Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[crimsone]

I often wonder about the snity of scientists who claim such immediate and drastic changes - they're either mad, or they know something that the rest of the world seemingly doesn't (...and when it comes to the kind of things that could cause this, you'd think that the rest of the world would know!).

[kippure]

Heres some cold weather for you daniel

[Stratos Ferric]

I think the the last line of Daniel's piece says it all really. Daniel, I know you NEVER reply to anything, but I can't help wondering whether you ever read anything apart from "Ice Age Now".

[January Snowstorm]

Daniels article looks as feesible as a lot of other stuff I've read on here.

So why the begrudgery?

[The Eagle]

Daniels article looks as feesible as a lot of other stuff I've read on here.

So why the begrudgery?

Your right, everywhere will be frozen - except Cork Im open to all suggestions but I doubt a major freeze is imminent

[Snowyowl9]

Expect a few frosts then

It`s hopecasting,although nothing`s impossible so they say.

S9.

[parmenides3]

Sorry to disappoint you all, but it's drivel. There is no evidence anywhere of this even being a remote possibility.

The begrudgery is a consequence of the fact that 'Daniel' repeats the same post, with minor differences, about once a week.

The only circumstance under which rapid cooling might conceivably take place at any time in the next 100 years is if there were a very, very large volcanic eruption, something which is not predictable in any way. It could happen; I could become king. Not to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

P

[kippure]

Theres maybe a chance of a cooler winter, with colder spells that are unusual colder because of the solar minium?.

[The Eagle]

Theres maybe a chance of a cooler winter, with colder spells that are unusual colder because of the solar minium?.

Definatley Kippure. Last Winters CET I reckon increases the chance of another below average CET this time out. Definatley a chance

[crimsone]

The only circumstance under which rapid cooling might conceivably take place at any time in the next 100 years is if there were a very, very large volcanic eruption, something which is not predictable in any way. It could happen; I could become king. Not to be taken seriously, I'm afraid.

That's not entirely true. Apart from the obvious choice (meteor impact), a certain ice barrier may break and flood the north Atlantic with freshwater, which would certainly be enough to at least put a fairly sizable dent in the Atlantic Conveyor. It's just not likely to happen this year, or even in the next decade, but within a hundred years it wouldn't be impossible.

I take issue with the imminance of what that scientist apparently said as much as anything.

Edited August 28, 2006 by crimsone

[kippure]

Definatley Kippure. Last Winters CET I reckon increases the chance of another below average CET this time out. Definatley a chance

And the increase in the easterly that seems to be building up to something , 3rd time lucky maybe?

[parmenides3]

That's not entirely true. Apart from the obvious choice (meteor impact), a certain ice barrier may break and flood the north Atlantic with freshwater, which would certainly be enough to at least put a fairly sizable dent in the Atlantic Conveyor. It's just not likely to happen this year, or even in the next decade, but within a hundred years it wouldn't be impossible.

I take issue with the imminance of what that scientist apparently said as much as anything.

If there were a meteor impact sufficiently powerful to cool the atmosphere, I am not sure that any of us would be around to notice. If you are referring to the potential collapse of the WAIS, in the Antarctic, current estimates put the chance of this, without efforts to stop CO2 emissions, at 25% in 100 years, and 50% in 200. Such an event would raise sea levels and add freshwater to the oceans. This can be said to be a possibility. I do not know what the climate consequences would be. I don't know which N. hemisphere ice barrier you might be referring to, sorry.

With respect to the Atlantic Conveyor, there is quite a long post on the Global Warming strand covering this idea. Simply; there is NO evidence that this would a) stop or cause an ice age of any kind, anywhere. Even if there were changes in ocean circulation on a large enough scale in the N. Atlantic in the next 100 years, best estimates conclude, with GW continuing, a net slight warming of our latitudes, regardless.

I am surprised you are willing to accept 'according to a scientist'. Which 'scientist'? When? What evidence? Answers: none, none and none.

Once again: CET, or any other weather event, bears no relation to long term climate trends.

'Could' is a conditional statement; it is meaningless. Inferring anything from such speculation is. likewise, meaningless.

Please don't give credence to such material; look for facts, not speculations.

Best wishes,

P

[Terminal Moraine]

I protest that 2060 is too late for the start of the next 'Little Ice Age' as by then I'll be 107 and barely able to drag myself up the moor to do the daily readings.

Perhaps over the next few months Daniel and his cohorts at Ice Age Now will be able to bring the date forward to a more respectable date, say 2015.

T.M

[Stratos Ferric]

Daniels article looks as feesible as a lot of other stuff I've read on here.

So why the begrudgery?

JS,

Then you clearly don't read the same stuff on here that I do.

I for one do not begrudge Daniel posting on N-W, even though pretty much every single thing that he posts comes from Ice Age Now and portents imminent climatic doom. If IAN had any credence it wouldn't be so bad, and I can only assume that you either haven't ever looked at it, or else like him hang on to some romantic notion that by hoping for snow we can somehow blow in the warming face of science.

No, I don't begrudge Daniel one bit, any more, I guess, than he begrudges me getting rather tired of him reeling off the same old unsubstantiated drivel. He NEVER evidences any research to try and validate what he reads, apart from the occasional nonsense in IAN like "the glaciers aren't melting and it's a huge scientific cover up to maks the truth which is that there's yet another ice age coming". IAN strikes me as both a childish demand (if you add an exclamation mark) and the cry of the wolf; If IAN were anything to go by ice sheets would be along more frequently than the weekly bus to Hawes.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[Guest Viking141]

I widnt mond soh mooch if Dnaiels poosts had somm dezent spooling and grimmer!

Not a Guardian journalist by any chance Daniel?!

[parmenides3]

I widnt mond soh mooch if Dnaiels poosts had somm dezent spooling and grimmer!

Not a Guardian journalist by any chance Daniel?!

Trouble is, Vikes, that looks suspiciously like Hebridean yooorr speekin therr. :)P

[Stratos Ferric]

...

With respect to the Atlantic Conveyor, there is quite a long post on the Global Warming strand covering this idea. Simply; there is NO evidence that this would a) stop or cause an ice age of any kind, anywhere. Even if there were changes in ocean circulation on a large enough scale in the N. Atlantic in the next 100 years, best estimates conclude, with GW continuing, a net slight warming of our latitudes, regardless.

P

Not seen the latest in that thread, and whilst I'd agree that the whole polar ice melt / fresh water vs NAD debate includes many views on the potential outcome, personally I'd accept the potential for a dramatic impact on the UK. For its latitude the UK is the most anomalously warm location on earth in its hemispheric winter, and that is entirely down to the NAD. Shut down (or, at least, redirection) of the NAD has been implicated in the little ice age as one theory for the cooling at that time, and a rational case can be made, assuming the basic THC flow, for a future cut off if the poles continue to melt. For sure there would be forces acting in the other direction, not least the impact of a reduced ice cap on global albedo and net radition absorbed (a warming effect), and also on the modification of cold air masses. Hadley certainly model sudden and marked cooling in the UK if the NAD shuts down, though I suspect their model might not include compensating adjustments in the other direction.

I suspect the best that could be said is that either shut down or modification is a possibility, and that consequent cooling is also then a further possibility, but possibility squared isn't a compelling case.

[crimsone]

Ok, Off my back now please. Piggyback rides are not my speciality. I'm not offering any credence whatsoever to the article in particular, and I rather suspect that youu are mis-reading what I'm trying to say.

there is NO evidence that this would a) stop or cause an ice age of any kind, anywhere

Actually, the very motion of the NAD is at least in part the result of the difference between freshwater and saltwater. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a large enough intrusion of freshwater would hurt the atlantic conveyor to at last some degree. There is also evidence that suggests that a complete stop of the NAD could result in a significant freeze of some sort. All of these are possibility, but admittedly by no means facts. There is however little evidence to support a claim that it's a fact that it won't happen.

Where you got CET from I don't know - I certainly didn't mention it. Nor did I inferr that I had accepted anything from any scientist, nor did I use the quoted phrase "according to a scientist", not least in the context you used.

As for speculation being worthless - it is the seed of every scientific hypothesis in existance - far from meaningless. Neither are "could"s or "maybe"s meaningless. They have a lot of meaning. The post I was responding to gave it as a clear fact that nothing could cause a substantial freeze within 100 years, and that was plain wrong. It is a possibility, not a fact. Things could indeed happen in the next 100 years to start an ice age. Whether they will or not is irrelevant - I was merely pointing out that the statement made was incorrect. The exact sentence I was responding to was "The only circumstance under which rapid cooling might conceivably take place at any time in the next 100 years is if there were a very, very large volcanic eruption, ..."

Coming back to the article, I actually don't believe a word of it without hearing the evidence for myself, and my original post in this thread explains this concept quite accurately - he's either "in the know" more than anyone else in the world, or an alarmist nutter that's making sensationalist statements, with the latter being more likely on the face of it.

As for the ice barrier melting into the north atlantic, I would have thought that anybody clued up on such things would know that that particular lake I was referring to doesn't exist in such volumes anymore... It was Lake Agassiz, and is thought to have triggered an iceage. I was being somewhat sarcastic while also attempting to point out that stranger things have happened and in spite of our knowledge, we don't know it all and so there may be risks in the next hundred years that are as yet unknown - perhaps, incredibly unlikely as though it is, this Russian scientist had discovered one.

I apologise for the somewhat over-reactive feelings written into the sub-text of this post, but I'm not usually too happy when I'm being berated on the basis of words I've never said being put into my mouth.

Edited August 28, 2006 by crimsone

[Joneseye]

JS,

Then you clearly don't read the same stuff on here that I do.

I for one do not begrudge Daniel posting on N-W, even though pretty much every single thing that he posts comes from Ice Age Now and portents imminent climatic doom. If IAN had any credence it wouldn't be so bad, and I can only assume that you either haven't ever looked at it, or else like him hang on to some romantic notion that by hoping for snow we can somehow blow in the warming face of science.

No, I don't begrudge Daniel one bit, any more, I guess, than he begrudges me getting rather tired of him reeling off the same old unsubstantiated drivel. He NEVER evidences any research to try and validate what he reads, apart from the occasional nonsense in IAN like "the glaciers aren't melting and it's a huge scientific cover up to maks the truth which is that there's yet another ice age coming". IAN strikes me as both a childish demand (if you add an exclamation mark) and the cry of the wolf; If IAN were anything to go by ice sheets would be along more frequently than the weekly bus to Hawes.

Stratos Ferric - any chance of abbreviating it to something else like IAGEN as opposed to IAN. As an Ian I would rather not be associated with such drivel...

Regards

Ian

[Stratos Ferric]

...

As for the ice barrier melting into the north atlantic, I would have thought that anybody clued up on such things would know that that particular lake I was referring to doesn't exist in such volumes anymore... It was Lake Agassiz, and is thought to have triggered an iceage. I was being somewhat sarcastic while also attempting to point out that stranger things have happened and in spite of our knowledge, we don't know it all and so there may be risks in the next hundred years that are as yet unknown - perhaps, incredibly unlikely as though it is, this Russian scientist had discovered one.

I apologise for the somewhat over-reactive feelings written into the sub-text of this post, but I'm not usually too happy when I'm being berated on the basis of words I've never said being put into my mouth.

Must admit, that was a new one for me.

The Russian scientist might have discovered something, but choosing to shout about it first in IAN would be akin to the journalists who uncovered Watergate choosing to shout about it in the National Enquirer, or you offering a study on your time in the forces to the Beano. The lack of judgment regarding choice of channel hardly fills me with confidence regarding the science behind the headlines. Anyway, seeing as how I haven't had a look for a few months now, I'm off to see the original article. It's the closest to an Ice Age I'm likely to come in my life time.

Stratos Ferric - any chance of abbreviating it to something else like IAGEN as opposed to IAN. As an Ian I would rather not be associated with such drivel...

Regards

Ian

IAGEN sounds too scientific: something like IceAgeDrivel or IceAgeNonsense might be a fairer reflection.

[Joneseye]

IAGEN sounds too scientific: something like IceAgeDrivel or IceAgeNonsense might be a fairer reflection.

IceAgeDrivel

[crimsone]

LOL SF - you're commentary on the choice of media, should that scientist have discovered anything (which as I freely admit and understand is quite unlikely in a statistical sense) is right on the mark

[senior ridge]

I think it is important to see both sides of the IAN/AGW debate.

I am reminded by the views of Galileo Galilei which were considered by the Roman Catholic Church at the time of the inquisition to be heretical.

Might the IAN side be onto something? Perhaps one of the very long term side effects of GW is a cooling trend for Western Europe?

[January Snowstorm]

I stand by what I said earlier.

If daniel posts this stuff every week then that's over the top but what happens between now and 2060 is anybody's guess.

Obviously it's is 1000-1 on that we wont have an ice age by then but you never know.

There is a chance and never say never!!

We have already seen major changes in the last 5years with the warmest Summer temp ever last year followed by the coldest Winter in 10years.

This time lasy year we wondering would we ever see a CET month below the average again and yet we see several months this year including August for many parts.

So my advice is folk should lay off and let a guy dream if he wants to.

Of course it would be more of a nightmare really

Moan over I think all this drab weather is driving me potty

C'mon Sunderland you just signed a Champion today i.e a corkman!

By the way iciles Cork may not freeze over but at least we can win GAA games down here

Edited August 28, 2006 by January Snowstorm

[snowsure]

Only problem I see is that IAN has not yet been disproved in terms of "something" will happen by "a specific date."

In terms of requiring credence, credence is a belief and people have a belief in IAN so credence is not required. However proof is required and that is lacking.

"An ice age any day soon" is pretty much a legitimate claim as is "snowsure to win the lottery any day soon." Wishful thinking, potentially possible but not very likely.

My old Physics teacher used to say "If it's not happened yet, it probably won't!" in response to most questions like "Will life on earth be wiped out by a massive asteroid strike?"

It amazes me that so many people (me included) get drawn in by Daniel's posts!