From the University of Gothenburg , another head exploder for Joe Romm and company.

Carbon dioxide – our salvation from a future ice age?
Mankind’s emissions of fossil carbon and the resulting increase in temperature could prove to be our salvation from the next ice age. According to new research from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, the current increase in the extent of peatland is having the opposite effect.
“We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide”, says researcher Professor Lars Franzén.
Looking back over the past three million years, the earth has experienced at least 30 periods of ice age, known as ice age pulses. The periods in between are called interglacials. The researchers believe that the Little Ice Age of the 16th to 18th centuries may have been halted as a result of human activity. Increased felling of woodlands and growing areas of agricultural land, combined with the early stages of industrialisation, resulted in increased emissions of carbon dioxide which probably slowed down, or even reversed, the cooling trend.
“It is certainly possible that mankind’s various activities contributed towards extending our ice age interval by keeping carbon dioxide levels high enough,” explains Lars Franzén, Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Gothenburg.
“Without the human impact, the inevitable progression towards an ice age would have continued. The spread of peatlands is an important factor.”
Peatlands act as carbon sinks, meaning that they absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They are a dynamic landscape element and currently cover around four percent of the earth’s land area. Most peatlands are found in temperate areas north and south of the 45th parallel.
Around 16 percent of Sweden is covered by peatland. Peatlands grow in height and spread across their surroundings by waterlogging woodlands. They are also one of the biggest terrestrial sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Each year, around 20 grams of carbon are absorbed by every square metre of peatland.
“By using the National Land Survey of Sweden’s altitude database, we have calculated how much of Sweden could be covered by peatlands during an interglacial. We have taken a maximum terrain incline of three degrees as our upper limit, and have also excluded all lakes and areas with substrata that are unsuitable for peatland formation.”
The researchers found that around half of Sweden’s surface could be covered by peat. In such a case, the carbon dioxide sink would increase by a factor of between six and ten compared with the current situation.
“If we accept that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature, the logical conclusion must be that reduced levels lead to a drop in temperature.”
The relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature is not linear. Instead, lower levels result in a greater degree of cooling than the degree of warming achieved by a corresponding increase.
“There have been no emissions of fossil carbon during earlier interglacials. Carbon sequestration in peatland may therefore be one of the main reasons why ice age conditions have occurred time after time.”
Using calculations for Swedish conditions, the researchers are also producing a rough estimate of the global carbon sink effect if all temperate peatlands were to grow in the same way.
“Our calculations show that the peatlands could contribute towards global cooling equivalent to five watts per square metre. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that we are near the end of the current interglacial.”
Professor Franzén and three other researchers have published their findings in the journal Mires and Peat.
1. Franzén, L.G., F. Lindberg, V. Viklander & A. Walther (2012) The potential peatland extent and carbon sink in Sweden, as related to the Peatland / Ice Age Hypothesis.
FULL PAPER HERE:
Mires and Peat 10(8):1-19. http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map10/map_10_08.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This was the exact argment in the 1970s….
We have been saved! C02 is the dominant climate driver. Runaway warming is up next on your scheduled program.
“If we accept that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature…”
And if we don’t accept this premise, it invalidates the entire theory.
Didn’t the IPCC say man had a discernible effect on global temperature after 1960? Hey, let’s say even 1920, someone is trying to deceive me.
This is not a problem should it arise. The problem is global warming which could lead to mass migrations, hunger, drought and calamity. Ice ages are good, warm tropical temperatures kill vegetation and animals all across the tropics while the polar regions thrive with life. Anyone for an Antarctic safari?
With the chnges am seeing with the jet stream and and weather patterns, there does seem to be a battle going on between climate warming and cooling at the moment. lt looks like that maybe the cooling is starting to win out.
Friends:
For more than a decade it was not possible to publish papers if they asserted possible benefits of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then, at Copenhagen in 2009 there was a stake through the heart of the AGW-scare. Now, this paper suggests
And thus the AGW-scare slowly fades away …
Richard
We do not use the proper controls. You need to compare the temperature of the earth today, with that of an identical earth in which the CO2 levels did not increase.
Don’t let them think we can change things on purpose.
Or, we’ll never escape their clutches.
Vancouver Canada, carbon capture capital of the world:
Burns Bog is the largest domed peat bog in the world encompassing over 40 square kilometres of land.
http://www.vancouvertrails.com/trails/burns-bog-delta-nature-reserve/
“Human activity in the late 18th century may have halted an ice age.”
Give me a break.
Human activity in the late 18th century was confined almost exclusively to Europe. Damn near no one lived in N. American or Latin America or Australia (given the size of the land masses) and Africa was still mostly an unexplored continent.
The total, complete, absolute garbage that these “scientists” publish is a disgrace.
Why don’t they try to answer some very basic questions like:
1. What caused the ice ages before humans even existed?
2. What caused the warming that ended the “pre-human existence” ice ages?
3. If item “2” above, was caused by a build-up of CO2, pray tell, where did the CO2 come from?
4. Has it not been shown that CO2 increases in RESPONSE TO TEMPERATURE INCREASES?
5. During the interglacials – and before humans walked this earth – presumably caused by CO2 buildup, what happened to all that CO2 that should have prevented a subsequent ice age?
6 Why didn’t the CO2 levels during interglacials just get larger and larger, causing ever more and more warming, until the planet just became an oven? At a minimum all this CO2 should have never permitted another ice age.
It’s always all one way. This time, “The researchers believe that the Little Ice Age of the 16th to 18th centuries may have been halted as a result of human activity. Increased felling of woodlands and growing areas of agricultural land, combined with the early stages of industrialisation, resulted in increased emissions of carbon dioxide which probably slowed down, or even reversed, the cooling trend.” and “Without the human impact, the inevitable progression towards an ice age would have continued“.
Brilliant. That’s how just one of the “at least 30 periods of ice age, known as ice age pulses” came to an end. Hmmm. Now tell me about the other 29. How they started, and how they ended without human assistance/.
What terrifies me is not that the alarmists are so desperate that they are telling bigger and bigger lies, but that as the MSM lets them get away with (or encourages them in) their lies, so they happily tell bigger and bigger ones. They aren’t losing, they’re winning.
Stop…..it hurts…..
“We are probably entering a new ice age right now. However, we’re not noticing it due to the effects of carbon dioxide”, says researcher Professor Lars Franzén.
Haha. Not out here in the real world.
The only people not noticing it are the ones fooled by adjustments, models, and propaganda.
Odd that if it was so easy for peat bogs to drive down the CO2 levels in the atmosphere that they aren’t being considered as possible carbon sequestration projects?
No No No No No No. The greenhouse effect of CO2 is far too weak to prevent an ice age. Idiots.
CO2 at more than 10 times today’s level didn’t seem to help in the late Orodovian period.
Chris says:
November 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“If we accept that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature…”
And if we don’t accept this premise, it invalidates the entire theory.
======================================================
Bingo !!!!
Sometimes, all I can do is just shake my head.
Chris says:
November 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
“If we accept that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature…”
And if we don’t accept this premise, it invalidates the entire theory.
——————————————————————————————–
Bingo!
The effect of condensing and non-condensing radiative gasses in our atmosphere is cooling and no amount of politics, pseudo science and spin will ever change that. Without radiative gasses, rising air masses heated by conductive contact with the surface would have no way of cooling at altitude. (Adiabatic cooling is irrelevant to convective circulation problems.) With gasses unable to cool by radiation at altitude, convective circulation in our atmosphere would slow and cease. Our atmosphere would slowly heat to the hottest point of conductive surface contact. That would not be the surface of the hottest desert, that would be exposed liquid magma. It matters not if the ground under your feet has a slightly lower average temperature if you are breathing the air from an oven.
As I recall this idea goes back to the 70’s. Objections are the same as to AGW.
Ironically, I just finished watching this wonderful recollection of history.
Be aware that this video touches on climate change, coal, oil, CO2, SUV’s, glaciers etc.
It may be horrifying to some, but it is fascinating to me….
Oh, and there are many connections to this blog entry including explosions 🙂
As if anyone will fall for that two card trick. the mainstream explanation of GHG is totally flawed because the real physicals is virtually opposite of greenhouse effect, let alone CO2 have a significant involvment in temperature changes. Its a trace gas for crickey’s sake.
Is it me or are the papers getting weirder and weirder?
Face palm!