Natural changes in the Earth's climate
Discussion
I nearly posted this in one of the many climate change threads but thought better of it... wonder if anyone scientifically minded can set me straight on this.
As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
As a boy I remember 'learning' that the Earth had natural cycles including ice age / non ice age. This was explained to me as a natural phenomena and perfectly normal.
I was also taught that the fact that the poles were frozen was indicative of the fact that we're 'in' an ice age, whether starting or ending. Thus the fact we have slowly melting ice caps signifies that we're coming to the end of an ice age, geologically speaking.
Firstly, is this right?
Secondly, if so why is it never mentioned when anyone discusses climate change?
Simpo Two said:
There's a bit of difference between having frozen poles and being in an ice age. If this was an ice age you'd be under 100' of solid ice...
Thanks. Yes, I understand that but it still doesn't answer the question. Sure in the middle/prime period of an ice age we'd be balls deep in ice... but it has to start and end somewhere.I'm certainly not saying I'm right, just that this 'fact' has stuck with me and I want to know if it's correct. That fact being that at many points over the history of the planet the poles cycle through periods of being frozen and not.
Interesting stuff.
I'm of the opinion that humans probably are having an impact on global warming but just can't quantify it in any way.
If science suggests that it's an inevitability that all polar ice will melt entirely at some point (then come back, then go again ad infinitum) I suppose the only real argument is whether or not we're accelerating that process, and if so by how much.
Regardless I do find it pretty interesting that nobody is really mentioning it when discussing things. A bit like the measures taken to deal with the credit crisis it seems that whichever camp one is in what is really being discussed is who is going to be hit hardest by a significant change in Earth's weather patterns - us, our grandchildren, their grandchildren etc.
The bottom line seems to be:
a) The ice is melting.
b) It will have a dramatic effect on global weather patterns.
c) There is nothing we can do about it.
d) We're arguing about whether or not we're accelerating it, not whether or not we are the root cause.
I'm of the opinion that humans probably are having an impact on global warming but just can't quantify it in any way.
If science suggests that it's an inevitability that all polar ice will melt entirely at some point (then come back, then go again ad infinitum) I suppose the only real argument is whether or not we're accelerating that process, and if so by how much.
Regardless I do find it pretty interesting that nobody is really mentioning it when discussing things. A bit like the measures taken to deal with the credit crisis it seems that whichever camp one is in what is really being discussed is who is going to be hit hardest by a significant change in Earth's weather patterns - us, our grandchildren, their grandchildren etc.
The bottom line seems to be:
a) The ice is melting.
b) It will have a dramatic effect on global weather patterns.
c) There is nothing we can do about it.
d) We're arguing about whether or not we're accelerating it, not whether or not we are the root cause.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff