.

This is a first order solution. mandatory.

Whereas, if the planet is cooling then the response your proposing is to heat it .... by continuing these practices ? These practices are unsustainable ... they must inevitably lead to a runaway effect ... ie: if you continue to chop down forests, then less oxygen replacement ... then less forests ... catch 22.

I'd assume for government action to enter the picture we should have some more solid evidence of damages and the causes. Did you read much of that PDF link I posted or are you very familiar with the science behind the AGW debate? If you were on a jury, would you have the ability to personally establish or understand enough of the various claimed causes and effects to warrant giving a guilty verdict?

What is the form of science (first hand observations, hypothesis testing, personal evidence or familiarity with the various environmental mechanisms involved etc.) you've applied to this?

If you're doing second-hand science and relying upon the credibility of various agencies in their claims/predictions of various environmental effects, what has been your estimate of their ability to make these predictions accurately?

Have you tried testing the hypothesis that this is (yet another) political power play instead?

Perhaps we can leave the politics until we solve the first order problems. But my knowledge and research (first order) is probably using the same methods as yours

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

I'm reading.......

Figure if I wait long enough, the two of you will cover any point I would be likely to make anyways, and then some.

I quite love watching men at work, lol.....

This selection, just because it showed up on the screen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACREEFKn8u8

[SteveA]

Thanks, for the link, Lorrina. Yes, the bait and switch routines are tiring and make it difficult to find persistent value to build upon in life.