Author Topic: Climate-Triggered NYC Disaster - New York on Ice, or Real (not faux) Climate Change  (Read 592 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
How the Ice Age Shaped New York

Quote from: New York Times

Long ago, the region lay under an ice sheet thousands of feet thick. It terminated abruptly in what are now the boroughs, leaving the city with a unique landscape.

The New York Times may not realize it but last week they published a powerful argument against the concept of Anthropocentric Global Warming ("AGW"). New York City forms the southern edge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.



As the article explains, the ice sheet expanded as far as it could before encountering warmer weather, or more likely a higher sun angle. The glaciers retreated, and the warming was apparently as if not more sudden than the events of recent years that have caused much anxiety about AGW. Excerpt:
Quote from: New York Times
Some 13,000 years ago, a large accumulation of icy water from melting glaciers was suddenly unleashed upstate. A towering wave of destruction crashed down through the Hudson gorge and proceeded to smash the southern end of the local moraine to smithereens.

“It was biblical,” Mr. Horenstein said. The wave created the Narrows, which now connects the Atlantic Ocean to one of the world’s largest natural harbors.
While the jury is out on AGW, man in all likelihood cause this warming-triggered flood, or the warming.

For more, see On a Clear Day You Can See an Ice Age: One Journalist’s View From the Upper West Side.
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8101
How the Ice Age Shaped New York
The New York Times may not realize it but last week they published a powerful argument against the concept of Anthropocentric Global Warming ("AGW"). New York City forms the southern edge of the Laurentide Ice Sheet.



As the article explains, the ice sheet expanded as far as it could before encountering warmer weather, or more likely a higher sun angle. The glaciers retreated, and the warming was apparently as if not more sudden than the events of recent years that have caused much anxiety about AGW. Excerpt:While the jury is out on AGW, man in all likelihood cause this warming-triggered flood, or the warming.

For more, see On a Clear Day You Can See an Ice Age: One Journalist’s View From the Upper West Side.

What ?  The glaciers melted and so AGW is in doubt ?  This is moronic. 
Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
What ?  The glaciers melted and so AGW is in doubt ?  This is moronic.
Exactly. A "sudden warming" episode created the Verrazano Narrows, by a sudden release of melt-water from upstate New York as the glaciers retreated.
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Still a lot remains unknown about the mechanics of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, but there are some hypothesis out there. The general theory is the Earth has been cooling over hundreds of millions of years from continental drift. While CO2 being released from the southern ocean appears to be the major factor in ending the last ice age (global temperature lags behind CO2 concentration), that appears to be a reaction to an initial warming that is not as well understood.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8101
Exactly. A "sudden warming" episode created the Verrazano Narrows, by a sudden release of melt-water from upstate New York as the glaciers retreated.

The article says nothing about a 'sudden warming'.

Please stop wasting my time.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline the_squid

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3479
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5546
Sun hits ancient glacier, forms pools & rivers of water that further melt glacier more quickly, therefore AGW doesn't exist?
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
  • Location: Kim City BC
Sun hits ancient glacier, forms pools & rivers of water that further melt glacier more quickly, therefore AGW doesn't exist?


Not exactly that.  During the ice-age, advancing glaciers could create moraines or ice dams that changed the drainage and could form large lakes. If the volume of water in the lake became too much to be held back, these temporary dams could break and the result was a torrential flood.  I'm not familiar with the specifics of the New York ice-age situation, but in the western US, south of Kim Country, the southern tip of encroaching glaciers blocked rivers and caused a huge lake to form centered around Missoula Montana.  This lake broke through the ice dam, creating a flood of Biblical proportions that had dramatic effects on the landscape of Washington state as it surged towards the ocean.   And then the ice dam gradually reformed... and the whole cycle repeated. Again, and again. Possibly dozens of times.

(Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods )

It wasn't the result of sudden melting, it was the result of the interface where the southern end of the glacier started to interfere with lakes and rivers and change drainage patterns.

And no, none of this actually constitutes an argument against AGW.  It reminds us that much of our continent was covered by large glaciers that receded, which is something that most of us learned in elementary school.

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Offline JBG

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 180
  • Left-Wing Democrat (similar to NDP)
  • Location: New York area
And no, none of this actually constitutes an argument against AGW.  It reminds us that much of our continent was covered by large glaciers that receded, which is something that most of us learned in elementary school.
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?
Trump - Watch what he does, not how he says it.

====================
 If it's us or them, I choose us

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5546
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?

nobody is saying warming didn't end the ice age.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8101
The Ice Age was ended by orbital forcing and Milankovitch cycles.


Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield has a great series of videos and this 13 minute video includes cites of papers and interviews with scientists, skeptics and even deniers.   I don't usually like videos as a means of explaining but there don't seem to be a lot of sources that break down the science and also address skeptics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ3PzYU1N7A

I like the series because it doesn't ascribe motives to people, even those who ignore obvious facts, and does find fault with both sides, eg. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" film.  In retrospect, that film may have done a disservice to public discussions of climate change, however we could not hav e known that.   

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6509
Well, it seems more snow doesn't equal more ice in the Antarctic.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44470208

Glad I moved from the flood plain to the top of the hill six years ago.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 02:45:59 pm by wilber »
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Potholer54 aka Peter Hadfield has a great series of videos and this 13 minute video includes cites of papers and interviews with scientists, skeptics and even deniers.
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/12/the-debate-mann-titley-moore-curry/

Alarmists prefer to argue the more ridiculous arguments presented by psuedo-skeptics and resort to naming calling and other ad-homs when presented with arguments that do have sound scientific basis. That does not mean that the planet is not warming or that CO2 does not present an unquantifiable risk. It just means the known unknowns and unknown unknowns are much bigger than alarmists claim and there is no reason to believe that reducing CO2 emissions today would necessarily result in more good than harm.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 09:25:16 pm by TimG »

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4112
  • Location: Kim City BC
If warming didn't end the Ice Age what did?

Your argument is apparently that since human activity didn't cause the end of the ice age, human activity couldn't be causing warming present-day either.

As Michael charitably put it, that's moronic.

It's like arguing that since human activity didn't cause the dinosaurs to go extinct, human activity couldn't be causing species to go extinct present-day either.

Good grief.

I'm not exactly sure where to rank this one on the stupid-scale, but it's somewhere in the same neighborhood as "it's cold today so global warming is obviously fake" and "if humans evolved from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys?"

 -k
Masked for your safety.
Winner Winner x 2 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4239
If you are interested in understanding the skeptical position that is well founded by science try here:

still pimpin' for Crazy Aunt Judy? Still? Deniers gotta deny!
Like Like x 2 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List