Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

Hi Coffeehouse,I'm going to go out on a limb here and state a personal theory. I'm a YEC, but please do not blame this "theory" on other YECs.I believe that Global warming has been occurring ever since the last ice age (which according to standard YEC doctrines was the ONLY ice age and was caused by the Flood some 4000-5000 years ago).Anyways, so my theory goes, that as the globe gets warmer more ice melts so the globe gets warmer and warmer faster (i.e., it accelerates) and the cycle continues until--like today--there is relatively little of the polar ice caps left (compared to how much there was during the climax of the Ice Age). Now there is so little left that it is getting hotter fairly quickly because there is not enough ice to counter the incoming heat.So, even if you don't believe that the last Ice Age was caused by the the Flood of Genesis, you might find some merit in this general idea of global-warming-is-caused-by-shrinking-ice-caps. Of course, then you might think there will be Ice Age cycles whereas I see the earth slowly becoming only hotter and hotter--never to see another Ice Age.This is not to say that I think air pollution is wonderful and doesn't harm the environment. I do however, believe that air pollution, while possibly causing a myriad of other serious environmental ills, has little or almost nothing to do with global warming when compared to the sun and diminishing ice caps.As a side note, I wonder if global warming is causing more and bigger hurricanes, torrential rains in California and summer-like winters in Florida (they were a lot colder when I was a boy and even colder when my dad was a boy), and any number of odd weather patterns. IOW, it's just going to get worse and pollution controls will have no effect on these particular things (but pollution controls might make breathing better, and breathing has become one of my favorite past-times).Just some thoughts.--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 02-14-2005 02:49 AM

Hi Nighttrain,If it is, I am unaware of it. That is the YEC model (as I understand it), though. Regardless of which model one uses to arrive at the previous Ice Age, there was one, and the resultant ice caps are shrinking. The YEC model would likely have a "terminal one-off" Ice Age (as you would need Flood-like circumstances to produce another), whereas the traditional model tends to view Ice Ages as cyclical. I suppose another difference in the two models would be in the rate (acceleration?) of ice-cap shrinkage.I thought global warming was fairly well established.I was more wishing to focus on the idea of sun-and-shrinking-ice-caps as the cause of global warming as opposed to production of "green house gasses" by human activities (not that I desire to see the environment trashed).Really, even then I suppose I just wish to hear different views on the idea because I am no expert on this matter and cannot defend my views on it.I have been thinking about the sun-and-ever-shrinking-ice-caps "model" for some time, and just wanted to see how some of the more informed felt about that as a causal factor for global warming. Should I be correct, this would dwarf whatever "greenhouse effect" our factories have.Air pollution would be bad for other reasons--mainly that we wind up needing to breathe the stuff; plus whatever pollutes the air most likely pollutes the environment in several different and horrible ways. (Just pointing this out in case someone thinks I am defending activities that cause air pollution. I am not.)--TheLit

Hi Gary,Thanks for the interesting input. I consider it extremely appropriate to my OP (not that I haven't benifitted from and enjoyed the meandering general global warming discussions, too).Does anyone know of how (volume-wise) CO2 released from melting ice-caps, plants (world-wide), animals (world-wide), and other natural sources compares to man-made CO2?--TheLit

Hi Buzsaw, Hey, very interesting. Thanks.--TheLit

My OP is more about what part, if any, the melting ice-caps play in global warming and how that compares to man-made effects.Is it the natural tendency for the earth to get really hot due to distance from the sun, but we have been nice-n-cool because we've had enormous ice caps (that have been melting since the last ice age--regardless of the cause of the ice age)? If so, then these ice caps are almost gone (compared to how large they used to be, right?) Would ice-cap melting accelerate naturally? (IOW, the more they melt the more they melt?) If it does, and if the sun/melting ice caps are actually driving global warming, then it could account for the accelerating curve in CF's graphs...the timing of the Industrial Revolution being coincidental perhaps.Once again, I reiterate, despite Bill Moyers, I do not advocate polluting the air; nor do I see any need for the world to maintain its industrialized state...I would personally much prefer to return to a subsistent-farming-based mode of living (were such possible)--back to outhouses, too (no 2-5 gallons of sewage everytime someone uses the bathroom!) I am particularly upset by the polluting of the waters!From this reportI live very near the city limits of Pensacola and only a half-hour away from Milton!--TheLitThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-06-2005 03:43 AM

To all,Has it been established that the earth loses more energy than it gains from the sun and produces internally? Can this be measured? Has it been measured?Thanks,
--TheLit

Ned,The reason I asked is because I wonder is it possible that the energy from the sun plus the internally generated energy less the energy radiated to space actually result in a small net gain in energy (I am speaking of rates here--IOW, that the earth experiences a small net gain in joules per second), which has been largely countered by the ice-caps via reflection (energy radiated out) as well as the fact that they reduce the overall energy of the earth.I wonder would there be some way to figure whether the earth is experiencing a net increase or a net decrease in energy?Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is recieved from the sun?
Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is radiated from the earth to space?
Can we measure/calculate/estimate the rate at which energy is generated by the earth?(That last one sounds pretty challenging. The first two sound pretty doable.)If all three can be measured or estimated, then we could independantly verify the assumption that because the earth is hotter inside that it is losing heat via the surface.If the earth is experiencing a net energy increase--even at a small rate...uh oh!--TheLit

Contracycle, Well, actually each of the planets are generating energy of their own because each rotate and revolve, such motions will necessarily generate energy. However, I do fuzzily recall that Jupiter has some stellar-like energy generating mechanism (which is what you mean, I presume).Each of the planets also recieve (and absorb/reflect) solar energy. Overall, each planet will radiate energy (whether (reflected) solar or internally generated).All this I think you knew. However, I am now confused. JonF seems to indicate in Message 75 that we can't determine what temperature earth SHOULD be. Maybe he's right, but I wonder, then, how can determine what temperature JUPITER should be???--TheLit

I would think the rotational motion would generate quite a bit of "heat", too.

I guess I was thinking of internal friction and also friction between the surface and atmosphere and within the atmoshpere itself.I never thought about the magnetic stuff...cool.AbE: Actually sounds like a potential for electrical energy somehow (a rotating magnet?).AbE: Okay, I think the magnet has to rotates the poles in a generator (not at the poles)...so I don't think that applies here.This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-11-2005 23:12 AMThis message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 03-11-2005 23:17 AM