编辑-地球科学江南体育网页版堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台

你不是登录。你的编辑将被放置在一个队列,直到同行评议。

我们欢迎编辑,使读者更容易理解和更有价值。因为社区成员审查编辑,请尽量使文章更好比你怎么发现,例如,通过修正语法或添加额外的资源和超链接。

牧师

是2000年后回到冰期可信的图吗?

我读了这篇文章,

https://www.江南登录网址app下载technologyreview.com/s/416786/global-warming-vs-the-next-ice-age/

“在大约300年,很可能是消耗所有可用的化石燃料。在接下来的几个世纪,自然会过量的二氧化碳溶入海洋或被困的碳酸盐矿物的形成。这些过程不会抵消了我们今天所看到的工业排放,和大气二氧化碳会慢慢下降对工业化前的水平。在大约2000年,当行星运动的类型,可以诱导极性冷却再次一致,当前气候变暖的趋势将成为遥远的记忆。”

2000年是一个很多比其他更早的估计,可在几十万年,所以这是一个不切实际的估计吗?

回答

有点过时,短暂,但它是一个很酷的文章,我相信它的整体声音的预测和参数。整体观点,作者不是预测2000年冰河时代,所以你的标题问题的答案是,他没有说,但他写文章有点糟糕,因为这不是非常明确,特别是当他写道“双重打击”。但他预测的自然调整增加的二氧化碳约2000年内,冰期循环后,但不一定是一个冰河时代,应该返回。下一个冰河时代是很难预测的,因为地球的Milankovich周期不适合加起来再过150000年,如果一个冰河时代可以由一个小的推动,可以发生在10000年,但大力推动并不是由于一段时间。(更多细节的时机下一个冰期)[1]。作者的主要观点是,人为气候变化不会阻止下一个冰河时代,因为地球会吸收二氧化碳。他可能是对的,我认为这是一个非常良好和公平点。他不是说一个冰河时代将在大约2000年开始,尽管他似乎暗示的可能性。我认为,2000年很可能为时过早。冰河时代的触发需要冷北半球夏季(他说,在他的文章中)。 Basically, [the red line on this chart should be low][2], and we're in a leveling off and small warming period for the next 50,000 years. The cycles are adding up in such a way that predicting the next ice age is hard. **On his predictions:** Predicting that mankind will run out of fossil fuels in 300 years is reasonable. It's something that can't be predicted with accuracy and I personally think it's wrong. I think we'll move away from coal as climate change gets worse and with abundant deep shale that can be fracked (natural gas is good for cooking and planes need fossil fuels), so I think fossil fuels will remain in use and to some extent, untapped considerably past 300 years, but my opinion aside, his prediction is still reasonable and possible. Predicting that it will take the Earth about 2,000 years to reabsorb the added CO2 is also reasonable. I don't think anyone knows how long, or if a new equilibrium will be reached as opposed to a return to how it was, and making this kind of prediction is replete with uncertainties, but 2,000 years is fair. We should keep in mind that a science based hypothesis can be reasonable and still end up being wrong. In science as "good" hyopthesis is one that can be tested. A "good" hypothesis can still be wrong and for estimates this far out, there's room for both his estimate being reasonable and his estimate being very far off the mark. People sometimes yell at scientific predictions for being wrong, but predicting the future is hard, and people should stop yelling about that because it's not helpful. Scientists know that not all hypothesis based predictions are accurate, what matters is that a prediction is science based, has correlated cause and effect and can be studied and tested. (I hope you forgive my little rant, but I wanted to say what a good hypothesis actually means). Some studies on oceanic absorption of CO2 and other estimates of how long it would take for the Earth to recover might improve this answer, or be the subject for another question, but I'm not feeling the urge right now. That's a tricky thing to estimate and 2,000 years seems fair enough to me. It's funny that, today, it's in our best interest to try to stop using fossil fuels, but if/when the next ice age is coming, people might be encouraged to use clean fossil fuels to release more CO2 and prevent the coming ice age. "go for a drive, it's good for the environment" . . . anyone who's still around in 100,000 years, feel free to put that on your bumper-sticker. The author also indirectly makes the point that we might want to save some of our fossil fuels as a means of ice-age prevention. It's a sound point. I think the article should have been longer and more fleshed out, but it's a good basic article. I also want to add that while the article is short, he has a 267 page e-book which I imagine, goes into more detail. https://books.google.com/books/about/Energy_Demand_and_Climate_Change.html?id=EdAgjDtBsNsC [1]: //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/6653/when-will-glaciation-resume-has-global-warming-delayed-return-to-global-cooling [2]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/InsolationSummerSolstice65N.png

编辑总结

取消

5

\ begingroup美元与2000年二氧化碳reabsorbtion时间表,你可能想考虑最近的地质模型我们当前二氧化碳释放:二叠纪-三叠纪灭绝事件。回到“正常”是在一百万年左右。当然如果事件遵循这条道路,返回时间将对人类没有兴趣,因为他们会在物种灭绝。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -jamesqf
2017年12月19日在5:03
1

\ begingroup美元这是一个很好的例子。我真的不想解决的那部分问题太多细节,导致有很多移动部件,这将是一个很多段落,但这是一个很好的开始。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -userLTK
2017年12月19日在12
\ begingroup美元 @LTK,现在我明白你的意思,他只是指人为的温室气体将会被收回时,和然后需要时间的冰真的回来了。是的,谢谢你。更有意义反弹很快不是吗,比较? \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -吉米撒尿
2017年12月19日16:59
\ begingroup美元所以,因为冰川作用导致物种灭绝,生物多样性的破坏将会发生什么,和什么时候?我知道的时候已经解决,但是破坏的程度呢? \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -吉米撒尿
2017年12月19日在十七10
\ begingroup美元 @Jimmy小便:我认为你需要支持的想法冰川作用导致物种灭绝,至少大灭绝,而不仅仅是改变气候区和生物群equator-wards。当然,最后一个冰河时代的生物群似乎比我们现在更多样化(或冰期结束后不久),当然关于北美巨型动物。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -jamesqf
2017年12月20日在跑

| 显示4更多的评论

正确的小错误或错误
澄清的意思,而不更改它
添加相关资源或链接
总是尊重作者的意图
不使用编辑与作者回复

创建代码用引号”或式子~篱笆
' ' '
像这样
' ' '
添加语言标识符来突出显示的代码
”“python
def函数(foo):
打印(foo)
' ' '
把段落之间的回报
在结束linebreak添加2个空间
_italic_或* *的* *
报价将>开始的
做链接(尽量使用https)
< https://example.com >
(例子)(https://example.com)
< a href = " https://example.com " > < / >示例
MathJax方程罪\ \ ^ 2θ美元

格式帮助»
回答帮助»

MathJax帮助»