Quick environmental changes,

[flashgordon]

I forgot where I read, but there was a recent article that mentions some of the true science behind "The Day after Tomorrow." In it, they mentioned that the event that started the last major ice age was reminiscent of the events in the box office movie, and that lots of local quick environmental changes do occur.

Since I saw a space exploration thread below, I thought I'd point out that the above makes for a good case of makind O'Neille colonies; either molecular nanotechnology gets here, or Zubrins "Mars Direct" is a good way of tapping the resources of space to make building space colonies in space practical.

[Hvyarms]

When scientists talk of "quick" environmental changes, as in the movie "the day after tomorrow", they nearly always are talking about over a few decades time in comparison to a few centuries.

[MR.G]

the whole concept of sucking super cold air down from the Troposphere. Think of the atmospheric pressure up there and how little there would be to cool a 6 pack of beer down here at our sea level pressures.

I read that the Mammoths frozen in mid bite etc.were probably the result of a nearby comet strike. The comet (mostly ice) would have been close to absolute zero and if it disentegrated prior to impact with the earth it would have dumped a mass of super cold air and debris across a huge section of the earth. Everything would have been flash frozen.

It makes more sense to me than a reverse hurricane and all that.

There may be a good explanation for the earth experiencing a super fast cooling. I just don't think the one put forward in the movie is valid.

What many of the ice cores show is incredibly fast weather changes COMPARED to what science always believed to be the case - years to only a few decades and not the thousands of years they thought before. Of course if the determining factor in the change was meteor strikes or super volcano eruptions then the change could and would happen in only months or even weeks.

[lotrfan55345]

Ofcourse the troposphere thing is flawed...

But the theory of quick climate change (1-2 decades) is supported by various organizations... like WHOI.

[Doomer]

Ofcourse the troposphere thing is flawed...

But the theory of quick climate change (1-2 decades) is supported by various organizations... like WHOI.
It's also supported by ice cores from Antartica and elsewhere.

[MR.G]

So in the REAL world, the question remains. What chain of events would produce the onset of a full blown ice age in a decade or so? I guess we'll have to blame this on something other than Bush as this has definately happened before.

Any theories?

[Doomer]

My best guess is a sudden shift in the major ocean currents caused by god only know what. Imagine if the gulf stream stopped streaming.........

[lotrfan55345]

I guess we'll have to blame this on something other than Bush as this has definately happened before.


STFU!!! ( just kidding)


It could be: Supervolcano eruption

Global Warming causing the ice caps to melt then disrupting the ocean currents causing a new ice age


here is a pretty interesting site about this... www.iceagenow.com

[MR.G]

Instigators of a fast onset of an ice age certainly could come from a super volcano but ice cores would show an ash layer at the start. There is no evidence of this ash layer(s). The last really massive eruption shows at 72,000 years ago. Tabo. That almost did us in but did it initiate the last ice age?

A melt-off of the polar ice caps is happening now. The disruption of the Gulf Stream due to temperature and salinity changes would be devastating to England and Northern Europe but would it initiate an onset of a full global Ice Age - especially one that comes on as fast as those ice cores have shown in the past? What are we missing?

The ice cores usually only shows huge buildups of CO2 which certainly compliments the other ingrdients of global warming which can end in global cooling. Does that work alone or in conjunction with other factors to create a cascading weather change?

What we have been unable to determine is whether ONE of those elements is enough to produce a cascading deterioration or does it take two three or more factors. Are these the actual factors or is there another factor which is hiding and waiting to jump out at us when we least expect it?

[Doomer]

Actually, that was Toba that erupted 70k years ago, not tabo. :D

[Susie]

As I've said many times before on this forum (..sorry..) we don't have the ability to accurately model climate change. This is because we don't know how various different things affect the climate and the earth's heat budget. For example, we do not yet know how to model the effect of clouds. Clouds are going to have a very big impact on heat distribution etc. and we can't incorporate them into climate models because we don't understand how the earth's climate system works. Therefore, always be highly dubious of anyone who claims that they can predict what will happen to the earth's climate when various parts of the system change or break down.

Also, unsurprisingly, I read an article - and I can't remember where (may have been my university newspaper) where a climate scientist was saying that events like those in 'The Day after tomorrow' could never happen. However... he's probably basing that on a model...!

[MR.G]

It scares the hell outta me when scientists say that "NEVER" word. It's WAY worse than any of us (uneducated peasants) saying, "I can't imagine such a thing happening..." Well that's fine. Just means you're either a dimwit or you have your head so far up the ass of "conventional" thought that, no, you can't imagine.

News for ya though. Mother Nature has a better imagination than most of us ever give her credit for. Some obscure English writer knew that 500 years ago and here we are still debating the point and scientists are still saying,"Never."

[FactsOverFiction]

Seems to be a lot of scientific debate on this matter....

Ice core samples say http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1128898.htm


FoF

[Bigsky770]

Oil chief: my fears for planet

Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

David Adam, science correspondent

Thursday June 17, 2004
The Guardian

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet".

- - -The "LINK" to the story, HERE:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4949299-103690,00.html

- - -Submitted by Joe (Bigsky770)

[Ruby Tuesday]

Statements like these are often calculated. If the boss of Shell says he fears for the planet then the general public are going to feel that he gives a toss. If the chairman cares, the company cares. Just an addition to the slogan 'You can be sure of Shell'.

The other companies are probably wishing they'd said it first.

[Hellwillmeet]

just in case you don't think the day after tommorow hurricanes on land aren't possible?

and you probably say a land based hurricane is impossible...wrong!

well I was shocked about what I have seen.Remember the day after tommorow and the massive land built hurricane??

well it started out as a supercell then something happened to it,here is the site anyway:


http://www.spc.noaa.gov/coolimg/nc_storm/

now think if it can happen in a small way,then could it be possible for a day after tommorow type superstorm??

[Bigsky770]

LINK and story. . .

http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/5208194p-5141164c.html

Record-breaking lightning ignites Interior wildfires
INTENSE: About 8,500 bolts were detected over one 24-hour period.


By DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: June 19, 2004)


Lighting struck Alaska forests and tundra almost 15,000 times over a few days this week, setting a record for the most bolts in a single day while sparking 47 new wildfires in the Tanana, Yukon and Kuskokwim river basins, the Alaska Fire Service reported.
Generated by thunderstorms roiling across the warm Interior, about 8,500 strikes were recorded in Alaska during 24 hours ending at 6 a.m. Tuesday. Another 6,200 strikes sparked across earth and sky during the 24 hours ending at 6 a.m. Wednesday. On Thursday, the number dropped off, to about 1,100.
"A few years ago, on July 18, 2002, we had (a record) 7,920 strikes," said meteorologist Sharon Alden, with the Alaska Interagency Coordination Center at Fort Wainwright near Fairbanks. "So the 14th was the most strikes that the Alaska fire detection system ever recorded in a single day."
The system, in place for more than 20 years, was tuned up in 2000. So it's not clear whether Monday's total represents a real surge in lightning or just better detection by the network, Alden said.
Still, any day averaging about six bolts per minute over 24 hours electrifies observers and weather experts.
"That's a pretty hefty number," said regional scientist Gary Hufford, with the National Weather Service.
Longtime Circle resident Dick Hutchinson said Monday night was intense with lighting flashes and thunder across the Yukon River and in the hills above the community.
"It was horrible," he said Wednesday. "Everywhere you looked, there was lightning -- black clouds and lightning everywhere. We didn't have a storm right over us, but it was all around us."
The big jolts sparked a small fire about five miles southeast of town, but Hutchinson said residents could see smoke from other fires.
On Wednesday, 65 active wildfires were reported in Alaska, with crews fighting nine of them. So far this year, 243 fires have torched more than 29,000 acres across the state.
The National Weather Service issued a red flag warning for Wednesday and Thursday because of high winds and dry conditions north of the Alaska Range. A flush of rainy weather was expected to push north across Southcentral Alaska, followed by clearer weather over much of the state.
Alden said she expected thunderstorm activity to ease as the week continued. "We're going to get warmer and drier in the Interior, probably the warmest we've seen," she said.
Temperatures could rise into the 80s in some locations, she said.
Lightning ignites about 80 percent of Alaska's wildland fires and is responsible for about 97 percent of the acreage burned, according to the weather service.
Interior conditions often conjure the right ingredients for lightning. Moist, warm air rising into colder air, with violent updrafts and downdrafts of rain drops and ice bits, can generate colossal electrical charges inside the thunderheads, explained Hufford and federal meteorologist Duane Carpenter.
Keeping track of where lighting strikes are can help firefighters figure out where to search for new wildfires. Nine sensors in Alaska, operated by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and seven in Canada can detect the strength and location of the electromagnetic bursts produced by lightning. If two or more sensors record the signal from the same bolt, the system can produce a precise location.
The static that interrupts an AM radio broadcast during a lightning storm is made by the same flash of energy picked up by the sensors, Alden said.
"Lightning is just a really big spark," she said.
During an average year, the sensors locate 26,000 cloud-to-ground strikes in Alaska, with 2,000 to 5,000 strikes during active days in June and July. Ground zero for the most intense activity is often the White Mountains north of Fairbanks.
Bolts from the sky killed 44 people in the United States in 2003. Lightning killed a teenage girl and hurt three others in Tok in 1986. A man was struck and hurt while standing on a ball field in North Pole in 1993, according to the weather service. The agency is sponsoring a lightning awareness campaign next week, with advice and statistics online.

Gotta make you wonder. . . Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

[Doomer]

Science is all about discovery. It's what we don't know that's most likely to bite us. :thumbs: