"Climate Cycle"

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by safe, Feb 8, 2010.

  1. safe

    safe Active Member

    When people realized that "Global Warming" in a straight line was flawed because the science does not support it they changed the name to:

    "Climate Change"

    ...but that term doesn't help much because it allows the straight line mindset to continue. The "Global Warming" advocates are given a place to hide.

    A better term would be:

    "Climate Cycle"

    ...because that fully defines what happens and allows both warming and cooling to occur without an agenda attached to it. Nature has it's cycles with or without man.

    If people would gradually adopt better language they would be able to think more clearly about the issue. The "Climate Cycle" allows for the rise of CO2 without significant trauma about it because it is seen as part of something that occurs on a regular basis. We cannot control the "Climate Cycle" but we can become aware of it and begin to learn how to adapt to it.

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010

  2. safe

    safe Active Member

    A Poll Question:

    "Do you think that man should attempt to control the Climate Cycle?"

    :D Yes?

    :D No?

    If yes, then:

    "How much are you personally willing to pay to control the Climate Cycle?"

    :D $1,000?

    :D $5,000?

    :D $10,000?

    :D $50,000?
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2010
  3. GearNut

    GearNut Active Member

    no NONONO.
    I am willing to spend zip, zilch and a whole bunch of nada on "controlling" the climate. What a bunch of hooey!
    The earth will do as she pleases, thank you very much.
  4. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    nope, never, zilch, nada, waist of money, government control, power... yada yada yada...
  5. safe

    safe Active Member

    The Climate Cycle Control Guarantee

    What if there was a Guarantee?

    Climate Cycles have never been stopped before so the idea of literally taking control of the worlds climate is a new idea. If the attempt failed then all the money spent would have been wasted.

    What if there was some way you could get your money back if it failed?

    :D Would you invest in Climate Cycle Control with a Guarantee?

    (of course where would the money come from to pay people back once the money is lost)
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  6. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    you are out of your mind, there is absolutely no way to get that money back once it leaves your hand. Not now, not ever.... no reason to even speculate.

    The reason.... it isn't actually going to scientific research. It is going to people like al gore and the UN, the con artists that promulgate these things.
  7. safe

    safe Active Member


    I think if it could be shown that humans were capable of controlling the Climate Cycle then we might be able to have a rational discussion about costs.

    For example:

    Long ago people more or less had to deal with the weather because homes were unable to keep you very warm in the winters and cool in the summers. Because of technology we are now able to heat our homes in winter and air condition in summer and this is all done to counteract the cycle of the seasons. (the short cycle)

    If it could be proven that humans could control the entire planet through technology then it might make long term sense to invest in it.

    However, as it is now there is little proof that we can have any effect. Even if we fiddled with the CO2 a little the overall cycle is going to rise and fall into the next Ice Age and there is little we can do to stop it.

    What is needed is some more significant technology... like maybe some massive dam in the middle of the oceans that can be regulated so that currents can be controlled.

    The Climate Cycle is ultimately controlled by the temperature of the oceans and the direction and rate of current flow. If you could control the ocean currents you could essentually "set the temperature" of the planet.

    That's going to take hundreds of trillions of dollars of course, but if the technology worked then maybe it might be a worthy goal over the long term.

    As it is now it's hard to see the cost benefit for this stuff because control of CO2 will not in itself control the Climate Cycle. Simply trying to cut CO2 will not stop the Climate Cycle.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  8. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    safe... you are just looking foolish. Jump off the climate change bandwagon and run while you still have dignity.
  9. safe

    safe Active Member

    Massive Dams

    Here's an idea.

    If you could build massive dams surrounding the polar regions of the oceans and prevent water from circulating then you could keep the ice melt from mixing into the oceans. With the oceans remaining salty it would prevent the transition to the next Ice Age. If things start getting too hot you could let a little water out of the dam and that would make the oceans less salty and slow the circulation which would tend to cool the poles.

    So you could with dams alone control the earths temperature.

    Most of these dams could be made of rocks and if they carefully selected shallow waters it might not be that bad.


    The point I'm trying to make is that the brain dead approach of restricting CO2 isn't going to work because the Climate Cycle is not going to be effected by that. You would be better off taking control of the oceans because that's the true driving force for the climate.

    So while the costs are insane... it does deal with the real issue.


    The "bottom line" is that the Climate Cycle appears to be stronger than we are. The cycle is going to go where it goes unless we can invent a way to actually control it. CO2 limitation is not going to work... it's just not strong enough of a tool.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  10. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    im confused... is this a joke thread and everybody is laughing at me because I actually take what you say serious???????

    If this is for real... that is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

    I think it would be cheaper and less effort to build replica cities a few miles inland and just wait for the water to rise.
  11. safe

    safe Active Member


    The Climate Cycle is a vaild concept.

    Would I actually want to pay to control the Climate Cycle?

    Absolutely not!

    But my point is that people who are Global Warming "straight liners" are willing to pay trillions of dollars for expensive green solutions that are not ultimately going to halt the Climate Cycle.

    Why pay trillions for something that doesn't work?

    So the thinking here is that if you are going to throw trillions of dollars at something then maybe you might have a better chance of success if you address the real issue which is ocean current control.

    CO2 control is not adequate to halt the Climate Cycle.

    Now do you get it?
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  12. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    Last edited: Feb 9, 2010
  13. safe

    safe Active Member

    Nothing wrong with not getting the idea right away.

    It's cool...
  14. safe

    safe Active Member


    The Climate Cycle can be compared to the Inflation Adjusted stock market. When valuations spike upwards in the stock markets it's much like the spike we see in CO2 and Methane which melts the polar ice and halts the ocean currents thereby reversing the upward trend.

    Global Warming "Straight Liners" are like the people that bought the stock market at the top thinking that it could go up forever.

    If one were to be thinking in Climate terms we should all "sell" the warming and "buy" the cooling. (if we were smart)

    Go "Short" on Global Warming

    Go "Long" on the Next Ice Age

    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  15. give me vtec

    give me vtec Active Member

    lol... good comparison.
  16. loquin

    loquin Active Member

    Again, you're stating assumptions as fact...

    There has not been a cause-effect relationship proven between melting polar ice caps and ocean currents halting. But, you are asserting one exists, as fact.

    And, there has not been a cause-effect relationship proven between halting ocean currents, and reversing upward temperature trend. But, you are asserting this relationship also, again, as fact.

    However, you apparently do support the concept that spikes in CO2 and Methane lead to temperature increases large enough to melt polar ice...
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  17. safe

    safe Active Member

    Geology is a science that is imperfect... this is true. However, it is true that they have found in samples that if you go back in time the CO2, Methane and Temperature tend to cycle together.

    So if we see the cycle going up now, and we are at the traditional trigger point compared to previous events, then we would conclude it a very high logical probability that a repeat of past performance will occur. (the beginning of a downward trend towards the next Ice Age)

    The Climate Cycle tends to operate such that it's hard to go above or below two setpoints.

    People that believe in Straight Line Global Warming simply are less knowledgable about the science. Frankly most people haven't a clue and just go by what the media tells them... they don't even bother to look at the science.

    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  18. loquin

    loquin Active Member

    Again, there are two, separate processes involved, safe. You have the natural cycles of glaciation temperature rises and falls, which is driven by orbital mechanics, and you have a separately driven CO2 increase, where human activity is artificially forcing CO2 levels rapidly higher.

    CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. When added to the atmosphere, they tend to drive temperatures up. However, they are sequestered in the ocean as well, and when temperatures go up, CO2 and Methane are released from the ocean, in response to temperature rises. Likewise, when ocean temps fall due to the long term orbital variabilities, the ocean is able to absorb more CO2 and retain more methane.

    From the ice cores, it's hard to say, in regards to the natural glacial cycles, whether changes in gas levels caused the ice ages, or whether the ice ages, driven by the changes in the orbit/precession, caused the changes in gas levels.
  19. safe

    safe Active Member


    You can rule out orbital precession because it operates on a 26,000 year cycle.

    What do we have?

    You have simultaneous rise and fall of temp, CO2 and methane.

    You have ice melting that occurs at the end of each cycle.

    You have changes in ocean saltiness which effects the speed of the currents which in turn controls the movement of heat.

    You have the fact that H2O has a stubburn phase transition so things tend to quicky reverse course in response to phase change. Ice is highly reflective, but once it melts the earth underneath warms rapidly and the permafrost melts releasing methane. (which is an accellerant that is 20 times stronger than CO2)

    ...the bottom line is that unless you want to work really, really hard NOT to see it there is a Climate Cycle and it tends to repeat on a time span of about 100,000 years.

    It's possible that the orbital precession could cause "subcycles" to some degree, but it's not a dominant factor in my opinion. (it just doesn't make sense for a 26,000 year cycle to drive a 100,000 year cycle) Also, the tilting of the earth will just shift the heating around a bit, but not really address the reasons for why things are heating or cooling overall.

    What hasn't been talked about as much is the other end of the cycle. The point at which the Ice Age eventually stops and suddenly reverses is also something to ponder. It's not something that matters to us much today, but from a "pure science" perspective it would be interesting to understand the whole process.

    My "guess" is the Ice Ages end when all the ice is stacked up in the poles (or at least enough to make things more salty) and the circulation returns. In the last Ice Age the glaciers were a mile high and made it all the way to New York city. The ocean circulation could recover in a matter of just a year or two... which quickly is going to alter weather and make more land area fertile.

    The cycle seems to require 100,000 years on average because that's how long it takes to evaporate and store enough water in the poles. That's a lot of water to evaporate.



    The formula would be something like:

    Total quantity of ocean water needed to cover the ice caps * 540 cal/g Heat from the sun to cause the evaporation = Some period of time (in thousands of years) for it all to take place.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2010
  20. safe

    safe Active Member

    More Evidence

    The link between sea level and the Climate Cycle is very strong.

    Ocean levels match CO2, Methane and Temperature in a 100,000 year cycle.


    One might say:

    "It's the water stupid."
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2010