Slashdot Mirror
The Millennia After Tomorrow?
frankthechicken writes "Analysis of a three-kilometer-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, has revealed our planet has had eight ice ages during that period, punctuated by rather brief warm spells - one of which we enjoy today. And fortunately, the end of the world is not the day after tomorrow, instead it may be expected on Sunday, 17000."
that logs when the world should end by each means, list them chronologically.. like: y2k bug: 2000 Earth losing its magnetic field and possibly letting radiation in: 3000? Asteroid: Ice Age:17000 Loss of a Sun: any others?
ok.. so heads you lose tails I win. right?
Sorry, not being familiar with the geological ebbs and flows of the polar ice caps, might someone explain how long in time 3 Kilometers worth of ice is?
And, on a side note, might this information also lend credence to the idea that the current warming trend is a natural phenomena? One that we couldn't stop if we tried and one that we may have insignifanctly affected if at all? Just curious.
Note that the Slashdot submission didn't reference the BBC story.
To give an idea about the problems involved in drilling the ice cores, you have to realise that 3km underground there is a lot of pressure due to the weight of the ice sitting above. 3km is roughly Antarctic bedrock
Any issues with the ice shifting and causing the shaft to no longer be aligned? I mean, if part of the hole is drilled one year and another part later it seems that this is a real possiblity.
The article doesn't give enough information to entertain the statement "Next Ice Age 15000 years away", especially with the certainty that the statement implies.
Perhaps they should have said "given no human intervention, and if past records are an indicator of future performance (generally a no-no, but what have we got instead?), then the next ice age probably won't happen for 15000 years." But that doesn't make for a very pithy headline.
I think the research is fantastic. This kind of stuff gives us the baseline that we need in order to understand how we are affecting the world. But unfortunately carbon dating and other forms of isotope dating are generally not accurate enough to show us what's happening over the course of the last 50 years. Perhaps you could do a "count the rings" approach - looking for new ice accumulation each year and its eventual heavy freezing at -100 degrees... probably wouldn't work... but basically we don't know what we're doing to the atmosphere.
You would need a record that shows the amazing increases in various atmospheric components that we're putting into it and no subsequent effects...
Actually the most interesting bit of information seems either overlooked by the reporter or intentionally left oblique.
There was a change in length and temperature of the cold and warm spells that the Earth underwent. Given the numbers the article suggests, that change was relatively coincident with the change in CO2 levels. Well, now we've put CO2 level back where they were before... so why don't they assume that temperatures (and lengths of time) will go back to how they were then? (big assumption, but no bigger than "you're safe for 15000 years."
Rudy
1. 2.
So what caused the ice ages and the warm periods? Mammoth farts?
5 90/is_8_58/ai_82554146
Before you think I am pulling this out of the blue, read this: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1
I think this proves that the earth goes through cycles.
I don't believe for a moment that me taking a bike to work rather than driving a car will have any predictable effect, or an effect in the right direction, whatever that is. I don't think we should be worrying about whether there is a superstorm that is going to be caused by too much farting.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
As pointed out, global warming may be natural and human activity little or nothing to do with overall global temperatures. Or humans may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The point is we don't know. A lot of global warming debate seems to be based on computer models that have problems. I seem to remember the 1970s had many books and news articles about the new ice age right around the corner. So it might be wise to continue various climate research until we have a better understanding about weather and human impact on global climate before we make major and costly changes to our civilization and technologies that may in fact do nothing.
It is all a matter of definitions.. The usual definition is that weight is the vertical force exerted by a mass as a result of gravity. For instance, when drawing free body diagrams you do not take into account things like buoyance when marking the weight. Those are marked separately and then the overall force, more appropriately the apparent weight, will be lesser.. Also, molding the steel into a form that displaces an equal amount of air as feathers wouldn't be too hard either. It would just need to have a vacuum inside..