New Ice Age

[n4packers]

I'm new to the idea of a new ice age. I really haven't researched it much and am interested in your opinions. I feel I must be honest and tell you that I do not believe we are experiencing global warming and I feel the hole in the ozone layer has been blown out of proportion. I really don't know if global warming or the ozone layer has anything to do with a supposed new ice age, but I thought it might. Anyway, regardless if you agree with me or disagree with me about global warming and the ozone layer, I'd appreciate your thoughts (supported with facts please) regarding a new ice age.

 

[Tomk80]

Well, since the few things written on a new ice age are completely dependent on global warming, if is not occurring, so is the other.

As far as I can tell, nobody says there really is going to be a new ice age, only that one of the side-effects of global warming will be a cooling in some areas on the globe. A very inadequate explanation goes as follows:
The hypothesis is that a global warming and higher concentration of greenhouse gasses will cause the 'conveyor belt' to stop or reverse. This is an oceanic current which transports heat from the tropics, via Europe to the northern hemisphere. Stopping this 'conveyor belt' would stop the transportation of heat, so that Europe would actually cool down in stead of heat up, while the countries round the equator would get a warmer climate. Even more serious would be a reversal of the conveyor belt, which would cool down Europe even further. However, it would heat up America though, so I guess you guys are good.

By the way, better believe that global warming is happening, it is the consensus among all people studying it, except for a small group of people who are mostly American and mostly funded by the oil industry (which makes their conclusions a bit fishy).

 

[n4packers]

I've read evidence in "Exploring Creation through Physical Science" by Dr. Jay Wile that suggests global warming is not occurring. I've also discussed this with a friend of mine that studied meteorology. He agrees with me.

On another note...The person who led me to consider a new ice age was told by his teacher that it had something to do with earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural phenomena. Would these increase if global warming were occurring?

 

[Tomk80]

No.
What could occur more, and what we see occurring nowadays, is an increase in the number of hurricanes, an shortening of the periods of el nino and el nina and an increase in droughts. These last could increase the number of forest fires, which might have an effect on the number of aerosols in the air. These aerosols might subsequently reduce the sunlight on earth and thus cause a lowering of the temperatures. However, according to the models used, these effects would not be enough to stop global warming.

Just out of curiousity (since I'm doing some research which is sideways connected to climate change), what does your friend think about the reports of the IPCC (intergovernmental panel on climate change), recent analysis of satalite data (which concluded that mean temperature on earth have risen in the past 30 years) and the recent report by a comittee instituted by the US government which concluded that global warming is indeed occurring and caused by human influences?

 

[Vance]

As someone who lives in one of the hottest parts of the United States (summers in the 110's), I would gladly welcome a new ice age!

 

[gluadys]

Some of the effects of global warming which are already occurring.

Rise of ocean levels: several small states of the South Pacific are losing area to the ocean. There sources of fresh water are being contaminated by salt water. Some are making long range plans for total evacuation of the islands if worst comes to worst.

Bleaching of coral and destruction of coral reefs: rising water temperatures destroy living coral. Dead coral is easily destroyed. The great reef ecosystems are in a high risk situation for extinction. As are the islands, coasts and atolls that depend on reefs for protection from the full force of ocean waves.

Melting of permafrost: this is happening throughout the north, including Alaska & the Yukon. Since permafrost is the "foundation" for roads and buildings in the north, this is an extreme problem. It also plays havoc with northern animal migration patterns necessary to the livelihood of northern indigenous peoples.

Northern fish are migrating away from shorelines to deeper, cleaner, colder water. This makes it more difficult for animals such as walrus and polar bears to find food. Such animals could become extinct.

Loss of indigenous knowledge. This was something I had not thought of until a friend of mine who is a scientist connected to the circumpolar conference mentioned it. Indigenous knowledge which has served the Inuit, the Laplanders and other peoples for thousands of years is becoming useless to younger generations, because climate change is making it no longer valid.

There are lots more problems to come. Anyone who doubts that climate change will be one of the biggest global problems of the next century has got their head in the sand.

I have learned a fair bit about it as Canada's churches were strong advocates for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. I have also served on the ecumenical Ecological Justice Program Committee as a delegate from our denomination. Colleagues on the committee include the meteorlogist already mentioned and the head of the World Council of Churches' climate change working group who has been attending the inter-governmental panel discussions for over a decade.

 

[StormeTorque]

I wouldn't welcome another ice age - I live at 56 degrees north. Just a few miles north of where I live there were glaciers during the little ice age from the 15th to the 19th century - even as low as 1000m up in the mountains (max height 1344m). Although I would probably enjoy the increased snowfall for winter mountaineering, I would guess that in a few years, the 60 million population of the Uk would start to feel the pressure of living in a subarctic climate - for one thing food production would be severely curtailed.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

Hmm...aren't we overdue for an ice age. I read that in a news article during research about global warming...Maybe should look that up again.

 

[billwald]

Global goofiness. Theory is that local warming in the north causesfresh water dumping into the North Atlantic. This short circuits the Bermuda Current which then causes a localized ice age in Northern Europe and north eastern America.

 

[A4C]

All that "ice age" stuff is really only to explain away all the evidence of "a world wide flood". Dont take it too seriously or at best as seriously as you take evolution

 

[Ondoher]

All that "ice age" stuff is really only to explain away all the evidence of "a world wide flood". Dont take it too seriously or at best as seriously as you take evolution

Be specific. Which geological strata correlates to the global flood?

 

[Aduro Amnis]

I can't help but say this, Creationist are so funny as of late. Props to you though, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!"

 

[A4C]

Be specific. Which geological strata correlates to the global flood?

It is error to think of the global flood as if somebody left a tap running and there was a lot of water around.
Actually it commenced a whole new set of climatic conditions (including ice caps where there was once rain forest)
The evidence of this change is that rainbows were seen for the first time on earth.
The loss of millions of tons of top soil into low points would of course change both the survival potential of preflood flora and fauna itself causing natural upheavals.
There also would have been massive geological upheaval such as earthquakes and volcanoes of unimaginable proportions and a subsequent highering of sea levels.

To suggest that such castrophes are regular occurrences and put the name "ice age" on them is to neglect the potential for real scientific research that would provoke honest results

 

[TheUndeadFish]

It is error to think of the global flood as if somebody left a tap running and there was a lot of water around.
Actually it commenced a whole new set of climatic conditions (including ice caps where there was once rain forest)
The evidence of this change is that rainbows were seen for the first time on earth.
The loss of millions of tons of top soil into low points would of course change both the survival potential of preflood flora and fauna itself causing natural upheavals.
There also would have been massive geological upheaval such as earthquakes and volcanoes of unimaginable proportions and a subsequent highering of sea levels.

To suggest that such castrophes are regular occurrences and put the name "ice age" on them is to neglect the potential for real scientific research that would provoke honest results

You completely dodged the question. If a global flood caused such changes, there should be unavoidable evidence in the geological column. I can imagine that if such a flood occured, then we should find a large layer or set of layers showing this displaced topsoil, massive extinction of plants and animals, and all of that stuff. This should be evident all across the world. And it should look vastly different from all the layers above it, which would have been layed down by normal geologic processes.

So where is it? Avoiding the question gives your statements very little credibility. Either address it here, or (since it is somewhat offtopic) start a new thread or find one of the older threads dealing with evidence for the flood.

 

[A4C]

You completely dodged the question. If a global flood caused such changes, there should be unavoidable evidence in the geological column. I can imagine that if such a flood occured, then we should find a large layer or set of layers showing this displaced topsoil, massive extinction of plants and animals, and all of that stuff. This should be evident all across the world. And it should look vastly different from all the layers above it, which would have been layed down by normal geologic processes.

So where is it? Avoiding the question gives your statements very little credibility. Either address it here, or (since it is somewhat offtopic) start a new thread or find one of the older threads dealing with evidence for the flood.

Speaking about the flood in response to somebody suggesting "ice age" seems to me to be in order. What you are saying is that we could also prohibit you from discussing "ice age" in a flood thread - is that how you see it?
Are threads for the purpose of putting forward a theory and then not allowing some other theory to be mentioned. Well if that was the case it would have to be written in the forum rules whereby everybody would have to abide - including the evolutionist - right?

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Speaking about the flood in response to somebody suggesting "ice age" seems to me to be in order. What you are saying is that we could also prohibit you from discussing "ice age" in a flood thread - is that how you see it?
Are threads for the purpose of putting forward a theory and then not allowing some other theory to be mentioned. Well if that was the case it would have to be written in the forum rules whereby everybody would have to abide - including the evolutionist - right?

Dodge #2

First, this thread started off talking about the possibility of a future ice age due to global warming. Although somewhat related, that is still a different topic than a global flood being an alternate explanation of past ice ages. With that in mind, I simply suggested that you move the discussion of the flood to a thread specifically about the flood so that the discussion of the original topic here could proceed without distraction. Note: suggestion. Not a rule, not a demand.

Now, where ever you choose to continue this discussion, would you like to answer the question of which geological strata were caused by the flood?

 

[A4C]

Please dont insist that I describe something to you in terms of the very concepts I oppose. That would be like asking you to describe evolution using chapter and verse of the Bible. Do you notice that creationist don't do those sort of things . That fact may be a lesson to you concerning forum etiquette

 

[TheUndeadFish]

Dodge #3

Please dont insist that I describe something to you in terms of the very concepts I oppose.

You already claimed that there is evidence of a world wide flood. The question was about that evidence. How can you be opposed to describing the evidence which you already claimed exists?

Are you somehow opposed to the field of geology? If so, please state what study or field of science discovered the evidence you mentioned and describe that evidence in those terms.

 

[A4C]

TheUndeadFish
Please show me where the Bible mentions ice ages

 

[HRE]

Please show me the evidence of a global flood. The burden of proof lies upon you. You assert that the 'ice age' is simply a cover for all the evidence of a Noachian flood -- what evidence?