Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This just in: Ice Age postponed due to global warming!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This just in: Ice Age postponed due to global warming!


    Global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions is blamed by scientists for intensifying storms, raising sea levels and prolonging droughts. Now there’s growing evidence of a positive effect: we may have delayed the next ice age by 100,000 years or more.

    The conditions necessary for the onset of a new ice age were narrowly missed at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research near Berlin wrote Wednesday in the journal Nature. Since then, rising emissions of heat-trapping CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas have made the spread of the world’s ice sheets even less likely, they said.

    “This study further confirms what we’ve suspected for some time, that the carbon dioxide humans have added to the atmosphere will alter the climate of the planet for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and has canceled the next ice age,” said Andrew Watson, a professor of Earth sciences at the University of Exeter in southwest England who wasn’t involved in the research. “Humans now effectively control the climate of the planet.”



    […]

    “However, our study also shows that relatively moderate additional anthropogenic CO2-emissions from burning oil, coal and gas are already sufficient to postpone the next ice age for another 50,000 years,” which would mean the next one probably won’t start for 100,000 years, he said.

    “The bottom line is that we are basically skipping a whole glacial cycle, which is unprecedented.”

    […]

    Bloomberg

    Words fail me. I won’t even bother to point out that we are living in an Ice Age which began back in the Oligocene…




    Nor will I bother to point out that the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide doesn’t even break out of the Cenozoic noise level…



    By “ice age,” the author probably means “glacial stage”… The climate is barely warmer than the coldest period of the current interglacial stage…





    The subject of the Bloomberg article is Ganopolski et al., 2016


    The past rapid growth of Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets, which terminated warm and stable climate periods, is generally attributed to reduced summer insolation in boreal latitudes1, 2, 3. Yet such summer insolation is near to its minimum at present4, and there are no signs of a new ice age5. This challenges our understanding of the mechanisms driving glacial cycles and our ability to predict the next glacial inception6. Here we propose a critical functional relationship between boreal summer insolation and global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, which explains the beginning of the past eight glacial cycles and might anticipate future periods of glacial inception. Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth7. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8, 9. Our simulations demonstrate that under natural conditions alone the Earth system would be expected to remain in the present delicately balanced interglacial climate state, steering clear of both large-scale glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere and its complete deglaciation, for an unusually long time.

    They basically developed a model relating insolation to atmospheric CO2. If I am reading it correctly, they are asserting that insolation drives changes in atmospheric CO2 which then drives the glacial-interglacial stages.

    Then they go on to say “that under natural conditions alone the Earth system would be expected to remain in the present delicately balanced interglacial climate state, steering clear of both large-scale glaciation of the Northern Hemisphere and its complete deglaciation, for an unusually long time.”

    So, it’s actually “worse than we thought”… Earth is naturally delicately balanced between a Late Pleistocene glacial stage and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. So, no matter what we do, George Carlin was right…




    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/1...omment-2119180
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    The 40,000-Mile Volcano

    AND...
    The 40,000-Mile Volcano
    EXCERPT:
    ...The cause, she proposed, is Earth’s slightly elliptical orbit around the sun. That changes the strength of the sun’s gravitational pull on Earth during the year and, as a result, the magnitude of the tides that squeeze the planet. She said the eruptions coincided with the annual letup of the squeeze. More boldly, Dr. Tolstoy suggested that such mechanisms might help explain how the planet’s regular ice ages end so abruptly — long a mystery.
    Ocean levels fall sharply in such bitterly cold periods as water is tied up in massive continental ice sheets. In a paper, she proposed that the reduced pressure on the ridges might let them erupt far more frequently. As a result, more carbon dioxide would spew into the ocean and, eventually, into the atmosphere, trapping more heat and warming the planet.
    In short, according to this hypothesis, the ice sheets would eventually grow large enough to initiate their own destruction, refilling the oceans. It was a radical idea that has stirred debate.
    ....
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/sc...ater.html?_r=0
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
    “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
    Present Current Events are the Future's History

    Comment


    • #3
      Weird Forests Once Sprouted in Antarctica
      http://www.livescience.com/40893-wei...c-forests.html


      Climate change happens, humans or not...
      Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
        Weird Forests Once Sprouted in Antarctica
        http://www.livescience.com/40893-wei...c-forests.html


        Climate change happens, humans or not...
        So does "plate tectonics"~continental drift.
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
        “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
        Present Current Events are the Future's History

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
          Weird Forests Once Sprouted in Antarctica
          http://www.livescience.com/40893-wei...c-forests.html


          Climate change happens, humans or not...
          A BBC series, Walking with Dinosaurs, dealt with this issue in episode 5. Indeed, the planet was much warmer then. Of course, it is the rate of change which is currently of real concern, not that change happens. This is one of the very basic schoolboy errors that deniers often propagate erroneously.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            A BBC series, Walking with Dinosaurs, dealt with this issue in episode 5. Indeed, the planet was much warmer then. Of course, it is the rate of change which is currently of real concern, not that change happens. This is one of the very basic schoolboy errors that deniers often propagate erroneously.
            Walking With Dinosaurs did not deal with this in Episode 5...
            Some 250 million years ago, during the late Permian and early Triassic...

            It didn't even deal with it in Episode 1.

            And there is no evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing any more rapidly now, than it did at any point in the last time 10,000 years.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ice age delayed?

              Oh good I can cancel my order for sea boot stockings
              Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
              Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                A BBC series, Walking with Dinosaurs, dealt with this issue in episode 5. Indeed, the planet was much warmer then. Of course, it is the rate of change which is currently of real concern, not that change happens. This is one of the very basic schoolboy errors that deniers often propagate erroneously.
                And the "schoolboy error" that is constantly propagated by Climatologists is that humans can change planetary climate cycles.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  And the "schoolboy error" that is constantly propagated by Climatologists is that humans can change planetary climate cycles.


                  Actually they can, proven after 911, when aircraft were banned from flying. After 3 days, temperatures had risen by 1 degree C.

                  http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ng_trans.shtml
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    Actually they can, proven after 911, when aircraft were banned from flying. After 3 days, temperatures had risen by 1 degree C.

                    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ng_trans.shtml
                    The Gorebots at RealClimate disagree with Nickelodeon science for a change...
                    A recent BBC Horizon documentary (transcript) raised the issue of ‘global dimming’ and argued that this ‘killer’ phenomena’s newly-recognised existence would lead to huge re-assessments of future global warming. As part of the hyperbole, the process of global dimming was linked very clearly to the famines in Ethiopia in the 1980s and the implication was left that worse was to come. Media reports with headlines like “Fossil Fuel Curbs May Speed Global Warming” swiftly followed. So what’s the real story?

                    [...]

                    It should however be stressed that there are as yet no completely convincing explanations that quantitatively match the (admittedly uncertain) observations of this phenomena (Liepert and Lohmann, 2004). However, the Horizon documentary nevertheless confidently asserts that:

                    Global dimming is a killer. It may have been behind the worst climatic disaster of recent times, responsible for famine and death on a biblical scale. And Global Dimming is poised to strike again.


                    The reference is to the 1980s famine in Ethiopia, partly caused by the failure of the Sahel monsoon (but clearly exacerbated by the poor governance of the Menghistu regime then in power).

                    [...]

                    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lobal-dimming/
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                      Actually they can, proven after 911, when aircraft were banned from flying. After 3 days, temperatures had risen by 1 degree C.

                      http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog...ng_trans.shtml
                      A three day glitch does not science, or climate change trend, make, but what can we expect from the resident "schoolboy" whom is behind the curve?
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                      “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                      Present Current Events are the Future's History

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The problem with pollution is that some types can warm the planet, and some can cool it. Some do both, but in different amounts. Really screws with the equations.

                        The fact remains that the relevant climatologists who disagree with the mainstream view are an incredibly small population. Factor in that minute population with where they get their funding from, and the truth is revealed.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          1q

                          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                          A three day glitch does not science, or climate change trend, make, but what can we expect from the resident "schoolboy" whom is behind the curve?

                          Schoolboy? I've studied one poster's Science here in depth, far too much depth. I even nearly believed in it a few years ago. I even got taken in that it appeared to be difficult to fathom their posts easily. I believed they were smart and that they didn't dumb down the science. I believed that poster at that time.

                          For months I believed in that posters POV, but then they said you can trust the corporations. You can trust a corporation to try to make profits for its shareholders. That is it. That is when I more than guessed that poster was bought, gift wrapped and paid for.

                          Then I looked at that persons graphs. Some were from the net. Some were from corporate sources. Some were made up according to data they thought relevant. When they state they make graphs from data they consider useful, ie those their funding agrees with, it is time to put them on ignore.

                          Best thing I've ever did on ACG. I don't have the resources to deal with corporation backed lackeys. I am able to make those that think this topic is about politics gain a few IQ points.

                          As Reagan said, we have the technology to get the energy out of the ground without destroying the environment.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                            Schoolboy? I've studied one poster's Science here in depth, far too much depth. I even nearly believed in it a few years ago. I even got taken in that it appeared to be difficult to fathom their posts easily. I believed they were smart and that they didn't dumb down the science. I believed that poster at that time.

                            For months I believed in that posters POV, but then they said you can trust the corporations. You can trust a corporation to try to make profits for its shareholders. That is it. That is when I more than guessed that poster was bought, gift wrapped and paid for.

                            Then I looked at that persons graphs. Some were from the net. Some were from corporate sources. Some were made up according to data they thought relevant. When they state they make graphs from data they consider useful, ie those their funding agrees with, it is time to put them on ignore.

                            Best thing I've ever did on ACG. I don't have the resources to deal with corporation backed lackeys. I am able to make those that think this topic is about politics gain a few IQ points.

                            As Reagan said, we have the technology to get the energy out of the ground without destroying the environment.
                            Yet still you confuse pollution of particulate matter, which is correctable and has been to much degree in the Western world (compared especially with where we were a few decades ago) with so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide(CO2) which collectively aren't even a single digit percentage of one percent of the total atmosphere volume. Nor grasp that something like CO2, which is only about .04% of atmospheric volume, is essential to 99+% of living bio-mass on this planet.

                            The position and agenda you advance is anti-life and you still fail to grasp that. Nor do you grasp that the pro-ACC/AGW has it's own corporate backing seeking to scam more of the tax-payer funding. GE and Al Gore are one such coalition(carbon credits) seeking to take advantage of the useful tools/useless fools.

                            BTW, how much carbon based product and energy have you removed from your lifestyle?
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                            “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                            Present Current Events are the Future's History

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              A three day glitch does not science, or climate change trend, make, but what can we expect from the resident "schoolboy" whom is behind the curve?
                              The amount of energy in the Earth's climate is so large that it can't possibly change by 3 degrees in 3 days unless you cook off a billion nukes a day, or turn off the Sun. Anything less extreme will not have an immediate impact.


                              This claim violates the fundamental laws of thermodynamics which is not surprising considering the source...
                              Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X