Do you believe in Athropogenic Climate Change
Yes, yes I do
76.2% (99)
76.2% (99)
Climate Change has little or nothing to do with humans
4.6% (6)
4.6% (6)
Maybe but I'm not sure
4.6% (6)
4.6% (6)
Pies and Gravy
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
I don't think humans have as much to do with climate change as people say
11.5% (15)
11.5% (15)
I don't really care enough to have an opinion
1.5% (2)
1.5% (2)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Do you believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:
Of course we have an impact on our environment, even our so called " primitive" tribes have been aware of this for thousands of years. As for those who think " cooling the planet" will work, they should understand it is not the warming you should fear, it is what comes next. From our kept history, it is the floods, then the cold you should fear, not the warmth. Everything dies when the poles melt and cause the volcanos to erupt, the volcanos erupt and block out the sun.. then it gets very very very cold and dark. No food, just frozen Ice age. Disturbing the magma is what should be most feared, when the poles melt, it changes the shape of the earth disturbing our orbit and our magma... then it gets bad.. REAL bad.

A few clarifications.

First, the point about warming not being directly bad is a valid one. The Eocene Climate Optimum was a large-scale temperature increase, far beyond the worst-case scenario of the sane global warming folks (ie, the ones who base their opinions on data--the ones who scream "WE'RE ALL GONNA FRY!!!!" are simply wrong). The Late Cretaceous Ocean Anoxic Events also clearly show that warm worlds aren't necessarily anethima to life--during those times the world was so warm that thermohaline circulation shut down (as much as it ever does), and only very localized extinctions were the result. The sane global warming researchers argue for a 10 cm/year sea level increase and something like a 5 degree C temperature increase, which is precisely what we see in Oxygen Isotope Stage 11 (glacial and interglacial periods are defined by oxygen isotope data, since the stratigraphic data is lacking due to glaciers), at least at first. After that, there are two options: we leave the current ice age (yes, we're still in one) and return to a normal temperature and climate regime (Zachos et al., 2001, Figure 2, if you're interested), or we go through a period of large-scale cooling and glacial advance (this wouldn't be glaciers running over cities, though--we'd have plenty of time to deal with them before they got that far).

As for the rest of the post, it's simply nonsense. First, humans have never experienced a time when there wasn't ice at the poles. Our genus is younger than this ice age. So the idea that we have written records of what happened is false. The only records we have are the fossil and stratigraphic records--which means that only MY people, meaning my fellow paleontologists and stratigraphers, can claim expertise on it. And as for volcanoes erupting due to ice cap melting, we can prove that false. Hudson Bay in Canada was created via isostatic depression--basically, a huge ice sheet was centered there and weighed enough to push the continent down. When the ice sheet went away, the continent started slowly rising again (this is geology--everything's slow in human terms). Eventually--in a few hundred thousand or millions of years--Canada will have a very different shape. This offers us a case study in isostatic rebound, which is the mechanism by which volcanoes would form under this poster's model (the other option is "water gets into the mantle", which happens all the time at subduction zones). Has anyone here heard of an active, major voclanoe in Quebec? If not, we can safely dismiss this idea as nonsense.

Volcanoes ARE a serious problem--for a society reliant upon large-scale agriculture. When Yellowstone erupts, it tends to do damage on the scale of a small nuclear war. Miami, Florida gets ashfall from it. The breadbasket of North America will be covered with ash. Our cattle will die (volcanic ash is sharp shards of glass--they bend down to eat the grass, inhale the glass, and their lungs get shredded). Our airplains will fall out of the sky (jet engines can get hot enough to partially melt the ash, and then you've basically got a solid block of plastic rock in the middle of your engine). All kinds of nastyness will occur. WILL occur, not might--Yellowstone will eventually explode. What it will NOT do is cause large-scale climate change.

Reduction of incidental radiation was the cause of the K/Pg mass extinction (the phytoplankton show that). It takes something on the scale of a 10-km bolide to cause the types of climate change this poster is discussing. To cause climate change doesn't take much at all--a 1% shift in the Earth's excentricity will do it--but the type of wild swings and such that this poster is discussing requires a major catastrophy.

Also, volcanoes most emphatically DO NOT cause ice ages. Period. If you mean glacial maxima, they are caused by, as best we can tell, the Melankovitch cycles. There's no evidence--zero--for volcanoes setting them off. As for the large-scale ice ages (meaning the cycles between glacial maxima and glacial minima), those are caused primarily by ocean currents. Our current ice age started with the closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of the seaway between Antarctica, South America, and Africa (thermally isolating Antarctica). Volcanoes were involved in both processes, but they were a byproduct--and again, no human was around at that time, anywhere on Earth.

Coppernerves:

Gergar12:
It won't matter if the supposed top producers of it India, China, and America don't believe in it along with Australia. Most gases however are caused by cattle which would do the most damage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/cows-cause-pollution-than-cars

So... we boycott beef, and go for goat-based dairy products?

Would that help?

Captcha: grass up

Actually, no. The methane problem is linked to all ruminants, not just cattle. Ruminants are a class of mammals that have four separate stomach pouches and regularly regurgitate a portion of their food in order to chew on it some more. A portion of the process also includes allowing the food to ferment, hence the abundance of gases. Raise enough goats to replace the cattle, and they would collectively produce similar amounts of methane. The same holds true for sheep, yaks, deer, llamas, camels, antelope, and a few others I cannot quite recall.

Ironically enough, the old testament of the bible forbids eating nonavian land animals that are not ruminants

Heronblade:

To some degree, even that is not the right question. Before making an informed decision about what to do concerning this topic, we need to determine exactly what the impact we do have will cause in the long term. Adjusting things back to the balance we had prior to the industrial age would be ideal, and we certainly should make steps in that direction, but things will never quite be the same again, and we must find a way to compensate intelligently.

We can't.

The issue is, the ecosystem prior to the industrial age wasn't ballanced. It may have appeared to be, but human civilization--meaning from the first stone tools to now--has developed amid a mass extinction. We can debate the role humans played in it (and it is a debate, a quite serious one, among mammologists; we know we played SOME role, but what it was isn't all that clear), but the fact remains that for all of human history we've been in an ecosystem that's undergoing profound change.

If you want proof, go to the Mojave. The plants in the Mojave have extremely serious defenses--for example, some have poison tips that'll go through heavy canvas pants (trust me on this) and can stop the heart of small mammals and lizards (and make a human's day much, much worse). The reason for these defenses is that they were adaptations to address mammoths, giant sloths, horses, camels, and the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna. The Pleistocene megafauna only exists in Africa anymore--it certainly doesn't exist in California or Nevada! The ecosystem hasn't had time to respond to the loss of those monsters yet, and is in a state of flux.

There's also dental records. Studies of the Rancho La Brea carnivores, among other fossil sites, have demmonstrated that even the most pristine ecosystem humans have ever studied had a reduced percentage of predators. DRASTICALLY reduced. We can debate the causes, but the fact is, no one has ever SEEN a healthy ecosystem in terms of predator-to-prey ratios--not in the African savana, not in the Amazonian rainforest, not in the Canadian or Russian wilderness, not ANYWHERE.

There are other lines of evidence as well; suffice to say, when you examine the fossil record it becomes clear that the Holocene can be considered a mass extinction event starting towards the end of the Pleistocene.

Secondly, I see no justification for going back to the way things were. Humans are in a completely unique position here: we have the chance to construct an ecology. We're in a mass extinction; no one denies that (you can't). Peter Ward, a paleontologist with the University of Chicago (which in my world is the equivalent of the Ivy League, only better), argues that we're actually in the recovery phase. Either way, biology is, as Gould put it, contingent--you can't predict the outcome from the start. What that means in this context is, there's no "right" way for the ecosystem to recover. If we're smart about it, we can construct an ecosystem in which humans--including our cities, our farms, our transportation, etc.--are an integral part. Right now, the real problem humans have, ecologically speaking, is that we act as if we were outside ecology. If we figured out how to live WITHIN ecology, we could engineer systems which help humans and at the same time established a stable biosphere. It certainly won't be easy, and the fist step is figure out just how screwed up our understanding of ecology is (again, we've never actually studied a stable ecosystem), but it's certainly possible. The new ecological paradigm would bear as little resemblance to the previous one as the Cenozoic paradigm bore with the Mesozoic one, but it would be functional and humans would be beneficial, rather than destructive.

If Ward is to be believed, we're going to do that anyway, it's just a matter of how we get there. I'd like to get there knowing where we're going, personally. I don't like playing dice with humanity; one bottleneck for our species was quite enough.

Dinwatr:

Lil devils x:
Of course we have an impact on our environment, even our so called " primitive" tribes have been aware of this for thousands of years. As for those who think " cooling the planet" will work, they should understand it is not the warming you should fear, it is what comes next. From our kept history, it is the floods, then the cold you should fear, not the warmth. Everything dies when the poles melt and cause the volcanos to erupt, the volcanos erupt and block out the sun.. then it gets very very very cold and dark. No food, just frozen Ice age. Disturbing the magma is what should be most feared, when the poles melt, it changes the shape of the earth disturbing our orbit and our magma... then it gets bad.. REAL bad.

A few clarifications.

First, the point about warming not being directly bad is a valid one. The Eocene Climate Optimum was a large-scale temperature increase, far beyond the worst-case scenario of the sane global warming folks (ie, the ones who base their opinions on data--the ones who scream "WE'RE ALL GONNA FRY!!!!" are simply wrong). The Late Cretaceous Ocean Anoxic Events also clearly show that warm worlds aren't necessarily anethima to life--during those times the world was so warm that thermohaline circulation shut down (as much as it ever does), and only very localized extinctions were the result. The sane global warming researchers argue for a 10 cm/year sea level increase and something like a 5 degree C temperature increase, which is precisely what we see in Oxygen Isotope Stage 11 (glacial and interglacial periods are defined by oxygen isotope data, since the stratigraphic data is lacking due to glaciers), at least at first. After that, there are two options: we leave the current ice age (yes, we're still in one) and return to a normal temperature and climate regime (Zachos et al., 2001, Figure 2, if you're interested), or we go through a period of large-scale cooling and glacial advance (this wouldn't be glaciers running over cities, though--we'd have plenty of time to deal with them before they got that far).

As for the rest of the post, it's simply nonsense. First, humans have never experienced a time when there wasn't ice at the poles. Our genus is younger than this ice age. So the idea that we have written records of what happened is false. The only records we have are the fossil and stratigraphic records--which means that only MY people, meaning my fellow paleontologists and stratigraphers, can claim expertise on it. And as for volcanoes erupting due to ice cap melting, we can prove that false. Hudson Bay in Canada was created via isostatic depression--basically, a huge ice sheet was centered there and weighed enough to push the continent down. When the ice sheet went away, the continent started slowly rising again (this is geology--everything's slow in human terms). Eventually--in a few hundred thousand or millions of years--Canada will have a very different shape. This offers us a case study in isostatic rebound, which is the mechanism by which volcanoes would form under this poster's model (the other option is "water gets into the mantle", which happens all the time at subduction zones). Has anyone here heard of an active, major voclanoe in Quebec? If not, we can safely dismiss this idea as nonsense.

Volcanoes ARE a serious problem--for a society reliant upon large-scale agriculture. When Yellowstone erupts, it tends to do damage on the scale of a small nuclear war. Miami, Florida gets ashfall from it. The breadbasket of North America will be covered with ash. Our cattle will die (volcanic ash is sharp shards of glass--they bend down to eat the grass, inhale the glass, and their lungs get shredded). Our airplains will fall out of the sky (jet engines can get hot enough to partially melt the ash, and then you've basically got a solid block of plastic rock in the middle of your engine). All kinds of nastyness will occur. WILL occur, not might--Yellowstone will eventually explode. What it will NOT do is cause large-scale climate change.

Reduction of incidental radiation was the cause of the K/Pg mass extinction (the phytoplankton show that). It takes something on the scale of a 10-km bolide to cause the types of climate change this poster is discussing. To cause climate change doesn't take much at all--a 1% shift in the Earth's excentricity will do it--but the type of wild swings and such that this poster is discussing requires a major catastrophy.

Also, volcanoes most emphatically DO NOT cause ice ages. Period. If you mean glacial maxima, they are caused by, as best we can tell, the Melankovitch cycles. There's no evidence--zero--for volcanoes setting them off. As for the large-scale ice ages (meaning the cycles between glacial maxima and glacial minima), those are caused primarily by ocean currents. Our current ice age started with the closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of the seaway between Antarctica, South America, and Africa (thermally isolating Antarctica). Volcanoes were involved in both processes, but they were a byproduct--and again, no human was around at that time, anywhere on Earth.

I'm sorry but you are incorrect. According to new data, yes, Volcanos do/have/can cause an ige age.
"The study, led by the University of Colorado Boulder with co-authors at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and other organizations, suggests that an unusual, 50-year-long episode of four massive tropical volcanic eruptions triggered the Little Ice Age between 1275 and 1300 A.D"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120130131509.htm
http://www.earthtimes.org/scitech/tropical-volcanos-caused-little-ice-age-claim/1795/

Year Without a Summer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

Icelandic Volcano Caused Historic Famine In Egypt, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061121232204.htm

I also think you misunderstand. I never said humans existed as they do today when there was no ice at the poles. I did not mention written history because that is irrelevant since oral history has been kept passed down from generation to generation and is still kept in our present time the same as it has since the beginning. Also, you should realize that our species communicated long before we were as we are today. I know people have a hard time understanding that as we evolved, before our present, we still communicated with one another and remembered. Though we have grown apart from the earth in this time, it does not mean we have not kept the history from before. The idea that we suddenly started communicating and remembering once we came to our present form is what is absurd, as is the idea that no history counts prior to it being written. Written history is far more likely to be forgotten and destroyed than oral. It is only when people stop keeping the oral history that it can be completely lost. But when a paper is burned, that paper is gone forever. What many seem to forget is our ancestors were also scientists, doctors, engineers, mathematicians... I know we like to feel that we are far superior, but our reality is we are just as fallable, even moreso in many ways, most of what we build in this time would not outlast what they built back then. Our structures would be crumbled yet the Pyramids and the Mayan temples would still be standing. Our concrete would never last as long.

Lil devils x:
According to new data, yes, Volcanos do/have/can cause an ige age.

The operative word there is "can". What you are trying to say is that they WILL. That simply doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis. While volcanoes certainly have affects on global climate, they do not correlate with the transition from interglacial to glacial periods. They therefore cannot be the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Sadly, Wikipedia offers a far more in-depth analysis of the causes of ice ages than you have.

Furthermore, you're equating the Little Ice Age with a REAL ice age. Check out some acutal paleoclimetology data sometime--the LIA is an imperceptable bump in temperature when compared to REAL glacial periods. It wasn't comfortable for humans, to be sure, but it's nothing compared a real ice age. Literally nothing--the temperature variation wouldn't be large enough to be seen (ie, it'd be within the error bars) had it occurred during some of the earlier ice ages. This is the equivalent of calling a papercut a sucking chest wound.

I know they sound very similar, but this is science. Sounding similar isn't sufficient justification to equate the two. The term "Little Ice Age" is a poetical allusion to real ice ages, nothing more. Believe it or not, we scientists DO have a playful and poetical side.

I also think you misunderstand. I never said humans existed as they do today when there was no ice at the poles. I did not mention written history because that is irrelevant since oral history has been kept passed down from generation to generation and is still kept in our present time the same as it has since the beginning.

No, YOU don't understand: There was no one to witness the start of the last ice age. There were no humans PERIOD. The species Homo sapiens did not exist, so in every sense that counts humans Were. Not. Here. What homanids DID exist were entirely in Africa and therefore unaware of any changes to continental glacers. You can't have oral traditions of things no one could possibly have seen. So even if your notion that oral history somehow is a better record than written was correct (you've obviously never played the Telephone Game), and somehow oral history extends to periods prior to any evidence of symbolic reasoning, you STILL have to address the simple fact that nothing in the homanid family saw an ice age. At best, what they saw was a transition from forests to grasslands (according to the palenology data).

You tell me: How do you tell your children and your children's children about something you yourself have no knowledge of?

I know people have a hard time understanding that as we evolved, before our present, we still communicated with one another and remembered.

It's not communication that's the issue--I'm well aware of various mechanisms for communication in the Animal kingdom. It's the notion that something can be remembered even at the level of "very well" for a hundred thousand years. Particuularly since we can demonstrate other traditions, such as religious observances, languages, and the like, have clearly changed far, FAR more dramatically over the past 5k years than you are suggesting for 100,000+ years.

Dinwatr:

Lil devils x:
According to new data, yes, Volcanos do/have/can cause an ige age.

The operative word there is "can". What you are trying to say is that they WILL. That simply doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis. While volcanoes certainly have affects on global climate, they do not correlate with the transition from interglacial to glacial periods. They therefore cannot be the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Sadly, Wikipedia offers a far more in-depth analysis of the causes of ice ages than you have.

Furthermore, you're equating the Little Ice Age with a REAL ice age. Check out some acutal paleoclimetology data sometime--the LIA is an imperceptable bump in temperature when compared to REAL glacial periods. It wasn't comfortable for humans, to be sure, but it's nothing compared a real ice age. Literally nothing--the temperature variation wouldn't be large enough to be seen (ie, it'd be within the error bars) had it occurred during some of the earlier ice ages. This is the equivalent of calling a papercut a sucking chest wound.

I know they sound very similar, but this is science. Sounding similar isn't sufficient justification to equate the two. The term "Little Ice Age" is a poetical allusion to real ice ages, nothing more. Believe it or not, we scientists DO have a playful and poetical side.

I also think you misunderstand. I never said humans existed as they do today when there was no ice at the poles. I did not mention written history because that is irrelevant since oral history has been kept passed down from generation to generation and is still kept in our present time the same as it has since the beginning.

No, YOU don't understand: There was no one to witness the start of the last ice age. There were no humans PERIOD. The species Homo sapiens did not exist, so in every sense that counts humans Were. Not. Here. What homanids DID exist were entirely in Africa and therefore unaware of any changes to continental glacers. You can't have oral traditions of things no one could possibly have seen. So even if your notion that oral history somehow is a better record than written was correct (you've obviously never played the Telephone Game), and somehow oral history extends to periods prior to any evidence of symbolic reasoning, you STILL have to address the simple fact that nothing in the homanid family saw an ice age. At best, what they saw was a transition from forests to grasslands (according to the palenology data).

You tell me: How do you tell your children and your children's children about something you yourself have no knowledge of?

I know people have a hard time understanding that as we evolved, before our present, we still communicated with one another and remembered.

It's not communication that's the issue--I'm well aware of various mechanisms for communication in the Animal kingdom. It's the notion that something can be remembered even at the level of "very well" for a hundred thousand years. Particuularly since we can demonstrate other traditions, such as religious observances, languages, and the like, have clearly changed far, FAR more dramatically over the past 5k years than you are suggesting for 100,000+ years.

I am not saying that all " ice ages" are the same, yet the " little ice age" is still called " the little ice age" by scientists, and yes, it was an " out of place mini ice age" that was caused by volcanic activity. I also strongly disagree with your idea on how oral history works, it works very much like written history. Many of those who write history did not see it for themselves, they are retelling what they have learned, the same as is done in oral tradition. Now unlike the " telephone game" the way oral history is kept is taken very seriously, great care is taken to ensure that the proper information is handed down, and is told correctly. Tribe historians are chosen with great care, with much importance given to detail, they are educated in this their entire lives. They repeat the history repeatedly throughout their entire lives, unlike most historian who only later start their education. Oral history is a compilation of information kept by those who came before us, both experienced and discovered. Of course language has changed, it did not change magically overnight and then everything before was suddenly forgotten, no it changed gradually over time and history was kept with it. That is also why oral history is far more important, because it is not " redefined" to have modern meaning of the words, the origianl context is kept. The actual words are insignificant in oral history unlike written, as oral history is kept in context and the meaing retained, but often with written history the context is lost in the change of language. That is not an issue for oral history, as it also retains it's meaning as language evolves. When you pick up a book from a thousand years ago, it might prove difficult to un derstand the proper context, however, that is not an issue for oral history as the context is maintained.

How do I tell the children of history I have never myself experienced? The same as my grandfather did to me. When it is told to us, it is told as this was the history kept by our people, all of what they have learned up until now. I would start with dark spiderwoman (black hole) and go from there, the same as it was told to me. Yes, I am sure there was more information lost than able to be kept, but yes, much information does in fact remain, even a 100,000 years due to it's importance.

FYI- I am not just saying they "CAN" I said they " do" ,"have" and WILL. When discussing the fact that they already have caused mini ice ages, that is not a matter of " can" that is a matter of " already did, and will do so again."

Lil devils x:

I am not saying that all " ice ages" are the same, yet the " little ice age" is still called " the little ice age" by scientists, and yes, it was an " out of place mini ice age" that was caused by volcanic activity.

Just because it's called the "Little Ice Age" doesn't mean it actually was an ice age. Check the Wikipedia page:

Wikipedia:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.

So, not an ice age. Hominids have never seen the start of an ice age, so we cannot possibly have an oral history of any ice ages starting.

FYI- I am not just saying they "CAN" I said they " do." have" and WILL. When discussing the fact that they already have caused mini ice ages, that is not a matter of " can" that is a matterof " already did, and will do so again."

The LIA is not a "mini ice age". It was a period of cooling, which is not the same thing at all. If you want to demonstrate that volcanoes cause ice ages you're going to need a better example.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

I am not saying that all " ice ages" are the same, yet the " little ice age" is still called " the little ice age" by scientists, and yes, it was an " out of place mini ice age" that was caused by volcanic activity.

Just because it's called the "Little Ice Age" doesn't mean it actually was an ice age. Check the Wikipedia page:

Wikipedia:
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.

So, not an ice age. Hominids have never seen the start of an ice age, so we cannot possibly have an oral history of any ice ages starting.

FYI- I am not just saying they "CAN" I said they " do." have" and WILL. When discussing the fact that they already have caused mini ice ages, that is not a matter of " can" that is a matterof " already did, and will do so again."

The LIA is not a "mini ice age". It was a period of cooling, which is not the same thing at all. If you want to demonstrate that volcanoes cause ice ages you're going to need a better example.

Considering scientists and historians have called it the mini ice age since 1939, and it is now 2013, I would assume it is safe to do so regardless if you are not discussing the " big ice ages". Picking at words that are commonly used since 1939 by both science and history is not changing the fact that this is what we are discussing here, and that yes, Volcanos do cause them.

I am not saying that all " ice ages" are the same, yet the " little ice age" is still called " the little ice age" by scientists, and yes, it was an " out of place mini ice age" that was caused by volcanic activity

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age in any sense of the word. It was a temperature variation that would be imperceptable had it not included historical records.

I also strongly disagree with your idea on how oral history works,

I don't care. I've given examples of errors in traditions both oral and written. Your opinion is irrelevant.

And you are mistaken about the types of history. It's not oral vs. written; there's also archaeology.

[quote]How do I tell the children of history I have never myself experienced? The same as my grandfather did to me. [/quoote]

You've intentionally misunderstood my question. I'm not asking you how to tell your children about something someone saw; I'm asking you how to tell someone about something NO ONE saw.

You're obviously not willing to discuss this in a serious, scientific manner. I'll leave you to your delusions.

Lil devils x:

Considering scientists and historians have called it the mini ice age since 1939, and it is now 2013, I would assume it is safe to do so regardless if you are not discussing the " big ice ages".

Scientists do not use the term "Little Ice Age" thinking it refers to an actual ice age, because they learn what the terms mean before they use them. The Little Ice Age was not an actual ice age. You are wrong about that.

Edit: Just so we're clear, it's not an issue of "big ice ages" versus a "mini ice age". The Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all, big or mini. The name is purely poetic. Insisting that the Little Ice Age was an actual ice age because of the name is just as wrong as insisting that komodo dragons are actual dragons because of their name.

Picking at words that are commonly used since 1939 by both science and history is not changing the fact that this is what we are iscussing here, and that yes, Volcanos do cause them.

If by "them" you mean "very mild periods of cooling that are in no way related to actual ice ages," then yes, volcanoes can cause those. However if by "them" you mean "actual ice ages" then no, there's no evidence that they are caused by volcanoes, and hominids have never seen them start.

Dinwatr:

I am not saying that all " ice ages" are the same, yet the " little ice age" is still called " the little ice age" by scientists, and yes, it was an " out of place mini ice age" that was caused by volcanic activity

The Little Ice Age was not an ice age in any sense of the word. It was a temperature variation that would be imperceptable had it not included historical records.

I also strongly disagree with your idea on how oral history works,

I don't care. I've given examples of errors in traditions both oral and written. Your opinion is irrelevant.

And you are mistaken about the types of history. It's not oral vs. written; there's also archaeology.

[quote]How do I tell the children of history I have never myself experienced? The same as my grandfather did to me. [/quoote]

You've intentionally misunderstood my question. I'm not asking you how to tell your children about something someone saw; I'm asking you how to tell someone about something NO ONE saw.

You're obviously not willing to discuss this in a serious, scientific manner. I'll leave you to your delusions.

We do not see black holes, but yet we still tell of them, no one has ever experienced a black hole, yet we all know about them. My opinion is no more irrelevant than yours. Just if you are going to put out misinformation like Volcanic activity is only a by product of climate change and not also the cause of " mini ice ages" I will correct that misinformation, and provide the correct information which is: Ice caps melting causes changes in the earths rotation which results in disturbing the magma which in turn causes increased volcanic activity which in turn causes mini ice ages, which in turn causes MASS DEATH AND STARVATION. As I stated in the post you " attempted" to correct. It is a chain of events that not only was kept by oral history, is now also being proven true according to the new information they have accumulated on the subject in our present time.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

Considering scientists and historians have called it the mini ice age since 1939, and it is now 2013, I would assume it is safe to do so regardless if you are not discussing the " big ice ages".

Scientists do not use the term "Little Ice Age" thinking it refers to an actual ice age, because they learn what the terms mean before they use them. The Little Ice Age was not an actual ice age. You are wrong about that.

Picking at words that are commonly used since 1939 by both science and history is not changing the fact that this is what we are iscussing here, and that yes, Volcanos do cause them.

If by "them" you mean "very mild periods of cooling that are in no way related to actual ice ages," then yes, volcanoes can cause those. However if by "them" you mean "actual ice ages" then no, there's no evidence that they are caused by volcanoes, and hominids have never seen them start.

The examples I have given do not refer to the Big ice age, they were the " mini ice ages". I correctly referred to them as such. Considering this is a discussion about how man can cause climate changes on earth, I assumed that is exactly what we are discussing here. I provided links above in this thread to 1) global warming causes increased volcanic activity, 2) melting of the glaciers causes a change in the earths rotation 3) changing the earths rotation causes a disturbance in the magma 3) disturbing the rotation causes increased volcanic activity 4) increased volcanic activity causes mini ice ages.

Lil devils x:

The examples I have given do not refer to the Big ice age, they were the " mini ice ages". I correctly referred to them as such. Considering this is a discussion about how man can cause climate changes on earth, I assumed that is exactly what we are discussing here.

See my edit above. This isn't an issue of size--the Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all, mini or otherwise. "ice age" is a term with a specific definition, and humans have never experienced the beginning of any period which qualifies. The fact that you're arguing against a geologist (Dinwatr) about the use of a geology term should be a sign that you need to re-evaluate your position.

Edit: Now, if you want to say that volcanoes contribute to a small amount of global cooling you can do that (and I think everyone's already agreed on that point). But if you say they cause ice ages, of any size, then you are wrong. The term has a specific meaning, and that meaning makes your claims incorrect.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

The examples I have given do not refer to the Big ice age, they were the " mini ice ages". I correctly referred to them as such. Considering this is a discussion about how man can cause climate changes on earth, I assumed that is exactly what we are discussing here.

See my edit above. This isn't an issue of size--the Little Ice Age was not an ice age at all, mini or otherwise. "ice age" is a term with a specific definition, and humans have never experienced the beginning of any period which qualifies. The fact that you're arguing against a geologist (Dinwatr) about the use of a geology term should be a sign that you need to re-evaluate your position.

When I am referring to "mini ice age", as Historians and scientists have both done since 1939, I do not see a reason to change my position, because I was not the one in error. It was in error to claim that volcanos are only a byproduct of climate change, that is the position that he should adjust, because that was blatantly incorrect. Regardless of Dinwatr being a geologist or me being a Pediatrician, we can have a discussion on the information we are discussing here and not lose sight of the point being made. Volcanos are not just a by product of climate change as Dinwatr stated, rather they also cause mini ice ages, as I stated. That is the point that should be addressed here, as it is the one that we should be most concerned about considering the ramifications of what happens when we have one.

Lil devils x:

When I am referring to "mini ice age", as Historians and scientists have both done since 1939, I do not see a reason to change my position, because I was not the one in error.

Very well. Because it's called a "mini ice age" that means it's an actual ice age. Also, komodo dragons are actual dragons, the sun actually does rise and set rather than being stationary while the earth rotates, the koala bear is actually a bear, the Pacific Ocean is actually a pond, and flavors of quarks are actually identified by their taste. Seems legit.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

When I am referring to "mini ice age", as Historians and scientists have both done since 1939, I do not see a reason to change my position, because I was not the one in error.

Very well. Because it's called a "mini ice age" that means it's an actual ice age. Also, komodo dragons are actual dragons, the sun actually does rise and set rather than being stationary while the earth rotates, the koala bear is actually a bear, the Pacific Ocean is actually a pond, and flavors of quarks are actually identified by their taste. Seems legit.

LOL! Now that is silly, but entertaining none the less. Though what happens when we have a volcanic induced "little ice age" is not entertaining in the least. Mass famine, people, plants, animals die in mass freezing and starvation. The sun is blocked out darkness and fog that never seem to end. No I wouldn't consider that a " little problem" no matter how a geologist might think the "little ice age" insignificant.

Lil devils x:

LOL! Now that is silly, but entertaining none the less.

Yes, it is silly. And it is exactly the argument you've been making. Calling something "The Little Ice Age" does not affect whether or not it is actually an ice age anymore than calling something a "komodo dragon" affects whether or not it is a dragon. Same with koala bears--having "bear" in the name doesn't change the fact that they do not fit the definition of "bear".

Though what happens when we have a volcanic induced "little ice age" is not entertaining in the least. Mass famine, people, plants, animals die in mass freezing and starving to death. The sun is blocked out darkness and fog that never seem to end. No I wouldn;t consider that a " little problem" no matter how a geologist might think the " mini ice age" insignificant.

Nobody is saying that the LIA was a "little problem" for humans, or that it's effect on humans was "insignificant". You're ignoring the context of people's statements (which, FYI, raises doubts about the accuracy with which you recall oral histories).

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

LOL! Now that is silly, but entertaining none the less.

Yes, it is silly. And it is exactly the argument you've been making. Calling something "The Little Ice Age" does not affect whether or not it is actually an ice age anymore than calling something a "komodo dragon" affects whether or not it is a dragon. Same with koala bears--having "bear" in the name doesn't change the fact that they do not fit the definition of "bear".

Though what happens when we have a volcanic induced "little ice age" is not entertaining in the least. Mass famine, people, plants, animals die in mass freezing and starving to death. The sun is blocked out darkness and fog that never seem to end. No I wouldn;t consider that a " little problem" no matter how a geologist might think the " mini ice age" insignificant.

Nobody is saying that the LIA was a "little problem" for humans, or that it's effect on humans was "insignificant". You're ignoring the context of people's statements (which, FYI, raises doubts about the accuracy with which you recall oral histories).

I admittedly, am NOT in any way shape or form a tribe historian. I only do my best not to muck up what I was taught, and also try to remember what I consider the most important parts.

As for the debate with Dinwatr, I feel he is in error. In consideration to Yellowstone not causing widespread climate change, because an eruption of that scale has a high probability of causing a "little ice age" as well. Dismissing " little ice ages" as not being widespread climate change is blatantly false as has been proven by how much smaller erruptions have impacted global climates. Erruptions in iceland cause famine in egypt, tropical erruptions cause the mississippi to freeze solid at Neworleans.. This is what has been shown and I do disagree strongly with the idea that is not to be considered " widespread climate change". Yes, that is at the core of this debate, and I feel that is in error. If you reread his first post in ths discussion, you would see that is exactly what he was arguing, I respectfully disagree.

As for the debate with Dinwatr, I feel he is in error.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The simple fact is, while volcanoes MIGHT have helped bring on a mild cooling spell, they simply aren't involved in causing actual ice ages.

Dismissing " little ice ages" as not being widespread climate change is blatantly false

Hem...what's that funny taste in my mouth....? Oh, right! It's words you're putting there!

I never said the Little Ice Age wasn't widespread--I said that the temperature drop called the Little Ice Age was within the error bars for any other ice age and therefore THERMALLY irrelevant in discussions of ice ages. There were, however, complexities of the Little Ice Age you haven't even begun to touch upon (thermal dips of that kind ironically cause thermal increases in some areas, for example--it has to do with how heat is captured by the planet).

As for the other eruptions, you're committing a basic fallacy in analyzing variable sequences: you're assuming that all variations are significant. Simply put, they're not. A one-year drop of a few percent of a degree simply isn't significant in terms of glacial/interglacial cycles (the REAL definition of "ice ages" in paleoclimetology, whatever your objections).

in iceland cause famine in egypt, tropical erruptions cause the mississippi to freeze solid at Neworleans..

It's not that hard to spell New Orleans correctly. It's two words. Second, you appear blissfully unaware of the self-evident fact that local weather is not climate.

If you reread his first post in ths discussion, you would see that is exactly what he was arguing,

I suggest you do the same. I'm arguing paleoclimatology data, using the standard terms and theories in the field. You're arguing nonsense, and making crap up to suite your arguments.

Dinwatr:

As for the debate with Dinwatr, I feel he is in error.

Your feelings are irrelevant. The simple fact is, while volcanoes MIGHT have helped bring on a mild cooling spell, they simply aren't involved in causing actual ice ages.

Dismissing " little ice ages" as not being widespread climate change is blatantly false

Hem...what's that funny taste in my mouth....? Oh, right! It's words you're putting there!

I never said the Little Ice Age wasn't widespread--I said that the temperature drop called the Little Ice Age was within the error bars for any other ice age and therefore THERMALLY irrelevant in discussions of ice ages. There were, however, complexities of the Little Ice Age you haven't even begun to touch upon (thermal dips of that kind ironically cause thermal increases in some areas, for example--it has to do with how heat is captured by the planet).

As for the other eruptions, you're committing a basic fallacy in analyzing variable sequences: you're assuming that all variations are significant. Simply put, they're not. A one-year drop of a few percent of a degree simply isn't significant in terms of glacial/interglacial cycles (the REAL definition of "ice ages" in paleoclimetology, whatever your objections).

in iceland cause famine in egypt, tropical erruptions cause the mississippi to freeze solid at Neworleans..

It's not that hard to spell New Orleans correctly. It's two words. Second, you appear blissfully unaware of the self-evident fact that local weather is not climate.

If you reread his first post in ths discussion, you would see that is exactly what he was arguing,

I suggest you do the same. I'm arguing paleoclimatology data, using the standard terms and theories in the field. You're arguing nonsense, and making crap up to suite your arguments.

That funny taste in your mouth didn't come from me, it was from your words: "WILL occur, not might--Yellowstone will eventually explode. What it will NOT do is cause large-scale climate change." Now a little ice age being caused by Yellowstone is what I would consider " widespread climate change".

I am not making up stuff to suit my argument, I have provided ample links in this thread where you can read it for yourself. If you do not think that the yellowstone erruption would cause widespread climate change, the new data on large erruptions finds you in error.

Lil devils x:

That funny taste in your mouth didn't come from me, it was from your words: "WILL occur, not might--Yellowstone will eventually explode. What it will NOT do is cause large-scale climate change." Now a little ice age being caused by Yellowstone is what I would consider " widespread climate change".

You've yet to demonstrate that it would cause a little ice age (remember, THE Little Ice Age was not actually a little ice age, in the same way that a komodo dragon is not actually a dragon and a koala bear is not actually a bear).

It would really help this conversation if you would learn what the terms mean, and then use them correctly. Otherwise we can't be certain what you mean when you say things like "a little ice age", because we don't know if you're talking about a little ice age, or an event similar to The Little Ice Age, and the two are entirely different things.

I am heartened to see that the discussion in this thread is about the details of climate change rather than the existence of it.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

That funny taste in your mouth didn't come from me, it was from your words: "WILL occur, not might--Yellowstone will eventually explode. What it will NOT do is cause large-scale climate change." Now a little ice age being caused by Yellowstone is what I would consider " widespread climate change".

You've yet to demonstrate that it would cause a little ice age (remember, THE Little Ice Age was not actually a little ice age, in the same way that a komodo dragon is not actually a dragon and a koala bear is not actually a bear).

It would really help this conversation if you would learn what the terms mean, and then use them correctly. Otherwise we can't be certain what you mean when you say things like "a little ice age", because we don't know if you're talking about a little ice age, or an event similar to The Little Ice Age, and the two are entirely different things.

Considering English is my 3rd language, I think I do well in communicating my point. I am referring to " the little ice age" as such, because that is what EVERYONE refers to it as. As for " terms" if I attempted to argue everyone who came into the clinic who said they had a cold and expected them to use the proper terms, I would never be able to see all my patients in one day. you know as well as I do what I am referring to when I say " the little ice age" as MORE people, rather than less actually understand that to be far more serious than say something like " global cooling". When people look up little ice age" this is what they will find on the subject: http://www.google.com/search?q=little+ice+age&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=

Making it much easier to convey what you are discussing.
When they google " global cooling":
http://www.google.com/search?q=little+ice+age&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&pq=little%20ice%20age&cp=10&gs_id=14&xhr=t&q=global+cooling&es_nrs=true&pf=p&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-Address&sclient=psy-ab&oq=global+coo&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.eWU&fp=7b8927a0f20a0dea&biw=1280&bih=878
It doesn't exactly send them to what they need to read to gain a better understanding of the material being discussed.

I am sure my English is better to understand than your Hopi. Give it a try..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aikgtskX0

Lil devils x:

Considering English is my 3rd language, I think I do well in communicating my point.

This isn't an issue of English not being your first language--that would certainly excuse you misusing terms to begin with (as would simple ignorance), but it does not excuse continuing to misuse terms after the correct definitions have been given to you.

I am referring to " the little ice age" as such, because that is what EVERYONE refers to it as.

Nobody is taking issue with you calling the Little Ice Age by its name. The issue is that you're treating the LIA as though it were an actual ice age (it wasn't). This leads to an additional issue when you say things like "a little ice age"--since you're not referring to the period known as the Little Ice Age it's unclear if you actually mean "a little ice age" or if you mean "something similar to the Little Ice Age."

As for " terms" if I attempted to argue everyone who came into the clinic who said they had a cold and expected them to use the proper terms, I would never be able to see all my patients in one day.

Irrelevant. In this discussion your refusal to use terms correctly is causing problems. Additionally, your refusal to even acknowledge that you are using the terms incorrectly seems incredibly dishonest.

you know as well as I do what I am referring to when I say " the little ice age"

Yes, I know what you mean by "the little ice age". What I don't know is what you mean by "a little ice age". One is a name for a specific period in history. The other is a generic term, but for what I can't be certain. I explained this in my last post--please read my words before responding.

I am sure my English is better to understand than your Hopi. Give it a try..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aikgtskX0

Yes, your English is absolutely better than my Hopi. My inability to speak Hopi is also completely irrelevant.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

Considering English is my 3rd language, I think I do well in communicating my point.

This isn't an issue of English not being your first language--that would certainly excuse you misusing terms to begin with (as would simple ignorance), but it does not excuse continuing to misuse terms after the correct definitions have been given to you.

I am referring to " the little ice age" as such, because that is what EVERYONE refers to it as.

Nobody is taking issue with you calling the Little Ice Age by it's name. The issue is that you're treating the LIA as though it were an actual ice age (it wasn't). This leads to an additional issue when you say things like "a little ice age"--since you're not referring to the period known as the Little Ice Age it's unclear if you actually mean "a little ice age" or if you mean "something similar to the Little Ice Age."

As for " terms" if I attempted to argue everyone who came into the clinic who said they had a cold and expected them to use the proper terms, I would never be able to see all my patients in one day.

Irrelevant. In this discussion your refusal to use terms correctly is causing problems. Additionally, your refusal to even acknowledge that you are using the terms incorrectly seems incredibly dishonest.

you know as well as I do what I am referring to when I say " the little ice age"

Yes, I know what you mean by "the little ice age". What I don't know is what you mean by "a little ice age". One is a name for a specific period in history. The other is a generic term, but for what I can't be certain. I explained this in my last post--please read my words before responding.

I am sure my English is better to understand than your Hopi. Give it a try..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2aikgtskX0

Yes, your English is absolutely better than my Hopi. It's also completely irrelevant.

It is completely relevant to this discussion, as the purpose of language is to expand communication and understanding, and the fact is more people understand what the " little ice age is" by name than understand what " global cooling" entails and how people are directly affected by it. When you look up " little ice age" it gives great detail of what people experienced, which serves the purpose to most accurately convey the impact of this and how it will affect their own lives. Attempting to be grammar police and nitpicking terms does not serve the purpose to better expand communication and understanding, rather it is to belittle and veer from course the discussion. It hinders understanding and communication moreso than helps it.

My purpose in this discussion was to make people fully understand what comes after the global warming, The impacts of the " little Ice age" in particular how it will affect their own lives, and how the volcanic erruptions will be caused by this. People in general, do not need to know the " correct terms" they need to understand that global cooling isn't just " well we made the earth too hot, maybe it will b e great to cool it down a bit!" as what often happens when people hear these terms. Most people are in fear of " too much heat", droughts, ect.. when they should really fear " too much cold" as that is far worse and on the other end of this. The best way to convey that to the most people so they fully understand the impact of this is by having them learn about " the little ice age" the impact on lives and the cause of it.

Your purpose in this thread was to attack terms, that is a very different goal than attempting to help the most people better understand. When better information is gained by using "little Ice age" that would be the best term to use.

" a little ice age" = a global cooling event with the similar impact of "the little Ice age". For example: the impact of the Mount Tambora eruption causing the "year without a summer" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
For the purpose of more people understanding the direct impact this will have on their lives, yes, the Little ice age is an excellent reference. " global cooling" does not adequately convey the same messege.

As for your ability to speak hopi vs my english, it is all a matter of conveying the messge you intend. I do believe my messege of " the little ice age" meaning freezing, darkness, fog, starvation, disease.. was properly conveyed, and would not have been understood as meaning such if I had just used " global cooling" people actually think that will correct global warming for some strange reason, and see it as a great thing...

It really needs to be made understood how serious and devestaing this truly is.

Lil devils x:

Snip

So you still can't be bothered to use terms correctly, or even admit that you made a mistake. We're done here.

BrassButtons:

Lil devils x:

Snip

So you still can't be bothered to use terms correctly, or even admit that you made a mistake. We're done here.

I am not seeing there is a mistake to admit. I have adequately explained why " the little Ice age" is a more accurate term for my purpose. I have supplied the links to what happens when you search the terms, and I have addressed this issue accordingly. I do admit my writing is atrocious, but that is also a long standing joke in my field:
image
Believe me, it is a good thing I am not writing this instead of typing. :)

I will try this one more time. After this, if you still don't think you've made any errors, I'm done talking to you.

Lil devils x:

I am not seeing there is a mistake to admit.

1. The Little Ice Age was not an ice age.
2. Hominids have never witnessed the beginning of an ice age.
3. Volcanoes have never caused an ice age.
4. The effects of the LIA on humans have not been dismissed by anyone.
5. Yellowstone erupting will not cause a little ice age.

You were wrong when you said those things. Regardless of what you may have meant, the things you said, and have been saying, are wrong.

I have adequately explained why " the little Ice age" is a more accurate term for my purpose.

Yes, you've explained why you don't think you need to use the term correctly. Guess what? That doesn't actually make your usage of the term less wrong.

I do admit my writing is atrocious

Then maybe you should consider that you're making errors which are holding up communication.

BrassButtons:
I will try this one more time. After this, if you still don't think you've made any errors, I'm done talking to you.

Lil devils x:

I am not seeing there is a mistake to admit.

1. The Little Ice Age was not an ice age.
2. Hominids have never witnessed the beginning of an ice age.
3. Volcanoes have never caused an ice age.
4. The effects of the LIA on humans have not been dismissed by anyone.
5. Yellowstone erupting will not cause a little ice age.

You were wrong when you said those things. Regardless of what you may have meant, the things you said, and have been saying, are wrong.

I have adequately explained why " the little Ice age" is a more accurate term for my purpose.

Yes, you've explained why you don't think you need to use the term correctly. Guess what? That doesn't actually make your usage of the term less wrong.

I do admit my writing is atrocious

Then maybe you should consider that you're making errors which are holding up communication.

1)The little Ice age was not a " glacial age".
2)What were we before we were hominids?
3) The cause of ice ages is still unknown, and supervolcanos have not been ruled out.
"Causes of ice ages:

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial-interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[39] ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

Some of these factors influence each other. For example, changes in Earth's atmospheric composition (especially the concentrations of greenhouse gases) may alter the climate, while climate change itself can change the atmospheric composition (for example by changing the rate at which weathering removes CO2).

Maureen Raymo, William Ruddiman and others propose that the Tibetan and Colorado Plateaus are immense CO2 "scrubbers" with a capacity to remove enough CO2 from the global atmosphere to be a significant causal factor of the 40 million year Cenozoic Cooling trend. They further claim that approximately half of their uplift (and CO2 "scrubbing" capacity) occurred in the past 10 million years.[40][41]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
4) I would hope not.
5)That is not what the new data states. From both computer simulation models and the new data on the subject, it does show that Yellowstone will most likely cause a " little ice age."
"Climate change
The most wide reaching effect of a Yellowstone eruption would be much colder weather.

Volcanoes can inject sulphur gas into the upper atmosphere, forming sulphuric acid aerosols that rapidly spread around the globe. Scientists believe sulphuric aerosols are the main cause of climatic cooling after an eruption."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/supervolcano/article2.shtml
I disagree that I was wrong, and that is why the debate still continues. I have posted link after link in this thread on how volcanos cause little ice ages, yet, you have not shown me any data stating that data is false, yet claim I am the one in error. Of course you can ignore the international studies, the computer simulations that show that Yellowstone will cause at least a " little ice age", how bad it will actually be is still debatable, and think that it isn't going to happen because your mind tells you so and not show me how that data is false, that is your prerogative to do so, but that does not mean it will not happen anyhow.

If historians and scientist find the term acceptable a couple of guys on a forum who do not is not really that much of a concern. You can tell BBC, Science daily, and the Discovery channel they should stop using the term since you find it offensive.

I found this interesting video in regards to what happens when a supervolcano such as Yellowstone errupts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgyYwKq9G0A

Yes, even these guys state that people are thrown into an immediate ice age when an event like this occurs.

Lil devils x:

BrassButtons:

2. Hominids have never witnessed the beginning of an ice age.

2)What were we before we were hominids?

Um...how is that relevant? Sorry, I just have to check, are you claiming that we have oral histories of what happens at the start of an ice age (I recall you saying this includes polar ice shifting, Earth's rotation changing, volcanoes getting excited, and so on) because our Australopithecus ancestors, with their chimp-like brains, passed it all down to us over the course of 2.6 million years?

If that's not what you're saying then I do apologise for putting words in your mouth, I just had to be sure.

Maladict:

Lil devils x:

BrassButtons:

2. Hominids have never witnessed the beginning of an ice age.

2)What were we before we were hominids?

Um...how is that relevant? Sorry, I just have to check, are you claiming that we have oral histories of what happens at the start of an ice age (I recall you saying this includes polar ice shifting, Earth's rotation changing, volcanoes getting excited, and so on) because our Australopithecus ancestors, with their chimp-like brains, passed it all down to us over the course of 2.6 million years?

If that's not what you're saying then I do apologise for putting words in your mouth, I just had to be sure.

Actually, since I am Hopi, yes, we do believe the tribes of the earth have kept an oral history passed down from generation to generation from the beginning, even through our evolution to where we are now. In a very shortened summary: From our history, in the first world (age) we were tiny insect like creatures, that fought much. The first world lasted a long time and we changed much during that time that by the time we reached the second world we were animal like creatures, and warred much, even ate one another, and did not grasp an understanding of life and that world also lasted a very long time and we changed much more like our present form. We were humans when we entered the third world and fourth world, and it is believed we are now passing into the 5th world currently. This is also a shared history with other tribes as well. Much of this shared history was discussed recently at the gathering of the ancestors between elders from many tribes.
http://www.navajohopiobserver.com/main.asp?SectionID=74&subsectionID=101&articleID=11479

Actually, since I am Hopi, yes, we do believe the tribes of the earth have kept an oral history passed down from generation to generation from the beginning, even through our evolution to where we are now.

Than you should easily be able to explain why humans went through a severe bottleneck in the past. Please do so. Then explain precisely how humans crossed the Bering Straight. Then give us specifics on how humans hunted the game they did, including specific species.

From our history, in the first world (age) we were tiny insect like creatures, that fought much.

Nope. Chordata started off as fish. We have a very clear record back to the Early Cambrian, and there were no insect-like creatures in the human lineage. This is nothing more than a throwback to pre-evolutionary concepts of biology, and constrains the creatures of the geologic past to merely being other forms of what exist today. The truth is far, far stranger--we're talking "it's been fifty years and we still don't know if it's even an animal" strange. Paleontologists literally study alien worlds.

The first world lasted a long time and we changed much during that time that by the time we reached the second world we were animal like creatures,

This sentence makes no gramatical sense. Insects are animals, as are all creatures--you can no more change from a creature to an animal than you can move from Montgomery to Alabama.

As for what humans were before we were humans, the question doens't make sense and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory on your part. Humans evolved from ancient apes, which evolved from ancient monkeys. You want to go further than that, you'll have to do your own homework--I deal with North American taxa. But it's completely inappropriate to ask "What were humans before they were humans?" because evolution simply doesn't work that way.

As for the volcanoe thing, again, there's simply no evidence of a volcanoe inducing a true ice age. If you wish to persist in committing gramatical errors, that's your call--but understand that it damages your credibility each and every time you do so. You have been corrected, with citations. However, it's the other aspect of volcanism that you screwed up that I want to emphasize here: You aruged that global warming would increase volcanism. Please provide some shred of evidence for that. We've already established that isostatic rebound can't do it--please propose another mechanims that can. Otherwise, even if I grant that volcanoes might be able to cause ice ages (which they can't), you'd STILL be wrong in your proposed mechanism for humans enducing one.

Oh, and you're completely wrong about the sulphur compounds. They generally are removed via rain relatively quickly. And it's an open and lively debate as to whether the CO2 absorbed by continental uprising is sufficient to counteract the CO2 generated thereby. Since you seem to think that copying and pasting are legitimate, I won't bother to research the topic for you; if any lurkers are interested, look up the impact the Himalayan Mountains had on CO2 budget. Futhermore, you must remember that there's more to climate than CO2. Volcanoes may cause SHORT TERM cooling (remember, we're dealing with climate here--human scales are irrelevant), but their long-term impacts are vastly more complicated. And they still simply are not correlated with the onset of glaciation, so you're still demonstrably wrong.

Eh, screw it. I'm bored, and your responses have crossed the line from "wrong" to "hilariously wrong", so let's keep going.

Lil devils x:

1)The little Ice age was not a " glacial age".

Wikipedia:
he Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum).[1] While it was not a true ice age, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.

2)What were we before we were hominids?

Dinwatr covered this one.

3) The cause of ice ages is still unknown, and supervolcanos have not been ruled out.

Causes of ice ages:

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial-interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years[39] ); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.

You left out the part that says "[citation needed]".

The section under "Volcanism" is interesting as well:

Volcanism

Volcanic eruptions may have contributed to the inception and/or the end of ice age periods. One suggested explanation of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is that undersea volcanoes released methane from clathrates and thus caused a large and rapid increase in the greenhouse effect.[citation needed] There appears to be no geological evidence for such eruptions at the right time, but this does not prove they did not happen.

The 'Talk' page has a suggestion to remove that section entirely because it's nothing more than a baseless claim.

4) I would hope not.

And yet you said that you "wouldn;t consider that [the LIA] a " little problem"", as though someone else had suggested it was a "little problem".

5)That is not what the new data states. From both computer simulation models and the new data on the subject, it does show that Yellowstone will most likely cause a " little ice age."

"Climate change
The most wide reaching effect of a Yellowstone eruption would be much colder weather.

Volcanoes can inject sulphur gas into the upper atmosphere, forming sulphuric acid aerosols that rapidly spread around the globe. Scientists believe sulphuric aerosols are the main cause of climatic cooling after an eruption."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/supervolcano/article2.shtml

Cooling =/= ice age

The Little Ice Age (note the capitols--it's a proper noun) is the name of a specific time period, and does not refer to an ice age. "A little ice age" (note the lowercase--it's not a proper noun) refers to a small, actual ice age. Volcanoes may have been linked to periods of cooling. They have not been linked to ice ages.

I have posted link after link in this thread on how volcanos cause little ice ages

No, you haven't. Your equivocating between "little ice age(s)" and "the Little Ice Age". Which is precisely why I've been making a big deal about the terminology. Those are entirely different concepts, and equivocating between them is wrong. Komodo dragons are not dragons, koala bears are not bears, and the Little Ice Age was not a little ice age.

yet, you have not shown me any data stating that data is false

I've shown the data that the LIA was not an ice age. You decided that you don't need to use words properly, because reasons.

If historians and scientist find the term acceptable a couple of guys on a forum who do not is not really that much of a concern. You can tell BBC, Science daily, and the Discovery channel they should stop using the term since you find it offensive.

Those people are using the term properly. YOU aren't.

Seriously, English is your third language and my first. Which of us do you think is more likely to be using it correctly?

Dinwatr:

Actually, since I am Hopi, yes, we do believe the tribes of the earth have kept an oral history passed down from generation to generation from the beginning, even through our evolution to where we are now.

Than you should easily be able to explain why humans went through a severe bottleneck in the past. Please do so. Then explain precisely how humans crossed the Bering Straight. Then give us specifics on how humans hunted the game they did, including specific species.

From our history, in the first world (age) we were tiny insect like creatures, that fought much.

Nope. Chordata started off as fish. We have a very clear record back to the Early Cambrian, and there were no insect-like creatures in the human lineage. This is nothing more than a throwback to pre-evolutionary concepts of biology, and constrains the creatures of the geologic past to merely being other forms of what exist today. The truth is far, far stranger--we're talking "it's been fifty years and we still don't know if it's even an animal" strange. Paleontologists literally study alien worlds.

The first world lasted a long time and we changed much during that time that by the time we reached the second world we were animal like creatures,

This sentence makes no gramatical sense. Insects are animals, as are all creatures--you can no more change from a creature to an animal than you can move from Montgomery to Alabama.

As for what humans were before we were humans, the question doens't make sense and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory on your part. Humans evolved from ancient apes, which evolved from ancient monkeys. You want to go further than that, you'll have to do your own homework--I deal with North American taxa. But it's completely inappropriate to ask "What were humans before they were humans?" because evolution simply doesn't work that way.

As for the volcanoe thing, again, there's simply no evidence of a volcanoe inducing a true ice age. If you wish to persist in committing gramatical errors, that's your call--but understand that it damages your credibility each and every time you do so. You have been corrected, with citations. However, it's the other aspect of volcanism that you screwed up that I want to emphasize here: You aruged that global warming would increase volcanism. Please provide some shred of evidence for that. We've already established that isostatic rebound can't do it--please propose another mechanims that can. Otherwise, even if I grant that volcanoes might be able to cause ice ages (which they can't), you'd STILL be wrong in your proposed mechanism for humans enducing one.

Oh, and you're completely wrong about the sulphur compounds. They generally are removed via rain relatively quickly. And it's an open and lively debate as to whether the CO2 absorbed by continental uprising is sufficient to counteract the CO2 generated thereby. Since you seem to think that copying and pasting are legitimate, I won't bother to research the topic for you; if any lurkers are interested, look up the impact the Himalayan Mountains had on CO2 budget. Futhermore, you must remember that there's more to climate than CO2. Volcanoes may cause SHORT TERM cooling (remember, we're dealing with climate here--human scales are irrelevant), but their long-term impacts are vastly more complicated. And they still simply are not correlated with the onset of glaciation, so you're still demonstrably wrong.

FYI- The early Hopi did not come across the bering strait, we were long established here when the tribes came across. When the navajo arrived, it was our tribe who named the Navajo,"navajo", or " newcomers", and they called our ancestors " ancient ones". From our history, we actually came to this land on boats, from the south and then traveled north to our current lands. Considering " Hopi" are actually a combination of many tribes that came here at different times, yes some did come across the bering strait, but also some came from boats in the begining, unlike what most of your studies have found yet. There are only few studies that have that correct as of yet, and it should be corrected in time.

See your problem is you fail to understand that "tiny insect like creatures" is a description, not a " definition". And under a description like that even an amoeba would fall under such. There are not direct words that translate from Hopi to English, so descriptions as close to what we can associate are used. I think they have done quite well considering this is an oral history passed down from ancient times, and that description, along with others such as " clay and water come together to form the crystals of life" and " dark spiderwoman sitting at the center of galaxies drawing in all that come near her and spinning out the planets and the stars forever spinning and spinning". Those descriptions from ancient times are amazingly accurate for what we find true in science today.

As for " grammatical sense", If you wish to have Hopi translation make grammatical sense, go learn Hopi and translate it yourself, it does not translate how you would like it to, that would turn out to be quite an interesting project for you, I am sure. :)

You should realize the translation is that of a visual description, not of a definition, and surely you would have realized that if you know anything of tribal histories. Most history was accompanied by drawings in the sand when it is being taught. They would draw these things out as they teach. The insect like creatures were just tiny specs poked in the dirt. The animals were hunched and larger with 4 legs.

As for your rant there, My chosen studies were Immunology, and Pediatric medicine, I find it entertaining that a " geologist" is it? would attempt to tell me I have no understanding of evolutionary theory... Good stuff there. I needed a good laugh. TYVM.

Usually sulpher compounds are removed quickly, under normal circumstances. It is when they get sent higher up into the atmosphere they are spread and linger, but if you had actually examined their data on that and viewed the computer simulations you would have seen that. The problem is when they are sent higher, ( as they have shown repeatedly) is it then gets spread around the globe, from the core samples taken in greenland, the last supervolcano erruption had global temps down for 6-10 years. They showed the core samples from greenland in that video I linked above, you can see them for yourself if you would like. If it had been localized, they would not have had that much sulferic acid in the icesheets in greenland...

I have already posted this repeatedly, do you even bother reading the links in this thread?
http://www.livescience.com/25936-climate-change-causes-volcanism.html

Please read all of the links in this thread before throwing out nonsense. I have repeatedly supplied the information you ask for, yet you have not shown anything that states that data is false. The cores taken in greenland show that you are incorrect, yet you have not addressed them.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked