Prospective Cause of Little Ice Age

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47063973

Interesting article examining the impact of the colonisation of the Americas in the 16th century and the impact on the climate.

The cost in terms of indigenous lives was huge, primarily through old world disease rather than conflict as the SJW's would have you believe. The impact of this was to cause large scale reforestation, particularly across Central and South America which brought down global CO2 levels. By the 19th Century agriculture had expanded again putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere along with industrial emissions.

We often hear about the Little Ice Age from the Kon-spiracy Brigade as if it disproves the CO2 - climate link however here too we have an example of where a sudden change in CO2 levels impacted upon the climate. Human induced changes in CO2 levels was a major driver* in the Little Ice Age period.

* Along with the Maunder minimum and possible slow down of the thermohaline ocean circulation.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Interesting article examining the impact of the colonisation of the Americas in the 16th century and the impact on the climate.

NickW - the article is a real reach. 5-10 PPM! Who do those guys think they're kidding? 10 PPM is less than five year's worth of change on current trends with nothing like the marked shift in temperatures seen at the time. In any case, the Little Ice Age was just part of the temperature changes that occurred since the end of the medieval warming period which was well before the colonisation of the Americas. The climate theory apologists should try again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, markslawson said:

NickW - the article is a real reach. 5-10 PPM! Who do those guys think they're kidding? 10 PPM is less than five year's worth of change on current trends with nothing like the marked shift in temperatures seen at the time. In any case, the Little Ice Age was just part of the temperature changes that occurred since the end of the medieval warming period which was well before the colonisation of the Americas. The climate theory apologists should try again. 

Note the * at the bottom of my post

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, markslawson said:

NickW - the article is a real reach. 5-10 PPM! Who do those guys think they're kidding? 10 PPM is less than five year's worth of change on current trends with nothing like the marked shift in temperatures seen at the time. In any case, the Little Ice Age was just part of the temperature changes that occurred since the end of the medieval warming period which was well before the colonisation of the Americas. The climate theory apologists should try again. 

You are also over looking the fact that a 10ppm change in a 250ppm environment is going to far more effect than a 10 ppm in a 400ppm environment. The climate response to rising or falling CO2 levels is not linear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of the different responses for different levels of CO2, it still doesn't get the theory over any sort of line. My memory of the graphs is that even in the early stages of CO2 concentrations 5-10 PPM shouldn't make that much difference, even allowing for the water vapour feedback effect. Changes in solar conditions, such as the Maunder Minimum, have been linked to climate changes of past centuries far more effectively, although of course the mechanism is still very strongly disputed. In all best to note this contribution to the debate and more on. Okay, I note the * .. Anyway, leave it with you.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, markslawson said:

I'm well aware of the different responses for different levels of CO2, it still doesn't get the theory over any sort of line. My memory of the graphs is that even in the early stages of CO2 concentrations 5-10 PPM shouldn't make that much difference, even allowing for the water vapour feedback effect. Changes in solar conditions, such as the Maunder Minimum, have been linked to climate changes of past centuries far more effectively, although of course the mechanism is still very strongly disputed. In all best to note this contribution to the debate and more on. Okay, I note the * .. Anyway, leave it with you.. 

10 ppm fall off 280ppm would have had far more impact than 10ppm off 410ppm. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, mthebold said:

10ppm out of 280ppm is a 3.6% change in a trace atmospheric gas in a system where atmospheric gases are but one of many factors influencing temperature. 

image.png.a56eb1038853d36cc5bb8be7fd61fb71.png

Let me explain something about "scientists": academia lives in an environment best described by "publish or perish".  If they don't come up with ideas, their career is effectively over.  Whether those ideas are good is irrelevant; all that matters is that they produce ideas.  They get bonus points if politicians find the ideas useful.  Hence, this bulls***. 

It is often referred to as  the 'little' ice age for a reason. 

It wasn't actually much colder than normal in absolute terms. In any case my original post contained a caveat that other factors may have been at work at the same time having an additive effect. 

Edited by NickW
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2019 at 1:12 PM, mthebold said:

Right.  My point is that it's exceedingly unlikely that colonization of the America's had anything to do with it.  These "scientists" are grasping at straws. 

Can you actually grasp the concept of multiple factors working in additive or synergistic effect to move the climate in one direction or another? 

I get the impression that many people, especially on this site can't. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, NickW said:

Can you actually grasp the concept of multiple factors working in additive or synergistic effect to move the climate in one direction or another? 

I get the impression that many people, especially on this site can't. 

Nick, they might need pictures so maybe you need a meme...

2ehweq.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The term you're looking for is "non-linearity".

I've heard the arguments of climate "scientists".  Wouldn't bet money on anything they say. 

No it isn't 

Additive effects can be quite linear. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mthebold said:

The term you're looking for is "non-linearity".

I've heard the arguments of climate "scientists".  Wouldn't bet money on anything they say. 

Actually it's multiple factors.  Non linearity in climate science is conceptually attached to the probable logarithmic rate of change when doubling CO2 concentrations.

We can appreciate you not betting money in things you do not understand.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, the whole climate debate as it relates to whether or not we need to be concerned about fossil fuel usage is kind of a moot point because, time wise, there is a relatively small amount of the stuff left for practical mass usage.

Effectively, only those who don’t give a hoot about future generations aren’t concerned about conserving the stuff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, heywally said:

Fortunately, the whole climate debate as it relates to whether or not we need to be concerned about fossil fuel usage is kind of a moot point because, time wise, there is a relatively small amount of the stuff left for practical mass usage.

Effectively, only those who don’t give a hoot about future generations aren’t concerned about conserving the stuff.

There is no telling how much fossil fuel there is left. There is no shortage, yet we have been told one is imminent since Jimmy Carter reduced the speed limit to 55 mpg. This does not mean that renewables are not a great idea. They just need to mature and be improved to become more cost competitive. They should not be force fed to people who do not want them. I will like an electric car when it is a better deal than an ICE vehicle. I won't live that long though. Meanwhile, I will remain a proponent of natural gas as the preferred fuel for just about every use. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

There is no telling how much fossil fuel there is left. There is no shortage, yet we have been told one is imminent since Jimmy Carter reduced the speed limit to 55 mpg. This does not mean that renewables are not a great idea. They just need to mature and be improved to become more cost competitive. They should not be force fed to people who do not want them. I will like an electric car when it is a better deal than an ICE vehicle. I won't live that long though. Meanwhile, I will remain a proponent of natural gas as the preferred fuel for just about every use. 

 

No telling perhaps but there seems to be a general consensus for that number and relative to how long humans have been around and how many years Earth is going to exist, it isn’t a lot, at all.

Seems to me that people should want to err on the side of caution with supporting fossil conservation.

Edited by heywally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NickW said:

No it isn't 

Additive effects can be quite linear. 

And there can be positive or negative feedback loops. There seem to be a lot of negative feedback loops in this forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, heywally said:

 

No telling perhaps but there seems to be a general consensus for that number and relative to how long humans have been around and how many years Earth is going to exist, it isn’t a lot, at all.

Seems to me that people should want to err on the side of caution with supporting fossil conservation.

I wonder how many of the Climate Change naysayers buy fire insurance?

The chance that any one person's house will burn down is not 100%.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, heywally said:

 

No telling perhaps but there seems to be a general consensus for that number and relative to how long humans have been around and how many years Earth is going to exist, it isn’t a lot, at all.

Seems to me that people should want to err on the side of caution with supporting fossil conservation.

I agree with that, but simply favor natural gas is the best choice. Natural gas replacing coal is the best solution along with renewables. America is one of the leading nations in reducing CO2 emissions for that very reason. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0