zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Sept 7, 2013 15:26:44 GMT
A lot of very thoughtful responses here. My feeling is that if it has started, it has started already - as reflected in various posts on other threads. May be time for a "Global Cooling Predictions" thread.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 7, 2013 19:49:48 GMT
Nope, first you need to have the ice starting to grow in the Norwegian alps, and also to grow quite a bit.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Sept 7, 2013 20:27:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 7, 2013 21:07:57 GMT
First signs would be that glaciers would be start expanding in Norway. I can't see why glaciers expanding would be the first sign .. your thinking to much NH .. if ... the Antarctic is growing and if it does cause ocean currents to change in the SH this will bring a lot of change to the NH the first sign is not the snow falling or the glaciers growing but the change in the ocean currents as these are the greater part of the weather cycle . lets say for instance the upwelling round peru and south Africa was to move by 50-100 miles towards the equator ..this would cause chaos to the southern equatorial current and to the eastern austrailian current .. weather patterns would change and things would spiral downwards .. you have to remember the SH is the colder of the 2 and would be the weak link ..
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 7, 2013 21:19:26 GMT
I can't see why glaciers expanding would be the first sign .. your thinking to much NH .. There can be no ice age without the Northern Hemisphere being included. An expansion of the glaciers is, by definition, the first sign of the ice age.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Sept 8, 2013 0:16:47 GMT
I can't see why glaciers expanding would be the first sign .. your thinking to much NH .. There can be no ice age without the Northern Hemisphere being included. An expansion of the glaciers is, by definition, the first sign of the ice age. i'm not saying it wont be included i'm saying it wont show the first signs and if is a rapid act then they will be one of the last ...
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 8, 2013 10:45:46 GMT
There can be no ice age without the Northern Hemisphere being included. An expansion of the glaciers is, by definition, the first sign of the ice age. i'm not saying it wont be included i'm saying it wont show the first signs and if is a rapid act then they will be one of the last ... You will need to be looking for an delayed onset of summer, and an early onset of winter. This will accumulate snow on the mountains, and new ice will be formed. There will be no "rapid onset" of glaciation other than what is indicated by the glaciation itsef!
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Sept 8, 2013 13:13:35 GMT
My guess (and it's just a guess) is that a 4-8C drop in a twenty year period would certainly start the process. I got this from wiki: The Younger Dryas or big freeze was an abrupt climate shift. "In the UK, coleopteran fossil evidence (from beetles) suggests that mean annual temperature dropped to approximately 5 °C (41 °F)." So you could easily see what the current mean temp is in the UK and see how much it would have to drop to get down to a mean of 5C. What apples and oranges are you talking about Glenn? I'm probably wrong about this, and willing to be educated, so don't jump down my throat, but if there was an abrupt globally average temperature drop of 5C or so, most of the drop would be focused at the mid latitudes. For the most part, the tropics will probably not be affected as much by the temp change. With this in mind, IMHO a 5C drop will kill off most of the world before the ice sheets get out of hand. A 5C drop this means that no one will be growing anything in much if not all of the best farmland in the world. There are a couple of farmer guys that hang around here, you might try asking them on the Global Crop Production thread what would happen to their crops if next year was 5C cooler. Dontgetoutmuch, Any rapid cooling would most likely not be a uniform number and I am quite sure a 5 degree drop in the mean would make the growing of crops impossible over much of the current NH. The Toba event approximately 75,000 years ago most likely triggered just such a 5C cooling which resulted in a genetic bottleneck in the human species.
|
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Sept 8, 2013 19:59:12 GMT
Numerouno, did you see my question above? I'm asking you because I am trying to look further into your reasonable advice that Norwegian glaciers are likely to be the first indicator of a coming ice age, and because you are likely to have the best knowledge of Scandinavian matters.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 8, 2013 23:29:41 GMT
According to past ice data, an Ice Age starts in Antarctica.
The 2nd sign is advancing ice sheets in the NH. They don't have to start in Norway, but that is a good answer. During the Little Ice Age, is appears that Glacier National Park area was about 60 years ahead of Norway in starting glaciation.
A cause? That is the trillion dollar question. It is obvious that the Mak cycles only work for the last few. MIS-11 skipped out of the party, and then further back to whole idea falls apart.
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 9, 2013 2:20:50 GMT
According to past ice data, an Ice Age starts in Antarctica. The 2nd sign is advancing ice sheets in the NH. They don't have to start in Norway, but that is a good answer. During the Little Ice Age, is appears that Glacier National Park area was about 60 years ahead of Norway in starting glaciation. A cause? That is the trillion dollar question. It is obvious that the Mak cycles only work for the last few. MIS-11 skipped out of the party, and then further back to whole idea falls apart. The hallmark Sigurdus style of unbased individual "science".
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 9, 2013 2:49:45 GMT
People clearly haven't got the proper idea about what a global glaciation looks like: Maximum thickness of ice during the peak of glaciation in meters in Northern Europe. The stages in the melting of ice from 22,000 year ago. The ice will return the same way. Source: learning material at www.kvarken.org/maailmanperintoaineistoa/opetusmateriaalia/teema-2.-sama-jaa-on-peittanyt-meidat-jaakausi/Grooves on the shore of Lake Höytiäinen in Finland, pointing to the origin of the ice in Norway. There are marks like this all over the area stemming from recurrent glaciations. Google satellite image of central Finland around Kuopio. The lakes and other internal waters point to the origin of ice in Norway.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 9, 2013 3:42:50 GMT
According to past ice data, an Ice Age starts in Antarctica. The 2nd sign is advancing ice sheets in the NH. They don't have to start in Norway, but that is a good answer. During the Little Ice Age, is appears that Glacier National Park area was about 60 years ahead of Norway in starting glaciation. A cause? That is the trillion dollar question. It is obvious that the Mak cycles only work for the last few. MIS-11 skipped out of the party, and then further back to whole idea falls apart. The hallmark Sigurdus style of unbased individual "science". Numerouno: once again do some reading.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 9, 2013 3:45:36 GMT
I m on a phone. Look at what signs show the end of an ice age. Antarctica
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 9, 2013 4:41:28 GMT
Wow I think I have it. Sometimes there is glaciation sometimes not. Historical record shows both (man was not a factor). One major source of energy that I know of is the sun. Seems like albedo is a factor, ice and clouds. Pretty simple although 1 mile thick ice might have the same albedo that 1 foot thick ice has. But then again maybe we do need that carbon tax to defend us all from the mile thick ice, a large group of religious leaders support this.
|
|