An artist
Sir Fred Hoyle Vindicated
(Via Dr. Benny Peiser of the GWPF)
According to new research to be published in Nature Geoscience (embargoed until 1800 GMT/10AM PST, Sunday 8 January 2012), the next ice age could set in any time
this millennium where it not for increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are preventing such a global disaster from occurring.
The new research confirms the theory developed by the late Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe in the 1990s that without increased levels of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere ‘the drift into new ice-age conditions would be inevitable.’
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe published their controversial idea in CCNet in July 1999:
CCNet-ESSAY: ON THE CAUSE OF ICE-AGES
Sir Fred Hoyle - Image via Wikipedia
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html
By Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe
[…] The problem for the present swollen human species is of a drift back into an ice-age, not away from an ice-age. Manifestly, we need all the greenhouse we can get, even to the extent of the British Isles becoming good for the growing of vines….
The renewal of ice-age conditions would render a large fraction of the world’s major food-growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population. Since bolide impacts cannot be called up to order, we must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate. This implies the ability to inject effective greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite of what environmentalists are erroneously advocating. …
Full paper available here:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From the link:
PLEASE NOTE:
“Information circulated on the cambridge-conference network is for
scholarly use only.”
So if I understand what they are saying…I can use their ‘ideas’ to promote mass hysteria? Crazy doomsday movies should not be attributed to their hypothesis’s?
Did Mann’s hockey trick paper come with a similar disclosure statement?
So far, I don’t see enough evidence that AnthroCO2 has enough warming effect to stop the next glaciation. I can hope, though.
==============
Except that the only “greenhouse” gas that matters, is water vapor, and about half of what comes out of your tailpipe IS water vapor, so aren’t we already doing everything we can?
Mark H.
Already? I had hoped we could have been given a tiny breathingspace between the warming scare and the freezing scare.
Behold the world’s scaremongers reversing their predictions. It is just a matter of changing a little sign, after all.
“…the next ice age could set in any time this millennium where it not for increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are preventing such a global disaster from occurring.”
Any time…meaning, presumably, the next decade or in five hundred years from now. Does it sound familiar?
Give me global warming any day over an ice age – an ice age has far far worse implications for humanity!
Fred Hoyle was right not only about this…
Wait… common sense reasoning?
Better growing seasons = good. Frozen wasteland apocalypse = bad.
Whodathunkit.
Didn’t Svante Arrhenius come to the same basic conclusion in the late 19th Century, that more anthropogenic CO2 was a good thing and would avoid another Little Ice Age? Is it not also true that Knut Ångström concluded in 1900 that CO2 was overemphasized, and Thomas Crowder wrote in the 1920s that he regretted he was a victim of Arrhenius’s error?
Avoiding the next ice age is a good thing, but anthropogenic CO2 is inadequate to stave off such a massive cyclic climate shift.
I find the premise of this article confusing. If AGW is a lie, how is this possible? Or, are we talking about postponing the next ice age by… Four weeks?
If the recent increased atmospheric CO2 is not an important cause for the recent climate warming, then it is unlikely to do much to prevent any future ice age. One can’t have it both ways.
All seven previous ice ages began, after all, just when atmospheric CO2 was at its contemporaneous maximum.
Surely he isn’t serious…
Yes, maybe two…three days?
Here we have the basic scenario of “Fallen Angels” by Niven, Pournelle, and Flynn. 1991. Fred Hoyle wrote science fiction too — “The Black Cloud”, 1957. Since the creators of both science and science fiction can be a garrulous lot, it’d be interesting to find out which way the influences went.
No way!!!!!!!!!! The models show it is impossible! Anyway, some people have just invested in property in Greenland and people around Hadrians wall in the U.K. are producing wine from grapes! As for those poor white bears moving into their brown coats……….This is so unfair! 😉
The rational position on anthropogenic CO2 is that it is a greehouse gas but with a small, miniscule and negligible effect and there is no amplifying factor to make it larger, or large enough to matter.
Therefore, CO2 can’t delay the next ice age significantly either.
“the next ice age could set in any time this millennium where it not for increases in anthropogenic CO2…”
Should that not be “were”?
And, well, harumph, this is just very strange. Have your cake and eat it too. More crystal-ball waving, as if the warmists didn’t do it enough.
Is it not a reasonable test for any climate model that it be required to faithfully show regular glaciation/”ice ages” in order to be taken seriously, since we know the climate does behave in that way historically?
If so, do any of the current “best” climate models show such events arising spontaneously as they did in earth’s history?
What volume of gas added to the atmosphere would it take to overcome the solar wind the gravity could retain? An object strike would eject some energy into space. Maybe some large oceanic caldera would produce enough energy to quickly overcome the gripping ice.
You have spent years denying in the face of all the evidence that CO2 has any effect on global temperatures. Suddenly you’ve realised that it can have a major effect. Nice to see you actually might have some capacity for learning!
If our CO2 is preventing the next Glaciation then it’s a good thing,
in light of the 2010 Science article saying
that the next one will likely not end at all.
In fact, it might suck CO2 down so low
that all plants on Earth would die.
Just because extra CO2 won’t cause catastrophe
doesn’t mean it has zero effect.
Besides, it’s easy to stop an Ice Age as it’s starting:
just dump coal dust on Labrador’s summer snow,
which is where the last Glaciation began.
ParisParamus says:
January 8, 2012 at 10:16 am
Oh, the HUMANITY! Where is R Gates when we need him/her? We’re terribly in need of a model!
If most or all of the increase is of anthropogenic origin then the extra greenhouseffect from CO2 could delay the next iceage some, indeed. For humans living today it is rather irrellevant since it is a slow drift over several millenia. First the climate has to slowly drift to the point where Little Ice age climate is considered as a normal climate and we know that didn’t happen over a decade.
If currently a majority of the CO2 increase is of natural origin due to increased temperature (Henrys law) then the discussion about anthropogenic CO2 delaying the next ice age becomes less important since more than half of the increse then could be due to rising temperatures and not due to anthropogenic emissions.
This is climate alarmism in reverse. There are plenty of reasons for believing the next few decades will trend cooler, but no need to try to net off one catastrophe with its opposite.
ParisParamus says:
January 8, 2012 at 10:16 am
I find the premise of this article confusing. If AGW is a lie, how is this possible? Or, are we talking about postponing the next ice age by… Four weeks?
A very valid point. Can’t have it both ways .. unless you think like a warmist, that is.
Good, they’re reminding us of what we know with absolute certainty can happen at any moment, namely the end of the Holocene and a transition to Mama Nature’s real plans for the next 100,000 years. A descent into the next ice age would make even the worst case alarmist scenarios look rosy.
Even if it becomes a “next big scare”, at least its solutions won’t involve stamping out energy production at the same time the world’s economies are sliding into a tar pit of massively over-leveraged debt.