The benefits of an Ice Age: Hypothetical ramblings to you straight from the curvy passages of my mind.
There has been a lot of debate over the last decade concerning the term "Global Warming" and some of the opponents to that concept may have had a point, because at some point the phrase was changed to "Climate Change" and to me that looked like the hedging of bets. If an Ice Age happens, that is Climate Change. If the world turns into a desert, that is Climate Change. So anything that happens to the climate is Climate Change. So by changing from "Global Warming" which was specific to "Climate Change" which is general they can never truly be wrong. Yet, that also means they lack a clear goal.
Now all of the science, and sometimes so-called science, and the pushing of the term consensus as though it has a place in science seems largely still focused on Anthropogenic Global Warming. I am NOT going to attack that information or tell you that it is right or it is wrong. At this point the information is so muddied and politicized that I personally do not state for or against it. I also do not deny "Climate Change" as that would be stupid as the climate is always changing and has always been changing throughout existence. It has even been changing in historical writings of man. So it will continue to change. The big key here is that what people are really debating is Anthropogenic (aka caused by human activity) Climate Change which is a lot different than just "Climate Change".
Consider all of that rambling mess above my pre-amble... There have also been people talking about potential Ice Ages coming for some time. Some of them from the 70s and 80s have supposedly been debunked. Whether any science went into the claims, or into the debunking I cannot tell you. There has been a scientist in Russia in 2010 indicating signs that a Little Ice Age is coming due to historic minimums on sun activity.
This lead me to a WHAT IF. This WHAT IF is the heart of what I wanted to write about, but this is such a charged topic that I felt it necessary to write the mess above before getting into what I actually want to talk about.
The Big What If
Let's say an Ice Age does come, even a little one. What can we expect the results to be? History shows us that the glaciers should grow larger again, and the ocean levels should drop. How much they drop depends upon the length and depth of the Ice Age.
There is evidence of civilizations below the surface of the ocean, we discover more over time. We have also found them below the surface of the Black Sea and other large bodies of water. In fact, just like now it appears the bulk of human civilizations liked to build near the edges of the bodies of water.
As the previous Ice Ages ended it appears the rising sea levels "flooded" these places. Whether it happened catastrophically fast like is discussed in various religions is not my goal either.
What if new coastal land becomes available? Will it be prime real estate?
What if we are still employing techniques to fight "global warming" and there is actually cooling going on? Wouldn't that result in Anthropogenic Global Cooling?
In which case could that potentially expand the amount of new coastal land that becomes available? Could such techniques be used to maintain the existence of that land? How profitable would that be?
This simple WHAT IF was the "Wow, that's messed up" thought I had this morning and I just had to share it and get you guys/gals shaking your heads and rubbing your temples thinking "WTF!".
Now I have no indicators this IS happening, this is my imaginative mind reaching for wild things to talk about. I hadn't heard anyone mention some scenario like this, so those are the things I like to talk about the most when they happen.
This kind of has the same benefit as Lex Luther in the old Superman causing California to fall into the sea and suddenly making some new ocean front property (formerly desert) incredibly valuable at a time he happened to have bought it all. Of course Superman saves the day and it didn't happen.
As always, thank you for your time.
Fun to think about...
Only thing you're missing is a discussion of who might benefit from current plans in the works for global climate change policy.
Yeah that wasn't really my goal. So it is not really missing. I wanted to throw the entire idea of NEW real estate if the world does cool. Though it could also tie into what you are saying. Could this also be an agenda?
Wait, I understood it that way, that coastline real estate, including beaches and small islands, is mostly owned by rather influential people. So they are just lobbying hard to keep (or gain) any centimeter ( or inch....) they can get.
Very few people understand that weather prediction is no different that gambling. There is very little we can decipher due to the fact that there are way too many constituents in place.
The other important factor is that global weather changes extremely slowly. Sure we might have noticed some extreme events as of recently but correlation does not imply causation.
This is the mistake many scientists often make, rushing into conclusions without subjecting their observations into the rigorous test of falsifiability.
Correlation does not equal causation is one of my favorite sayings. :)
I agree with you.
That is why I hate the "the easiest solution is always the best" paradigm.
yeah. it goes more like this. "the easiest solution is most likely the laziest and least efficient".
This is interesting to think about. I've been hearing talk that the earth is actually cooling as things here in Utah aren't really getting warmer but kind of chilly even into June! And I think they've even changed the term to Extreme Weather now, not even climate change. Really is something to think about isn't it? Usually happens we you don't know what is really going on.
The narrative is mostly protected by the short term memory habits of the average person. I mean how many people even question what you and I are talking about?
Global Warming -> Climate Change -> Extreme Weather
The funny thing about Extreme Weather that is an aspect of Climate Change too... that's why I really dislike them using the term "Climate Change" because that is like the bucket that holds everything. So anything can happen, even the opposite of what they have been saying and they can say "See, that's climate change". Yes, it is climate change, but it's not the type of climate change you've been talking about.
Now to show I am not completely biased. If the water content that is free flowing in the world due to melting increases then yes, that likely would cause some weather changes. Yet, our grasp of weather is sometimes weak enough that predicting the impact may not be very accurate.
To me it has felt a lot like the seasons have actually been shifting some... winter coming later, and lasting longer... so it has been more like taking the seasons and the months they previously started and ended and moving them so the start and end points are in different months.
That is an interesting point I never considered. The seasons really do come later but last longer. We got some snow on the ground maybe two weeks ago. I guess I kind of am biased in the sense that I don't buy into their predictions. Mainly my own reasoning being we can't predict tomorrows weather, how can we predict weather 50 years from now? I guess time will tell really, maybe with some real research we kind of the ideal path go address our ever changing world.
Well their argument they will make and it is valid in this case is that Weather is not the same thing as Climate. It is a part of Climate.
That illustrates why I don't like their change to using the phrase "Climate Change" as that is the large bucket into which every form of weather, global cooling, global warming exist. So it is truly hedging bets. This is especially true when you consider the Climate has always been changing before man, and it will continue to change.
They like to blame everything on man, as it helps their agenda.
The problem is that there are some really BIG factors when it comes to Climate that have nothing to do with man. The sun and its activity is a huge one. If the sun alters in any way that definitely will impact our climate. That also can't be blamed on man, though they likely would try.
They would love to pass this Carbon Tax scam... it gives them power, oppresses the people more, and it is a step towards a one world government since all member nations would have to answer to an unelected board above their government.
And yet so many people buy into this. I'm amazed at how this was pushed so hard in schools and no one questioned it. I'm just glad I was to turned off at the time to catch the disease. Thankfully not everyone is buying into it now.
The only logic I see to protect the Earth is "Lessen the pollution, or stop it."
I think the logic here is infallible. As far as politics go? Well, I'm not statist, and I don't trust 'em either. But atmospheric science is still logical.
Introducing new gases to the atmosphere will result in changes. Cause and effect cannot be negated.
But politics? Ugh.
I am fine with fighting any kind of pollution... not just CO2 which we exhale. I was a big supporter of earth day, recycling, etc.
Many of us were against pollution and doing what we could do about it. Then the Global Warming agenda came along and kind of hijacked it all for what seems political purposes, and the focus shifted from addressing pollution as a whole and focused on CO2 and other Carbon sources...
Pretty brilliant to focus on what comes out of your body every time you exhale as the most important pollution.
Sadly, it came at the expense of dealing with the rest of pollution.
Wow! I always wondered with climate change "Why?" There was obviously an Agenda, since the msm paddled the topic way too hard and dramatically. But I always asked myself "Who in the world profits of this" "Is the new energy lobby reallly that strong".
So what if the ocean level rises even 1 meter, some people would have to give up their homes which is sad, but there are worse things happening all around the world every day. Now if these homes are giant mansions owned by influential people, the whole "hoax" would make a lot more sense.
Thanks for the interesting idea! @dwinblood
Well the agenda is clearly about control and power. If it were actually for a solution they wouldn't be pushing so hard for a Carbon Tax. A Carbon Tax is a global tax which means it is controlled by a global body (aka global government) so it is a first step in creating a global government.
Then there is the massive wealth that can be made from these taxes on breathing (since you exhale CO2) and the hysteria related to it. The fact of the matter is the Carbon Tax fixes nothing. It allows the worst offenders to continue offending, which is why people like Al Gore who talk about it have a massive carbon footprint and can afford it. So when they are pushing for a carbon tax that will impact the average person and not impact those in power. It will only grant them more power.
It also does nothing to address Anthropogenic Global Warming.
So the fact that tends to be the solution they push the most within this entire "climate change" movement is also pretty telling.
There are some indicators the warming has been reversing and going the other way for a little over half a decade. This would correlate to the change in the sun, and how active it has been, which makes a lot of sense scientifically speaking.
So if it is cooling, and we end up spraying crap into the atmosphere and doing other things to fight "global warming" would that not potentially speed up the cooling?
So my big AHA moment today was thinking... Who benefits if there is an ice age?
Anyone that can purchase the land that is just below sea level right now would suddenly have prime ocean front property. Which is the opposite of what they are publicly putting emphasis on. They have been focusing on rising sea levels.
Historically and in the future the sea levels are going to rise and fall. If we are going to stop this then that means we are FOR Anthropogenic Climate Change. We are trying to learn to freeze the climate in place so that we can protect our prime real estate. In reality, building close to the ocean is always a risk, and always has been a risk. Like I indicated there are plenty of ruins below the surface of bodies of water that are a testament to this fact.
I had never considered Global Cooling giving NEW LAND for those in the KNOW though until today. That is why I posted this.
Also consensus is not scientific. Consensus is meaningless to science. If 99% of people believe something that is false, that does not make it suddenly factual or true. I posted a satirical article about that topic recently.
Yeah, your consens article reminds me when in philosophy people will talk about an historic person that advocated critical thinking and then say they 100% agree with that person and have nothing to add or subtract from their views.
On the topic tho: asking a climate scientist, whose very job might be threatened if climate change is no imminent threat, about climate change is the same as asking a pedicurist if you need a pedicure.
The new land theory might be a factor, I mean Dubai and China made new land by dumping sand into water. Maybe the US plans a more sophisticated way ;D.
But for now I stick to my coast land owners are rather high up in the social hierarchy and lobbying. :3
Oh I don't disagree with you. I was purely musing on some new thoughts I hadn't had before. :)