Scientists claim that global warming and the melting of glaciers can cause the opposite effect - an ice age. In this article I will try to explain in simpler terms how exactly this is possible
The world has already faced the fact that the Earth is warming, and to speak of many negative effects such as an increase in temperature, the melting of glaciers, a rise in sea level, climate changes and more. While the world worries about the devastating effects of global warming, researchers are trying to predict what the future holds.
The popular opinion speaks of a warmer world, but few researchers try to warn him (without much success) that the warming that melts the glaciers can create a chain reaction (which they claim has already begun) and cause the opposite disaster on a global scale - global stagnation.
An ordinary person who hears this claim will deny it with a wave of the hand, after all, how is it possible that global warming will cause a global freeze? It just doesn't make sense. But it turns out that their theory makes a lot of sense, this has already happened in the past and apparently the process is happening again as we speak.
A little background
The Earth is a planet of water, oceans cover more than 70% of its surface. Therefore, the oceans have a great influence on the climate, the weather, the concentration of gases in the atmosphere, the global ecology, the animal world and the food chain and a wide variety of aspects.
The oceans are not as stationary as they seem, in fact in the oceans there is a circular water transport system which moves the sea water from place to place in rivers of hot and cold water. This circulation system is affected by many factors including the rotation of the earth, water temperature, salinity, the moon's gravity and more.
The basic principle in the circulation system is that when the water is warmer or when it is less salty, it floats and flows faster. When they cool or the salinity level increases, they sink and flow more slowly. The system consists of a number of currents that we will not elaborate on, but for the sake of the example I will say that in the Gulf Stream the water heats up in the equatorial region, flows north and provides heat to the northern regions such as Great Britain and Norway which would be frozen without the current. After the water cools at the pole, it sinks and flows south in an underwater current. On the other side of the world, the Humboldt current that brings cold water to Peru and Chile, creates an opposite case, the cold water creates a unique ecological environment that attracts fish and other marine life and thus the current sustains one of the richest fishing areas in the world. Let's summarize and say that the stream system is one of the most important systems on Earth.
Now ask yourself what will happen if someone or something disrupts the sea current system? Warm water will stop coming from the equatorial region to the regions near the poles and there will be no mechanism to warm these regions. The polar regions will freeze even more and the ice will spread towards the equator to the point where the water receives heat from the sun. The world we knew will change completely. The polar regions will grow and in the middle of the Earth there will remain a narrow strip without ice. Judgment Day incarnate.
The scenario is not extreme and it has already happened in the past
As you can understand from the title, in the past there was already a case where the sea current system went wrong, this led to an ice age that lasted 1,300 years (plus or minus 70 years) - a period known as the "Younger Dryas".
Our story begins 12,900 years ago (or 12,800 years ago - according to other sources). In the area where the five great lakes of North America lie today, and in all the areas between them, there was an ice lake of huge dimensions called Lake Agassiz. Over the years the ice melted and the river water found a way to spill into the ocean, until one day a small breach was found along the Glacial River Warren, an area where the St. Lawrence River flows today. The small opening grew larger as more and more ice water was melted and in a short time most of the water was spilled into the ocean.
When the river's fresh water reached the ocean, it affected the salinity composition of the seawater. As you remember, in the northern area of the Gulf Stream the water cools and sinks, but since the water was no longer as salty as before - it sank much more slowly. The chain of currents was damaged and the whole water circulation process slowed down (since it takes more time to cool the water until it sinks). Slower currents mean less heat is carried from the equator to the polar regions. Less heat carried to distant areas means a new ice age!
Everything else is history, the ice age started 12,900 years ago and ended 11,500 years ago.
This process is happening even now
Now let's link today's global warming to the upcoming ice age - a process that can freeze the Earth like it did 12,900 years ago.
In the last 10,000 years, we are in a period called "the interglacial period". This period is characterized by a relatively warm climate that causes a natural process of melting glaciers. However, in the last hundred years humanity has caused a rapid "unnatural" melting of the process. Recent studies talk about the massive mass of glaciers that could lead to the disappearance of the ice in the North Pole within 50 years!
The melting of the glaciers will lead to the release of huge amounts of fresh water (just like in "Ginger Grace"), which will damage the salinity composition of the ocean water. Same story - same result.
It should be noted that the above comparison only takes into account the negative effect on the salinity of ocean water. But the water temperature also has a great influence on the Earth's climate, as more glaciers melt, the water temperature will decrease, which will lead to an increase in tropical storms and an increase in clouds (which will block sunlight). Warming also causes water evaporation and the more water there is in the atmosphere, the sun's rays are blocked and the cooling effect increases.
In conclusion, I would like to say that all the facts must be taken into account and all the possible effects of global warming must be considered. I am not saying that tomorrow will be colder so that climate change can be ignored, but I am definitely saying that climate change has a great impact on our lives and on the entire planet, hence we must do more to reduce the human impact on the climate.
21 תגובות
Some things
This system is much more complex, and even in this little article an effect that drastically increases the dimming effect "The Dimming effect" created by the release of nanoparticles into the air is ignored (I won't go into details here, those of you are welcome to read). In any case, this effect, the pollution, masks the sun's radiation - and on the other hand causes a decrease in the amount of evaporation of the oceans (it is true, in the garden they told everyone that the wind dries the clothes, but in the sea, the energy of the photons, in a direct impact, causes a much more noticeable evaporation, when raising the temperature the environment by a few degrees, increases the rate of evaporation by a fairly negligible value). The masking of this effect causes a slowdown in the rise of the ambient temperature (less solar radiation enters and warms, =cooling), and this is because the greenhouse gases are still contained in the dome, and they raise the ambient temperature.
In any case, the system is complex, if so, certain parameters are clear
The temperature rises consistently
The intensity of solar radiation has decreased by 10-20 percent during the last 100 years.
And as for all voodoo believers of all kinds, who are busy with kosher slaughter, eating carrion, or with complete faith that their soul will reincarnate in the resurrection of the dead, if only because they ate food saturated with cheap vegetable fat, or because they paid 400 shekels every month to the Torah Talmud.
Go to an "epiphany" or "awakening" website or anything that sounds like a post-LSD phenomenon. It's a shame for the fonts you invest here, good day
A little more clarification:
According to the Talmud - it is forbidden to eat carrion - that is - it is forbidden to eat animals that have died by themselves.
Only slaughtered animals are allowed to be eaten.
Therefore the term "prey" applies only to an animal that will die in slaughter.
When, in the post-mortem examination, it is found that her mind has been destroyed, she is declared a victim. It should, however, be remembered that before she was slaughtered, she lived with the same mind.
A little introduction so things are understood.
The term prey means that the animal is alive but will not live for a year. It means that when you say a carnivore, it means that it is alive in the present, but that it will die during the coming year.
And here are the words of the Talmud: Babylonian Talmud without Tractate Chulin, page XNUMX page XNUMX
"Rashba says: An animal that licks its brain - prey! She texted Itamar."
To Michael
I got.
I usually don't get into a confrontation with religious believers of any kind. In confrontations with them there is no chance that you will be able to convince because they use a method that I call "The Great Magician Method". For example, if you finally manage to convince them that the world has existed for more than ten thousand years, their answer will be - God made this proof to put us to the test to see if, God forbid, we will neglect what is written in our holy teachings, that is, God, the great magician, made it appear as if the world existed longer From 5800 years just to put us to the test and just to see if we will be convinced. So against such a stupid argument of a great almighty magician who does whatever he wants, there is nothing to be done, that's why I dropped out of arguments with them.
If there is a religious person in front of me who is not ready to accept arguments in the "Great Magician's method", I am happy to enter into a confrontation, and you will be surprised, sometimes this kind of confrontation can be fruitful for both parties. Usually this confrontation is done face-to-face, so that you can understand the motives of the person standing in front of you.
Therefore, in light of all that has been said to Eyal, and from a complete belief in the resurrection of the dead, I see many extenuating circumstances for your determination regarding the effective mass of the mind of the aforementioned sublime being,
You just have to remember that he is not guilty at all, he is simply a wonderful creation of the "great" education system in our holy country.
with a smile
And have a good weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
Can you provide a reference for these statements of the Sage?
Thanks.
Yehuda:
A small expansion about Linon.
In all his responses he tries to pressure us (I do not use the phrase "convince" because he does not use arguments but pressure - literally) to abandon science in favor of religion.
As someone who believes in religion - describing him as having a small brain should not insult him because according to the sages, the brain is of no importance.
I guess you know that we all think in our hearts and our morality is in our kidneys.
Sages also said that even if the entire brain turns into water and only the outer membrane remains, its owner (human or animal) will continue to live and function.
I guess this is the situation in which Yanon lives and functions.
Yehuda:
My Linon response stemmed from the flood of comments he made on this site recently, in all of which he expresses his ignorance, on the one hand, and his disdain for science, on the other.
He didn't deserve any other reaction than the one he got.
Regarding the apparent contradiction you see in the analysis in the article, you must understand that things are not that simple.
First of all the currents will stop even before the poles melt completely. This will happen due to the fact that the increased valve rate will flood their area with fresh water that will not sink (because it is lighter than salt water) and stop the Gulf Stream.
A long time will pass until the dissolution rate decreases again and then the situation will not necessarily return to normal because not every process is reversible.
For example, when someone dies of starvation, the chance of bringing him back to life with food is zero.
I see a number of failures in the above explanation:-
The first fallacy is the one contained in the following sentence from the article:-
"Warm water will stop coming from the equatorial region to the regions close to the poles and there will be no mechanism to warm these regions. The polar regions will freeze even more and the ice will spread towards the equator" end quote.
Because here there is a logical contradiction. The reason, it was said there that because there will be no ice left at the poles, warm water will stop coming from the equatorial region to the poles (acceptable to me) and then what will happen that the poles will freeze indefinitely? Or maybe until…. Warm water will renew its arrival at the poles.
That is, it is not possible for there to be a sweeping freeze towards the equatorial nest!, as soon as there is a renewed partial freeze at the poles, the Gulf Stream will return and flow happily and happily.
The second fallacy is, as Michael already commented, water vapor is a greenhouse gas and not as stated in the article.
The third fallacy does not refer to the fact that it is very possible that a comet caused the cooling during the "Jinger Grace" period. An article on this topic appeared here on the science website not long ago.
There is one more thing left to comment to Michael, your response to the commenter does not require a statement about the size of his brain either, it was unnecessary (in my opinion).
It is true that his response is a little unflattering to our dear scientists, in any case, and especially to those who are diligent in their vigilance in the arctic ice steppe, but, in his response, there is also a certain justice when the words of the (dear) scientists are similar to the act of the oracle at Delphi, that is, whatever happens, warming or cooling, they They will say - "We told you so!"
The scientific analysis on this topic seems a bit unreliable.
Other than that we will have a good and cool day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yanon:
A small mouth is better than a small brain.
Unlike scientists, you throw small things (because that's all a small mind can produce) from a big map
Scientists..in the last millennium it has already become the definition of a prophet.. scientists are very cute especially they throw big things from a small map.. I know one thing I am the son of a king =] nothing will happen to me!
physicist. What predictions? of your rabbis?
50 years? The latest forecasts speak until 2013 as a year when there will be no summer ice left in the North Pole.
Who cares about the British and Norwegians? Let them cool down, the main thing here is that it won't affect. Let's hope it doesn't strengthen the Arabs.
Even so, it seems to me that nature will correct itself and create a balance according to what I see from the scenario that when the glaciers melt the north of the Earth will cool and it will balance itself.
If the warming of the earth leads to a cooling on the same principle, this is a sign that the same cooling will lead to a warming and repeats ad infinitum
In fact the theory was mentioned in its entirety in Roland Emmerich's film The Day After Tomorrow.
Another typical disaster movie with a slightly different message
I wanted to ask all the sages, will this raise the level of the Sea of Galilee or not?
Note that thousands of years since the last ice age temperatures were significantly higher than now. Have the ice caps melted? no and no. Stop these false scares.
It is important to distinguish between an ice age in which we have been for about 35 million years, and intermediate periods in which it is warmer,
We are currently in an intermediate warm period for about 20 thousand years
when a brief coldness lingers inside her,
The changes were caused (until human influence) by / because of a change in the Earth's orbit around the Sun - the Milankiewicz cycle.
According to a number of researchers, there is a possibility of a cold / baldness
In the Northern Hemisphere and especially in Europe,
since ocean currents in the south are less affected by warming,
The entire mechanism is familiar and logical, but there is one inaccuracy in the article regarding the water vapor.
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and actually causes warming and not cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Role_of_water_vapor
That's it, we're all lost
As long as the Earth doesn't freeze in my lifetime (which is a shame), it's not that interesting.