jhsg at sasktel.net
Tue Mar 23 23:51:04 EST 2004
Actually, we are still in the tail end of the last ice "age" or warm-cold
cycle, which is so far around 130,000 years in length, not 13,000. Jury is
out on just where we are in the interglacial period- near the start, or at
the end. I do remember one of the typical characteristics that we know for
FACT, not theory, is a widely fluctuating climate during either end of a
cold glacial period. That was from sedimentology classes looong ago... I
would question 75 years as a time frame for being covered in ice without
other causal agent such as a supervolcano going up, or a major impact from a
meteor or comet.
>Even the melting of the glacial dam in the artic
>which released a *huge* freshwater lake into the ocean recently, happened
>exactly like that before the Gulf Stream died the last time.
Nobody's crystal ball is that good man, nobody's. We have no idea what
happened last time. We can make a few educated guesses, but the records
available to us in ice layers in the antarctic, and the sedimentary story
via outwash plateaus and the like still just makes good theory material.
Until time machines are reality that is. ;-)
I wasn't aware we were "due" for an ice age, and the scientific community
do not ever, ever all agree about anything. To say we are "overdue for an
ice age" implies that they are a scheduled event, sort of like saying "I
haven't had an automobile accident lately, I am overdue for one." A little
fatalistic it would seem, no? It happens when it does.
To say a scientist is objective these days is laughable. Grant/donation
money is the causal agent. Same strings attached as corporate research,
except with the aura of legitimacy created by millions of dollars worth of
advertising campaigns to convince you of such. To think otherwise is to
delude oneself. Unfortunately, it's really tough to figure out at what point
the scientist has magically transformed into a politician.
The greater the furor, the greater the revenue generating potential seems to
be the way these days. All it used to take was the clubbing of some seals on
an ice floe, now it takes global calamity. I guess the hollywood special
effects we see these days are making everyone a little bit more jaded.
Couldn't leave this one alone either.... heh.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vwdiesel-bounces at vwfans.com [mailto:vwdiesel-bounces at vwfans.com]On
> Behalf Of Harmon Seaver
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> Subject: Re: [Vwdiesel] Whodunit?
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 03:52:43PM -0500, LBaird119 at aol.com wrote:
> > > everyone in the scientific community is very much in
> agreement that we are
> > > long overdue for an ice age
> > That, I've never heard. Most of what I've heard leaned more
> along the
> > lines
> > that we're still in a warming cycle from the last one or in the
> > long stable stretch before a decline in temps. I've never
> heard that they
> > were
> > that frequent of a cycle but then I don't look for anything
> leaning EITHER
> > direction to read either.
> The ice ages were pretty close to 10,000 years apart, but the
> last one was
> 13,000 years ago. So we're overdue. And the last one came on very
> quickly when
> the Gulf Stream died, as it's doing now.
> Harmon Seaver
> Vwdiesel mailing list
> Vwdiesel at vwfans.com
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.616 / Virus Database: 395 - Release Date: 03/08/2004
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.616 / Virus Database: 395 - Release Date: 03/08/2004
More information about the Vwdiesel