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.
Everyone knows that Gaia evolved us to release c02 into the atmosphere to stop the next mass extinction as the world slips into a permanent ice age. Now that the gases are released, mission accomplished, and just in time, probably just a few more ice ages and there would be no more warm integlacials.
Alan Statham says:
January 8, 2012 at 10:47 am
“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!”
Unfortunately you do not show any signs of learning yet Alan. Have you read anything on this or other skeptics sites before posting the nonsense above? Do you have any support for your “denying” nonsense?
There is the effect of heat transfer through radiation that is facilitated through CO2 which is known by skeptics who know science. How this should lead to any catastrophe is the question. If you have any idea about it pls don’t try to post a link, try to explain it by your own words, lets see how far gets our and your understanding of science.
Please try first read what skeptics say before insulting:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
Rosco says:
January 8, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Gee people – don’t overestimate Ice Ages
Have a look at the Aral Sea disaster for an idea of what an Ice Age will bring. Rising sea levels are nothing compared to dropping sea levels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea
The shrinking of the Aral Sea has been called “one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters”.[7]
Warmer/ colder whateverer. We need more and cheaper energy everywhere on the planet. We can always build more greenhouses, turn the lights on-off, cool-heat, as long as we have more power. I won’t go so far as to suggest warming the oceans, cause that’s just crazy.
Rosco says:
January 8, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Roscoe, please inform us of your personal experience with Ice Ages, or ice sheets, that allows you to be so dismissive of their danger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinoian_%28stage%29
`
Carbondale is located at 37°43′35″N 89°13′13″W (Wiki)
A few hundred miles further north lie such modest settlements as,say, Chicago.
No, ice sheets ranging from a few hundred feet to a few thousand feet thick present no danger whatsoever to us humans – we’ll just carry on with solar-powered sleds, or something – but a tiny increase in “global temperature” is really something to fear.
Is that the way you see it Roscoe?
My post here: http://auscm.co/wtvYvw – I need a few of those 100m hits… 😉
The link from GWPF to the original source at Australian Popular Science (http://auscm.co/wUkqxK) is broken. Cached version still exists, however (http://auscm.co/w8bDMU). No sign of this article on Nature Geoscience either (yet).
Cheers,
Simon
Australian Climate Madness
Sorry Fred, Sir,
I have not yet been convinced that CO2 is potent enough to do much warming, much more less to delay the onset of a delayed ice-age.
Warmistas have taken to Fred Hoyle lately, it would seem. Not this amateur astronomer, for one.
I suspect that the caption on that image is not supposed to be “An artist”.
Es nes non? This is nonsense in reverse.
Claim:
“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 were it not for increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are preventing such a global disaster from occurring.”
Analysis of Claim:
1. “the next ice age could set in any time this millennium… ”
– Probably TRUE for the next ~5000 years if not the next 1000 years, based on the last four ice advances.
2. “… were it not for increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are preventing such a global disaster from occurring.”
– Probably FALSE since CO2 is a minor driver of global temperature, if it drives temperature at all.
Analysis of Claim, based on Nature’s track record:
When is the last time Nature was right about anything to do with global warming, aka climate change? I honestly cannot remember any, but then I stopped reading Nature some time ago.
RE: thingadonta says:
January 8, 2012 at 2:59 pm
“Everyone knows that Gaia evolved us to release c02 into the atmosphere to stop the next mass extinction as the world slips into a permanent ice age. Now that the gases are released, mission accomplished, and just in time, probably just a few more ice ages and there would be no more warm integlacials.”
Exactly! Why else would Gaia have put all that coal in the rocks, and then evolved us? And anyone who disagrees with this view is saying Gaia is stupid. I shudder to think of the fate that may await them!
I’m far from convinced on the proposed theory, though I’m delighted to see it recognize the fact that cooling would be far worse that warming.
I’ve long been an AGW lurkwarmist; I do believe that anthropogenic activity has a warming impact on climate. However, I believe this impact is about an order of magnitude less than the average low end AGW claims. In other words, not enough to worry about. I also feel it has many sources. We know that the urban heat island effect is real, so is it such a stretch to believe that such “heat islands” might have a minuscule impact on global temps? I also suspect that farming has a far greater impact; changing the albedo of the land over vast areas, while also pumping vast amounts of water vapor into the air. I even think that Co2 plays a role, though a very minor one. (if AGW results in a one tenth of a degree warming over a century, my guess is that CO2 would be responsible for less than a tenth of that, so one hundredth of a degree.)
CO2 seems to me to be a very good lagging indicator of temperature; it tracks temps rather well, though with an 800 year lag. So, I think it can best be seen as a lagging indicator, not a driver (unless we incorporate time-traveling CO2 into the AGW models)
Ice melting? I’ve been to the arctic, and I’ve seen the slight dustings of black (best seen in snow that’s sublimating) soot, believed to come largely from dirty coal plants in China and Siberia. I think that effect is real, but not bad enough to be a real concern yet.
I’ve also seen conclusive evidence, all over the world, that the last interglacial, the Eemian, was far warmer than today. This includes islands that were coral reefs in that period, but now that coral is basement rock well above sea level (geologic uplift can do this, by I’m taking islands where that’s not a factor). There were hippopotamus in the Thames and many other proofs that the climate, globally, was far warmer. Somehow, I think the planet survived.
Glaciation, on the other hand, would be a disaster, and we’re already overdue. This interglacial is already well above average length, and the main issue as I see it is that while we have theories, we don’t know for certain what the driving factor of the glacial cycles is, nor do we know the tipping points. And, glaciation does appear to have feedback loops and tipping points.
The last interglacial ended rather suddenly; temps dropped by over 4 C in under six years. True, it took the ice sheets centuries to build, but the temp drop that triggered the glaciation was sudden, and such a drop would be agriculturally devastating.
I do think that a drop to glacial era temps ( 5C less than today, or thereabouts) is by far the greatest threat we face, so I’m thrilled to see an article regarding it, even if I disagree with the CO2 premise in it.
Now, what causes glacial cycles and their stunning regularity? One theory is orbital perturbations, which are cyclic. Another might be solar (we know the sun has some cyclic patterns, though a 100k cycle hasn’t been shown yet, and is only a guess).
However, why are these mutually exclusive? They aren’t. What if orbital changes are the main driver, but short-term solar cycles (such as the Maunder Minimum causing the little ice age) are enough to take us past the glacial tipping point when the orbital conditions are right?
We are at least 50,000 years away from the next ice age.
The ice ages start when the snow and ice does not melt in the summer at 75N any longer – on Baffin Island, northern Greenland, the Beaufort Sea. Small glaciers build up and this kicks off the ice albedo feedback which puts us into a full-blown ice age.
The June solar insolation at 65N (75N would be better but the charts always use 65N) needs to fall to below about 460 W/m2 for the snow and ice to stop melting over the summer.
http://peakwatch.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452403c69e2015390afcbe3970b-800wi
So 50,000 years potentially, but more likely, 130,000 years from now. There is just a tiny, tiny reduction in the current summer solar insolation (a few W/m2) over the next few thousand years before it starts going back up again. More than enough to continue melting basically all of the snow and ice at 75N over the summer. So no ice for you.
I am skeptical that CO2 has anything to do with whether or not we enter or leave an ice age or indeed resist the onset of the next ice age.
Total baloney. When the ice age decides to begin (1998?), it’s gonna begin.
@ur momisugly DotEarth, James Hansen has promised Andy Revkin that anthroCO2 can stop glaciation. I wish I had more faith in his promises.
==========
Firstly, a matter of terminology. There have only been five “ice ages” and we are still in the fifth one. If what we are talking about is really glacial cycles, then it appears that, for the last million years or so, the predominant cycle has been of about 100,000 years periodicity, with roughly 70,000 years glacial and 30,000 years interglacial in each cycle. We are about 10,000 years into the current interglacial period.
There is debate as to the controlling mechanism, be it Earth’s eccentricity or orbital inclination. See, for example, this* Wikipedia item from which I quote …
“The inclination of Earth’s orbit drifts up and down relative to its present orbit with a cycle having a period of about 70,000 years. The inclination of the Earth’s orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane. This is very similar to the 100,000 year eccentricity period. This 100,000-year cycle closely matches the 100,000-year pattern of ice ages.”
The long and the short of it seems to be that we should not worry about there being another glacial period for at least another 20,000 years, or possibly somewhat more than that. It seems fairly likely that mankind will have the technology to cope with such well before then.
Yes, I do believe there is a much shorter-term cycle of about 900 to 1,000 years having less effect in terms of degrees of variation. This would seem to imply a maximum within the next hundred years (probably not much above 1998 temperatures) followed by a 450 to 500 year decline towards another Little Ice Age. If is possible we may have passed the maximum in 1998 and be already on the decline, but I don’t see it taking less than 400 odd years. If some of that $100,000,000,000 a year for developing countries were invested in insulation and heating appliances, we all should cope.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Of course the “Precautionary Principle” means that we really need to leave all the oil, gas and coal in the ground so that future generations will have it available to fight off the next ice age when it approaches in the up coming centuries!
🙂
The article states: “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.” Well, well! In 20,000 years or more when the next glaciial period sets in we just might have improved those real agricultural greenhouses. We may have multistorey hydroponic installations with mirrors catching sunlight, and perhaps a few chickens thrown in for good measure. Beef might be a luxury, but that will be the case due to population explosion anyway. Perhaps the simplest way out would be the end of the world – God only knows.
Shhhh . . . It’l be our little secret – N2 and O2 are the real greenhouse gases as they cannot shed heat as IR when they are warmed by conduction. CO2 and water vapor are IR (energy) leaks that convert heat energy to IR at night while there is no sunlight = cooling. During the day, it’s a basic wash as CO2’s IR to heat energy contribution is minimal as it works both ways. At night it’s one way!!! So, the secret is that CO2 causes a bit of cooling and more would mean . . .
To stuartlynne: “Precautionary Principle” is evil as it means you should do nothing new as it has not been tried before and you never, simply cannot know for sure, the consequences. In other words, never have children, as you have no idea of the outcome of all of your time, effort, and energy input.
We would have no modern medicine, no modern technology, no nuclear medicine, etc. At what point should we freeze our ascendency from disease and poverty and pretend that everything is fine and dandy?
See:
http://www.personal.kent.edu/~jortiz/paleoceanography/broecker.pdf
and the drift in the paleoclimate community since:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/30/the-antithesis/
I wish but I think humans are once again subject to their own self importance. CO2 will not save us from another ice age. Water vapor might but how do you generate that much water vapor when 99.9% is naturally occuring? Oh yea geo-engineering again. Bad idea. Might be needed to prevent another ice age but it better have brakes and a reverse gear or we’ll do ourselves in.
Doug Cotton:
30ky would be a very long interglacial. There hasn’t been one that long as far as I know. I believe the longest interglacial was one about 600kya that was something like 13ky in duration. The shortest was less than 10ky, probably closer to 7 or 8. We are getting close to being the longest interglacial in history, part of that is due to insolation, we are due to head into a period of somewhat INCREASING insolation due to the way the various cycles add together.
Well like it’s said “There’s no fool like an old fool”.