Climate change

[lord bunberry]

To begin with I fully support efforts to reduce carbon dioxide levels and hope that any climate disasters are prevented, but I’ve been watching a tv series about the eveloution of our planet. It seems to be every 100, 000 years or so we enter an ice age and in between we have mini ice ages. None of us will be alive to witness any of these events, but I wonder how they will be dealt with at the time. Will we start burning coal and encouraging the use of fossil fuels to try and warm the climate? Global warming will be disastrous if not curbed, but global cooling would be far worse.

[Glory Lurker]

We could be hit by an asteroid, or there could be a disease that breaks out that kills all of us. Ice ages are equally out of our control. I totally get that you're not arguing with climate change, but what nature might have in store would otherwise have in store for us will probably be academic by the end of the century.

[lord bunberry]

We could be hit by an asteroid, or there could be a disease that breaks out that kills all of us. Ice ages are equally out of our control. I totally get that you're not arguing with climate change, but what nature might have in store would otherwise have in store for us will probably be academic by the end of the century.
Yes but another ice age is something that will definitely happen. An asteroid strike is also inevitable, but preventable with technology that is already being worked on, diseases are also inevitable, but also can be stopped with vaccines. An ice age will definitely happen and I just wonder how it will be dealt with in the future. The effects of global warming could realistically be largely negated if there was a will to do so, obviously there isn’t and it will likely lead to a planet wide crisis, but there’s very little that can be done if over half the planet is covered in ice.
Im not trying to make this about the current problems we face as that’s already been well documented, I was just wondering what people thought might happen when the whole situation is flipped on it’s head in the future.

[Pretty Boy]

I believe there is a scientific theory that the next ice age, as we understand the term, may not happen because of the current impact humans are having on the planet. It's due in about 50 000 years.

This is unrelated to the OP but I always thought terms like 'climate change' and 'save the planet' were far too cuddly and have contributed to the apathy towards an issue which is approaching a point being beyond repair. Love them or loathe them the Extinction Rebellion group are calling it what it is. An extinction issue that will lead to species, including humans, dying. Indeed we already are when you look at the current patter of droughts and subsequent famine. The planet doesn't need to be saved, earth will continue to exist regardless of our actions, an altered existence perhaps but it will still be here. The same can't be said for life on it.

[lapsedhibee]

Yes but another ice age is something that will definitely happen. An asteroid strike is also inevitable, but preventable with technology that is already being worked on, diseases are also inevitable, but also can be stopped with vaccines. An ice age will definitely happen and I just wonder how it will be dealt with in the future. The effects of global warming could realistically be largely negated if there was a will to do so, obviously there isn’t and it will likely lead to a planet wide crisis, but there’s very little that can be done if over half the planet is covered in ice.
Im not trying to make this about the current problems we face as that’s already been well documented, I was just wondering what people thought might happen when the whole situation is flipped on it’s head in the future.

Airports will be closed because icy runways will be too slippy for safe landing. People will have to travel by train. Lose-lose.

[Moulin Yarns]

Airports will be closed because icy runways will be too slippy for safe landing. People will have to travel by train. WIN-WIN.

FTFY :wink:

[Moulin Yarns]

It's a few years ago now but i did a module through the OU which studied Climate Change.

An explanation of the causes of the cyclical nature of ice ages follows:


The Milankovitch cycles
The explanation for the cyclical alternation of ice and warm periods stems from Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958), who calculated the changes in Earth's orbit and the resulting insolation on Earth, thus becoming the first to describe that the cyclical changes in insolation are the result of an overlapping of a whole series of cycles: the tilt of Earth's axis fluctuates by around two degrees in a 41,000-year cycle. Moreover, Earth's axis gyrates in a cycle of 26,000 years, much like a spinning top. Finally, Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun changes in a cycle of around 100,000 years in two respects: on the one hand, it changes from a weaker elliptical (circular) form into a stronger one. On the other hand, the axis of this ellipsis turns in the plane of Earth's orbit. The spinning of Earth's axis and the elliptical rotation of the axes cause the day on which Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) to migrate through the calendar year in a cycle of around 20,000 years: currently, it is at the beginning of January; in around 10,000 years, however, it will be at the beginning of July.


Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch's theory is widely accepted. "Milankovitch's idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle," says Blatter. "However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately."




What can we do about it? not a lot unless we could alter the Earth's natural 'wobble'. I'll be knitting more jumpers. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

I believe there is a scientific theory that the next ice age, as we understand the term, may not happen because of the current impact humans are having on the planet. It's due in about 50 000 years.

This is unrelated to the OP but I always thought terms like 'climate change' and 'save the planet' were far too cuddly and have contributed to the apathy towards an issue which is approaching a point being beyond repair. Love them or loathe them the Extinction Rebellion group are calling it what it is. An extinction issue that will lead to species, including humans, dying. Indeed we already are when you look at the current patter of droughts and subsequent famine. The planet doesn't need to be saved, earth will continue to exist regardless of our actions, an altered existence perhaps but it will still be here. The same can't be said for life on it.

I found this article that supports this theory.


Throughout Earth’s history, the melting and regrowth of major ice sheets has followed the patterns of orbital variations and natural changes in greenhouse gas levels, but human activity may be changing this. Changes in land use and industrialization are becoming a dominant driver of global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Quite possibly, anthropogenic climate change could delay the onset of the next glacial cycle or perhaps even cause the ice-age cycle to altogether cease. Continued aggressive emissions with little mitigation could lead to future increases in carbon dioxide that cause the loss of major ice sheets. Even if we do not lose all of our ice cover right away, we could inhibit the natural replenishment of polar ice due to changes in Earth’s orbit and axis over long periods of time. Thus, anthropogenic climate change could shift Earth toward a greenhouse regime with little hope of recovering major ice cover.


What the loss of the ice-age cycle would mean for our civilization is open to debate. Reduced ice cover might benefit frigid regions like northern Canada and Siberia by providing temperate conditions for industry, more arable farmland and additional space for a growing population. Future generations would also not have to worry about recurring changes in ice coverage, which could potentially allow for more stable and long-lived infrastructure for such civilization.


On the other hand, these potential benefits would come at the expense of people living elsewhere. Some effects of climate change would be especially pronounced in the tropics, where shifting patterns of rainfall and desertification are already contributing to increases in emigration. The continuation of such warming could also render farmland at midlatitudes less productive, thereby placing even more demands upon newly arable polar resources. If Earth were to lose all or most of its polar ice, we would be consigned to a greenhouse future where the melted poles provide some of the planet’s best real estate. And this doesn’t even factor in all the loss of land due to sea-level rise.
The planet has been there before. All ice has melted, sea levels have been much higher, and temperatures and carbon dioxide levels have been higher. But humans weren’t alive then. Human civilization is now an integral part of Earth’s climate system. And our current trajectory, left unabated, could plummet Earth into a virtually inescapable greenhouse future the likes of which humans haven’t seen and for which we are not prepared.


But it is also within our power to steer the planet toward a more viable and resilient future through reductions in our energy consumption and investments in sustainable sources of energy. Although concern over the distant future of the ice caps is certainly not the most prominent driver of policy, our actions today may exert unprecedented influence on our climatic future.

[lapsedhibee]

FTFY :wink:
No, lose-lose. Won't get the benefit of greenhouse gas emissions, and will take much longer to get to international holiday destinations, which will substantially reduce the amount of leisure time available for knitting jumpers.

[Moulin Yarns]

No, lose-lose. Won't get the benefit of greenhouse gas emissions, and will take much longer to get to international holiday destinations, which will substantially reduce the amount of leisure time available for knitting jumpers.

It's not essential to fly to go on holiday, trains go all over Europe,and you can knit on the train, you can't on a plane. Needles are not allowed in the cabin.