10 years too late

[Spidey]

IIRC they called it Global Warming back when they thought the main problem would be melting ice caps and thus rising sea levels. But then they realized that one of the first things to happen would be the halting of the Gulf Stream - which would plunge Europe into an ice age putting billions of people at risk of starvation.

Thus calling it Global Warming seemed inaccurate - as the most devastating problems caused would be a European ice age. "Warming causes an Ice Age?" - To reduce confusion to the layman they started referring it to as the more intuitively accurate Global Climate Change instead.
On the average temperatures are rising - but during the process heat moves around, and some places will get a lot colder first. I'm not sure why i'm bothering explaining this, everyone should already be familure with all of this by now. Right?

So there is going to be an ice age right in the middle of a polar meltdown? Can someone please explain how that is possible, let alone plausible?

[Foil]

So there is going to be an ice age right in the middle of a polar meltdown? Can someone please explain how that is possible, let alone plausible?

No "ice age", at least not worldwide. Roid was talking about how a worldwide warming trend can affect temperature variation in certain areas.

I think of it this way: Right now, the gulfstream current helps keep temperatures relatively stable (currents transfer heat very effectively); the poles stay pretty cold, the equatorial regions stay quite warm, and the temperature variations in most places follow regular patterns. I don't know much about the specifics, but it's at least very plausible that changes to those currents could have some pretty significant impacts to those patterns.

[Spidey]

Well gee…that explains it…

[Pandora]

But then they realized that one of the first things to happen would be the halting of the Gulf Stream - which would plunge Europe into an ice age putting billions of people at risk of starvation.

AFAIK, it's a possibility, but a *very* remote one. Here's a bit about the theory behind it, and about findings that suggest some sort of slowing is already taking place. However, these data are very controversial, and there are other studies that suggest that there is quite some variability in the gulf stream anyways.

Roid's main point remains, though: Earth is a complex system, if you put more energy into it, it won't have the same effects everywhere on the globe. Most places will warm (especially the arctic), others might even experience slight cooling. So \"global warming\" is what happens globally, and \"climate change\" refers to its local effects. See below how the global warming is distributed across the globe:

[Spidey]

Ok I read that page, and from what I can gather is: A “mini ice age” cannot co-exist with a “melting ice cap” therefore it has to be one or the other.

Which brings me to my next question: how can they predict climate change when Meteorologists can’t even predict the weather for more than a few hours?

When scientists can agree on the most likely scenarios, maybe then we can start to put some credence in what they say.

See, the thing is…we have to plan for the future, and we can’t do that without complete agreement as to what’s expected, because we sure as hell aint cutting down on greenhouse emissions any time soon. So what do we plan for, a mini ice age or rising oceans, or something else entirely?

[Pandora]

Which brings me to my next question: how can they predict climate change when Meteorologists can’t even predict the weather for more than a few hours?

That's easy. Weather != Climate. I cannot predict the outcome of the throw of one dice, but I can still tell you with a high amount of certainty that when I throw a dice 1000 of times that the average result will be 3,5. The same idea underlies climate measurements. if you have lots of measurements over 1000s of days and over different points of the globe all the random variations ("noise") will average out, and what remains is the true signal. That this happens can be mathematically proven. This is why people usually start talking about "climate" when the timeframe is more than 25 years or so, and this is why at these timeframes changes can be predicted much more accurately than the weather. [edit: see here for a quick overview about the reliability of climate models]

When scientists can agree on the most likely scenarios, maybe then we can start to put some credence in what they say.

Oh they *do* agree on many things. If the warming continues, you'll have droughts, floods, higher intensity storms, millions of people will be displaced, suffer famine and plagues. Ecosystems will be disrupted and millions of species will go extinct.

These are the standard scenarios. What scientists do not agree on is what happens when the $hit really hits the fan: can the gulf stream stop and lead to a new ice age, can the ice caps melt more quickly than thought and flood more quickly than thought, etc.

[Ford Prefect]

See, the thing is…we have to plan for the future, and we can’t do that without complete agreement as to what’s expected, because we sure as hell aint cutting down on greenhouse emissions any time soon. So what do we plan for, a mini ice age or rising oceans, or something else entirely?

You can't get \"complete agreement\" on things that have already happened. The chance of getting it on future events is zero. All you can really plan on right now is change. There will be millions of people looking for new homes. Will they be Americans moving inland or Mexicans looking for a place that can grow food? Who knows?
Here in B.C. the first consequence of change is the destruction of the pine forests in our interior plateau forests by the Mountain Pine Beetle. Millions and millions of acres of trees dead because a natural parasite is not being kept in check by cold winters. This is not a prediction, you can go there now and see the dead trees. Who can predict each of the things that will happen?

[Spidey]

Ok, I will concede “Complete Agreement” to at least a Consensus.

“Oh they *do* agree on many things. If the warming continues, you'll have droughts, floods, higher intensity storms, millions of people will be displaced, suffer famine and plagues. Ecosystems will be disrupted and millions of species will go extinct.”


That sounds bad, maybe you should stop posting and reduce that footprint…

[Duper]

It should also be noted that excess cloud cover is known to cool the earth.

thank you.

[Krom]

Of course it should be even further noted that water vapor does not equal cloud cover. Without water vapor you can't have clouds, but even with water vapor it is possible to not have clouds. I have heard of studies that link cloud formation to cosmic rays and the Sun's magnetic field which can in turn be linked to global climate change. It just means there are a LOT of variables in earths climate and our picture of it is not yet complete.

[roid]

and that same marine life exude a lot of CO2. Water.. water vapor is also considered a green house gas.

Water vapour is a feedback not a forcer.
google Forcing vs Feedback

Also the oceans are the "lungs of the earth". IIRC most CO2 converted into Oxygen on earth is done by algae in the oceans.
One suggested way of combating CO2 emissions is to use huge barges to spray iron out into the oceans, to feed algae (they like iron), which will in turn absorb massive quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere.

I heard a theory, i don't know how commonly accepted it is however: As part of the normal natural global ice age cycle, the oceans release a lot of their stored CO2 as they change temperature, which feeds the algae in the oceans, which then changes the oxygen concentrations of the water and the immense surge of algae dies off (along with a lot of other marine life poisoned by the changed water conditions). then this algae drifts down to the bottom of the ocean, and over time turns into hydrocarbons.
So our oil(?) reserves actually come from every ice age cycle.
IIRC this algae cycle actually links in with the ice age as well - and has a part in actually CAUSING each ice age. The 2 being intrinsicly linked.
But i can't remember it all that well, so don't quote me.

It should also be noted that excess cloud cover is known to cool the earth.

this is true, Climate scientists are still not sure exactly how it will effect Global Warming. The hope is that as feedback watervapour increases, cloud cover may increase, which may in turn reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth.
However this will also effect crops - they need sunlight.

Since no-one's sure how cloud-forcing will pan out, it remains a trump card we can all hope for.

to quote wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_forcing
"Clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in future projections of climate change by global climate models, owing to the physical complexity of cloud processes and the small scale of individual clouds relative to the size of the model computational grid."

[TIGERassault]

Ok I read that page, and from what I can gather is: A “mini ice age” cannot co-exist with a “melting ice cap” therefore it has to be one or the other.

In one part of the world, it can be snowing, while in another part at the same time, it can be baking hot. It's the same principle.

[CDN_Merlin]

Question: If the ice caps are melting, they will start moving south. Then also, if the temps are lower in the northern hemisphere, wouldn't this allow the caps to flow further south because they aren't melting as fast? This would result in an ice age no?

[Zuruck]

You know Krom, clouds act like a blanket. Hence why it's warmer in winter when it's snowing than on a clear, frigid day.

C'mon people...there is no way to \"build\" a fix...it's going to take massive restructuring of life...or just screw it all and let future generations deal with it??

[Krom]

You know Krom, clouds act like a blanket. Hence why it's warmer in winter when it's snowing than on a clear, frigid day.

It is a symptom of the same thing responsible for global cooling from increased cloud cover. It works both ways, in winter they reflect heat from surface back so it cant radiate out into space. But they also reflect heat from the sun back into space.

[Zuruck]

Ok...I'm not a meterologist so I cannot debate that one with ya Krom, although I don't think the clouds keep out excess heat. I always thought our ozone and upper atmosphere levels diffused that...but I could be wrong.

Is all this worth it? Will there ever be a time when we all agree on this?

[psionik]

For those who do not know about HAARP, allow me to introduce you.

H.A.A.R.P.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2173218531

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9335358512

[Krom]

Ok...I'm not a meterologist so I cannot debate that one with ya Krom, although I don't think the clouds keep out excess heat. I always thought our ozone and upper atmosphere levels diffused that...but I could be wrong.

Is all this worth it? Will there ever be a time when we all agree on this?

I'm not a meteorologist either, I just have a good memory and healthy curiosity.

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

[CDN_Merlin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_ ... a_collapse

ouch!

[Alter-Fox]

IIRC they called it Global Warming back when they thought the main problem would be melting ice caps and thus rising sea levels. But then they realized that one of the first things to happen would be the halting of the Gulf Stream - which would plunge Europe into an ice age putting billions of people at risk of starvation.

Thus calling it Global Warming seemed inaccurate - as the most devastating problems caused would be a European ice age. "Warming causes an Ice Age?" - To reduce confusion to the layman they started referring it to as the more intuitively accurate Global Climate Change instead.
On the average temperatures are rising - but during the process heat moves around, and some places will get a lot colder first. I'm not sure why i'm bothering explaining this, everyone should already be familure with all of this by now. Right?

So there is going to be an ice age right in the middle of a polar meltdown? Can someone please explain how that is possible, let alone plausible?

There's going to be an ice age BECAUSE of the polar meltdown. The water melting from the poles will be very cold. It will stop some important ocean currents, and as some of those currents provide some heat to the Eurasian land mass (because water retains heat much longer than land,) the stopping of those currents will cause Europe to get very cold. Because the land mass is surrounded by water, a change in temperature of the ocean would cause a change in temperature of the land.

[CDN_Merlin]

Exactly. Changing one thing effects the entire planet. If you change the gulf current, it will effect the ocean temps, the temp of the the gulf stream, weather patterns over land etc etc.

[psionik]

The butterfly effect.

[Testiculese]

Actually, AlterFox, the coldness of the water from pole caps melting won't do it, it will be the amount of water released that will dilute the oceans's salt density. This density is what supports the ocean currents. When diluted, the currents won't work properly, and the warm waters from the equator won't make it up to Europe, which will put them in a freeze.

[Spidey]

Two things here that I find a little offensive.

1. Over simplifying something…Example: Comparing Rolling dice to predicting climate change. You can’t compare something as simple with very few variables as rolling dice to something with a huge number of variables, variables that change and variables that interact.

2. Stating the obvious…Example: Doing something in one place affects something in another place. Well doh, that is the way most weather on this planet works.

The problem with responses like these are…it’s an insult to someone’s intelligence. Notice I said “a little offensive”, that’s because I have become pretty much used to it. And it does very little to prove a point.

[CDN_Merlin]

Two things here that I find a little offensive.

1. Over simplifying something…Example: Comparing Rolling dice to predicting climate change. You can’t compare something as simple with very few variables as rolling dice to something with a huge number of variables, variables that change and variables that interact.

2. Stating the obvious…Example: Doing something in one place affects something in another place. Well doh, that is the way most weather on this planet works.

The problem with responses like these are…it’s an insult to someone’s intelligence. Notice I said “a little offensive”, that’s because I have become pretty much used to it. And it does very little to prove a point.

Understandable but you need to realize not everyone has an IQ of 150.

[Pandora]

Over simplifying something…Example: Comparing Rolling dice to predicting climate change. You can’t compare something as simple with very few variables as rolling dice to something with a huge number of variables, variables that change and variables that interact.

Sorry, if you find that offensive, this was not intended. Also, the rolling dice example is not an oversimplificiation at all. Rather, it is *exactly* the mathematical/statistical principle behind temperature recordings, and why climate can be predicted much more accurately than the weather (which was the question you posed). And yes, it is a simple principle, but that does not prevent it from being used in every scientific discipline that has to deal with noisy data.

[Foil]

Pandora is exactly right.

The 'dice' example perfectly illustrates the mathematical principles about the difficulty of predicting things in the short-term (see: chaos theory and 'the butterfly effect'), and how much more stable and predictable physical systems are when looking at them from a long-term perspective.

In other words, 'more complex' doesn't always mean 'more unpredictable'. In fact, in complex systems like weather patterns, the dependencies between all the variables actually tend to stabilize the long-term results.

[Spidey]

Fine, so what is the result of global warming going to be?

[Foil]

I don't know, I'm not a climatologist.

I was simply agreeing with Pandora's answer to your earlier question:

how can they predict climate change when Meteorologists can’t even predict the weather for more than a few hours?

The point is: For short-term weather patterns, meteorologists often can't make predictions with a high degree of accuracy for more than a couple of days. However, climatologists can be fairly accurate in long-term predictions about overall climate changes.

In other words, I give more credence to the long-term climate change models than my local weatherman's "3-day forecast".

[Spidey]

I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and I’m going to say that climate may actually not be subject to prediction in any meaningful* way.

I was watching the News Hour last night, and they had a story on climate change having to do with the shifting ice plates in Antarctica, and the guy admitted that all the predictions to the speed of melting for the last 10 years or so, were \"wrong\".

And I can’t find a damn thing online regarding using that large number method in regard to climate prediction.

*That being able to help people cope with the changes.

[Pandora]

And I can’t find a damn thing online regarding using that large number method in regard to climate prediction.

Here is a description of the principle, using measurements of stars' brightnesses as an example. He concludes for climate recordings (emphasis mine):

The same thing applies to temperature measurements. Thermometers are generally only read to the nearest degree. But the monthly average temperature is the average of 30 daily estimates; the annual average is the average of 365 (or 366) daily measurements. The trend estimated at a single location with a century of daily measurements, benefits from the information contained in 36,525 daily measurements. And the global average temperature trend is based on data from several thousand different locations around the earth. The statistical power of large numbers enables us to discern, with precision, trends and changes which are far smaller than those that can be measured on a single day with a single thermometer.

[Pandora]

Fine, so what is the result of global warming going to be?

I already offered the following (which was only partially meant tongue in cheek).

If the warming continues, you'll have droughts, floods, higher intensity storms, millions of people will be displaced, suffer famine and plagues. Ecosystems will be disrupted and millions of species will go extinct.

What else are you interested in? Here are projected changes per region (according to the IPCC in 2001). You could also read the recent IPCC summary for policy makers (.pdf). They have many pages devoted to impacts. See the map below for instance for the projected temperature changes in this century per region:

[Spidey]

So all the effects are going to be BAD, am I the only one that finds that particularly suspect?

[Pandora]

Of course not, there will be positive aspects as well, especially in previously cold regions. But the net effect will be profoundly negative. Please read the Summary for Policymakers that I linked to above, if you are really interested in learning about the consequences.

[Spidey]

Thanks, but I already have the gist.

[Testiculese]

I'm going to read it, thanks.

[Zuruck]

So...when you dump trillions of tons of toxic chemicals into the air over the decades, you're surprised that it would lead to something bad?

C'mon Spidey, don't you think that's a little mulish, even for you?

[Alter-Fox]

Actually, AlterFox, the coldness of the water from pole caps melting won't do it, it will be the amount of water released that will dilute the oceans's salt density. This density is what supports the ocean currents. When diluted, the currents won't work properly, and the warm waters from the equator won't make it up to Europe, which will put them in a freeze.

That's what I meant. I forgot the specifics. I wasn't trying to oversimplify, or to give offense.

[Duper]

This density is what supports the ocean currents. When diluted, the currents won't work properly

This is where it all goes wrong. "properly" implies that something is supposed to work a certain way all the time. we know that in the past the earths climate has varied to both extremes a great deal. It's not that the currents are working properly but in a way that we have grown accustom. The caps have melted before and they have extended to mid north america... just not in recent history.

I'm not trying to minimize any impact could and do have on our environment; I'm simply trying to think on a much larger scale.

[Foil]

I understand that argument, Duper. And from what I understand, you're correct that the Earth has gone through more drastic climate changes in the past.

However, it's not as simple as \"It's changed before, so we'll just get used to it if it changes again.\" The effects of a climate change may not mean much for some people, but it could be really devastating for others.