Global Cooling?

mrmarklin

Well-known member
Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age


By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News




Upside-down "rivers" of warm ocean water may be one of the causes of Antarctica's ice shelves breaking up, leading to a rise in sea levels. But a new study suggests an increase in sea ice may lead to a much more devastating change in the Earth's climate — another ice age.





Using computer simulations, the research suggests that an increase in sea ice could significantly alter the circulation of the ocean, ultimately leading to a reverse greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide levels in the ocean increase and levels in the air decrease.


“One key question in the field is still what caused the Earth to periodically cycle in and out of ice ages,” University of Chicago professor and the study's co-author, Malte Jansen, said in a statement. “We are pretty confident that the carbon balance between the atmosphere and ocean must have changed, but we don’t quite know how or why."





The last major ice age ended at the end of the Pleistocene era, about 2.5 million years ago, as glaciers have periodically grown and then gotten smaller. Researchers believe that changes to the Earth's orbit may be partly responsible for some of the Earth's cooling, but additional factors have likely played a part, Jensen added.

“The most plausible explanation is that there was some change in how carbon was divided between the atmosphere and the ocean,” Jansen continued. “There’s no shortage of ideas about how this happens, but it’s not quite clear how they all fit together.”

Researchers also believe a mini-ice age may have occurred roughly 12,800 years ago. It likely stems from an asteroid impact that "rocked the Northern Hemisphere" and led to the Younger Dryas climate event.

Jansen pointed out that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica "plays a key role in ocean circulation" due to the deep waters in the region, leading it to have "outsize[d] consequences."



“What this suggests is that it’s a feedback loop,” said the study's lead author, Alice Marzocchi. “As the temperature drops, less carbon is released into the atmosphere, which triggers more cooling.”

“What surprised me is how much of this increased storage can be attributed to physical changes alone, with Antarctic sea-ice cover being the key player,” Marzocchi added, noting that future study of the ocean and the role it plays in the carbon cycle can help simulate "future environmental change.”

The research has been published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
 
Last edited:

Climber

Well-known member
I wouldn't start stocking up on sweaters, down and hand warmers quite yet.

The last ice age was brought about by a large percentage of sunlight blocked out by debris in the atmosphere from a comet strike.

This is just at the theoretical stage put out by scientists trying to make a name for themselves.
 

UDRider

FLCL?
And this is the actual abstract of research without the spin :https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0466-8

Basically they looked at one possible feedback mechanism that contributed to min ice age billions of years ago when planet was already cooling. It says nothing about it currently cooling. Just examining a feedback mechanism that happened in the past. That's it.

So no there is no cooling that article headline and OP is trying to imply.
 
Last edited:

Archimedes

Fire Watcher
1977 Time Cover - How to Survive the Coming Ice Age

2006 Time Cover - Special Report: Global Warming


Strange.
 

Climber

Well-known member
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
The newsmagazine business isn’t what it used to be. (Though, hey, it could be worse.) But the space between the red borders of TIME magazine remains some of the most valuable real estate in the news industry. You can tell by how often doctored TIME covers show up in protest crowds, movies, TV shows and on the Web. Former TIME International editor Jim Frederick even had a copy of this fake TIME from the video game Call of Duty 3 hanging up in his office — a fact that drove me insane with jealousy.

Ads, jokes and protests are one thing, though — hoax covers are something else entirely. And that’s the problem with a faked TIME cover about global warming that’s been floating around the Internet for some time. (Hat tip to the science blogger David Kirtley, who posted on this a couple of days ago.) You can see it here.
 

yumdumpster

Well-known member
Explosion in Antarctic sea ice levels may cause another ice age


By Chris Ciaccia | Fox News




Upside-down "rivers" of warm ocean water may be one of the causes of Antarctica's ice shelves breaking up, leading to a rise in sea levels. But a new study suggests an increase in sea ice may lead to a much more devastating change in the Earth's climate — another ice age.





Using computer simulations, the research suggests that an increase in sea ice could significantly alter the circulation of the ocean, ultimately leading to a reverse greenhouse effect as carbon dioxide levels in the ocean increase and levels in the air decrease.


“One key question in the field is still what caused the Earth to periodically cycle in and out of ice ages,” University of Chicago professor and the study's co-author, Malte Jansen, said in a statement. “We are pretty confident that the carbon balance between the atmosphere and ocean must have changed, but we don’t quite know how or why."





The last major ice age ended at the end of the Pleistocene era, about 2.5 million years ago, as glaciers have periodically grown and then gotten smaller. Researchers believe that changes to the Earth's orbit may be partly responsible for some of the Earth's cooling, but additional factors have likely played a part, Jensen added.

“The most plausible explanation is that there was some change in how carbon was divided between the atmosphere and the ocean,” Jansen continued. “There’s no shortage of ideas about how this happens, but it’s not quite clear how they all fit together.”

Researchers also believe a mini-ice age may have occurred roughly 12,800 years ago. It likely stems from an asteroid impact that "rocked the Northern Hemisphere" and led to the Younger Dryas climate event.

Jansen pointed out that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica "plays a key role in ocean circulation" due to the deep waters in the region, leading it to have "outsize[d] consequences."



“What this suggests is that it’s a feedback loop,” said the study's lead author, Alice Marzocchi. “As the temperature drops, less carbon is released into the atmosphere, which triggers more cooling.”

“What surprised me is how much of this increased storage can be attributed to physical changes alone, with Antarctic sea-ice cover being the key player,” Marzocchi added, noting that future study of the ocean and the role it plays in the carbon cycle can help simulate "future environmental change.”

The research has been published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

Might I direct you herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 

UDRider

FLCL?
Reminds me of emails that get forwarded to me by my elderly relatives: "You will never believe this!". Most of the time title and assertion in email doesn't even reflect underlying article, let alone article representing underlying material correctly or well.
 

Climber

Well-known member
As expected... :laughing
Lou Dobbs on Fox News: "This cycle of science… if we go back to 1970, the fear then was global cooling. "

Rush Limbaugh: "I call [global warming] a hoax… A 1975 Newsweek cover was gonna talk about the ice age coming. So they're really confused how to play it."

Sean Hannity on Fox News: "If you go back to Time Magazine, they actually were proclaiming the next ice age is coming, now it's become global warming… How do you believe the same people that were predicting just a couple decades ago that the new ice age is coming?"Source
 

byke

Well-known member
Imagine thinking a potential time magazine cover is the end all be all of science

Seriously, that's why I can't stand all the fake nooth stuff. It's like...where on earth did you come from that words on paper are held in such a holy/religious kind of regard where you instantly believe all the things and then become furious because you feel stupid for being fooled? Wait...nvm.
 

Bay Arean

Well-known member
Seriously, that's why I can't stand all the fake nooth stuff. It's like...where on earth did you come from that words on paper are held in such a holy/religious kind of regard where you instantly believe all the things and then become furious because you feel stupid for being fooled? Wait...nvm.

Notwithstanding the fake cover, I have always felt a certain smug and almost paternal attitude of Time magazine to tell us what and who is important. Editorially, they have had a page called 'conventional wisdom" which was the regurgitated talking points of New York Times or whomever presuming to be some kind of arbitrator of our culture, politics and history. At times I felt it was completely off-base, at least to my world-view or was at least, un-wise.

I really hate being dictated to in this way. I prefer an editorial stance like those taken by Economist. They will support a recommended stance but in a much more cautious and explanatory fashion than Time. Many are too young to remember Life magazine, which was like snapshots of our social, cultural and political history. In some ways, Time absorbed that dramatic aspect of Life when the latter shut down and became sort of a combo of weekly reporting plus wizened tale-teller of where we are as a culture.

Not a fan. And yet I somehow regret that we don't have a national unified sense of viewing events as they pass. When I was little and we only had three channels, our country really rode the same wave much more often about everything. And the momentous events of my early life like Missile Crisis, JFK assassination and so forth made us feel we were on that same wave more often. Time is somehow a relic of that, I think.
 
Last edited:

CoorsLight

Well-known member
Notwithstanding the fake cover, I have always felt a certain smug and almost paternal attitude of Time magazine to tell us what and who is important. Editorially, they have had a page called 'conventional wisdom" which was the regurgitated talking points of New York Times or whomever presuming to be some kind of arbitrator of our culture, politics and history. At times I felt it was completely off-base, at least to my world-view or was at least, un-wise.

I really hate being dictated to in this way. I prefer an editorial stance like those taken by Economist. They will support a recommended stance but in a much more cautious and explanatory fashion than Time. Many are too young to remember Life magazine, which was like snapshots of our social, cultural and political history. In some ways, Time absorbed that dramatic aspect of Life when the latter shut down and became sort of a combo of weekly reporting plus wizened tale-teller of where we are as a culture.

Not a fan. And yet I somehow regret that we don't have a national unified sense of viewing events as they pass. When I was little and we only had three channels, our country really rode the same wave much more often about everything. And the momentous events of my early life like Missile Crisis, JFK assassination and so forth made us feel we were on that same wave more often. Time is somehow a relic of that, I think.

Well said.
 
Top