New paper: AGW may save us from the next ice age

As mentioned in our WUWT story earlier today Increased CO2 Emissions Will Delay Next Ice Age the official press release is now out at Eurekalert and published below. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already. Bottom line, you can manage a hot summer, but you can’t get out of the way of tons of ice. Unfortunately, the authors find a way to make this out to be bad news, by suggesting Antarctica is melting. So far, we’ve seen no evidence of that. In fact Antarctic Sea Ice is trending upwards in the past 30 years:

Graph source: Cryosphere Today

From the University of Florida

Global warming caused by greenhouse gases delays natural patterns of glaciation, researchers say

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are disrupting normal patterns of glaciation, according to a study co-authored by a University of Florida researcher and published online Jan. 8 in Nature Geoscience.

The Earth’s current warm period that began about 11,000 years ago should give way to another ice age within about 1,500 years, according to accepted astronomical models. However, current levels of carbon dioxide are trapping too much heat in the atmosphere to allow the Earth to cool as it has in its prehistoric past in response to changes in Earth’s orbital pattern. The research team, a collaboration among University College London, University of Cambridge and UF, said their data indicate that the next ice age will likely be delayed by tens of thousands of years.

That may sound like good news, but it probably isn’t, said Jim Channell, distinguished professor of geology at UF and co-author.

“Ice sheets like those in western Antarctica are already destabilized by global warming,” said Channell. “When they eventually slough off and become a part of the ocean’s volume, it will have a dramatic effect on sea level.” Ice sheets will continue to melt until the next phase of cooling begins in earnest.

The study looks at the prehistoric climate-change drivers of the past to project the onset of the next ice age. Using astronomical models that show Earth’s orbital pattern with all of its fluctuations and wobbles over the last several million years, astronomers can calculate the amount of solar heat that has reached the Earth’s atmosphere during past glacial and interglacial periods.

“We know from past records that Earth’s orbital characteristics during our present interglacial period are a dead ringer for orbital characteristics in an interglacial period 780,000 years ago,” said Channell. The pattern suggests that our current period of warmth should be ending within about 1,500 years.

However, there is a much higher concentration of greenhouse gases trapping the sun’s heat in the Earth’s atmosphere now than there was in at least the last several million years, he said. So the cooling that would naturally occur due to changes in the Earth’s orbital characteristics are unable to turn the temperature tide.

Over the past million years, the Earth’s carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. “We are now at 390 parts per million,” Channell said. The sudden spike has occurred in the last 150 years.

For millions of years, carbon dioxide levels have ebbed and flowed between ice ages. Orbital patterns initiate periods of warming that cause ocean circulation to change. The changes cause carbon dioxide-rich water in the deep ocean to well up toward the surface where the carbon dioxide is released as a gas back into the atmosphere. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide then drives further warming and eventually the orbital pattern shifts again and decreases the amount of solar heat that reaches the Earth.

“The problem is that now we have added to the total amount of CO2 cycling through the system by burning fossil fuels,” said Channell. “The cooling forces can’t keep up.”

Channell said that the study, funded by the National Science Foundation in the U.S, and the Research Council of Norway and the Natural Environment Research Council in the United Kingdom, brings to the forefront the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide because it shows the dramatic effect that it is having on a natural cycle that has controlled our Earth’s climate for millions of years.

“We haven’t seen this high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for several million years,” Channell said. “All bets are off.”

###
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steven Rosenberg

This strikes me as a Trojan horse to legitimize AGW: being lulled into pointing to human-generated CO2 as being a good thing, thereby buying into AGW. IT’S A TRAP! A stupid, trap, but a trap nonetheless. But if there’s no AGW, there can be no “Ice Age Retardation.”

tokyoboy

“Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are …” ??
“current levels of carbon dioxide are trapping too much heat in the atmosphere…” ???

Antarctica was glaciated 12 million years ago when both temperatures and CO2 levels were much higher than today.

THEY MAKE IT SOUND LIKE A BAD THING????
evidently nobody remembers when cooling was all the rage in the early 1970s scientists were discussing how that would mean a destabilization of the Antarctic ice sheets
We need to add history of science to every PhD curriculum otherwise they will look like complete fools and especially now the internet forgets nothing.

Phillip Bratby

Doomed if we do, doomed if we don’t. Best just hand over the money now.

(Forgot to click on Notify)

a jones

Oh dear. How divorced from reality and empirical evidence can these people become?
Need i say more?
Kindest Regards

“brings to the forefront the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide because it shows the dramatic effect that it is having on a natural cycle that has controlled our Earth’s climate for millions of years.”
IF you buy the speculation that CO2 has an impact. I’m not convinced that it does. We went into the current glacial period right about the time the Drake Passage and the Isthmus of Panama appeared not requiring any great drop in CO2 levels.
What is happening here is that speculation is being built upon speculation and is walking thinking out into left field. These people can honestly say with a straight face that all these changes are occurring by looking at what amounts to less than 100 years of data? I’d say they’re crazy.

thepompousgit – “Frank” must be the most common first-name associated to the Morabito family 😎
And I wonder if it’s time for stickers such as “Burn gas! Restore the CO2 natural balance! Prevent an ice age!”

nevket240

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/8400117/species-lag-in-climate-change-shift
NOT so fast dudes. Europe is warming so fast that all the researchers can do now is relax in their new condo’s in Monaco. Will Europe be the only part of the globe to stay Ice free?? stay tuned.
((when your funds are short, tell a tall tale))
regards

philincalifornia

” …….. brings to the forefront the importance of atmospheric carbon dioxide because it shows the dramatic effect that it is having on a natural cycle ….”
Hello idiots. What would that present tense dramatic effect be again ??

Alan the Brit

Yawn, fell off stool, hit floor, then went back to sleep. For minute I thought there was something interesting to read!!!!! Where do they come from I really do not know! Last I heard that “scientists” & “experts” were claiming that due to orbital mechanics the Earth would not enter another ice-age for 50,000-100,000 years! 🙂

Maurizio Morabito (omnologos) said @ January 8, 2012 at 10:36 pm
“evidently nobody remembers when cooling was all the rage in the early 1970s scientists were discussing how that would mean a destabilization of the Antarctic ice sheets”
Some of us remember. The Git also remembers going to school in the 60s with Frank Morabito.
Perhaps we need to change the language used; we are restoring carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, not adding it.

Mr Rosenberg cuts straight to the heart of the matter. Surely any discussion of this paper should be on an “If….Then….” basis.

Richard Keen

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere …
Ever heard of the Carboniferous?
…it shows the dramatic effect that it (CO2) is having on a natural cycle that has controlled our Earth’s climate for millions of years.
Shows the effect of something 1500 years from now? They invented a time machine?
The only true statement in this whole article is…
.. the study, funded by the National Science Foundation …
And we taxpayers are paying for more of this nonsense.

Leon Brozyna

Look at that first word in the press release … unprecedented.
Horsefeathers.
When the next Ice Age begins, scientists will be tripping over each other in a rush to show how their own cherished thinking warned that it was coming. Hopefully, if it’s a thousand years in the future, they might even get it right.

Reblogged this on pindanpost.

ferdberple

Over the past million years, the Earth’s carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. “We are now at 390 parts per million,”
Not true. The ice cores do not show we are now at 390 parts per million. The study is confusing two different measurements made with two different instruments. One taken in the polar regions, the other from an active volcano. One low band-pass the other high band-pass.
Like listening to music, one sample with the bass turned up, the other with the treble turned up, then claiming one sound nothing like the other.

DirkH

Oh good, more bad news. Natural patterns disturbed, very bad, that means more funding, and that’s good. It’s probably unethical to disturb a natural pattern, hey, make that a crime against humanity. Even when it’s good for humanity.
Phil, we have a PR problem…

I always think it’s amusing when AGW proponents don’t seem to agree among themselves. In this article we have carbon dioxide “trapping too much heat in the atmosphere.” Well. the atmosphere in total holds a mere 4% of the thermal energy in the land+ocean+atmosphere system. And, if it gets temporarily warmer, what’s to stop it radiating away the extra energy? But, as I said, they can’t agree – for others say its the backradiation warming the surface, and yet others that its “Ocean Heat Content” building up.
Well, actually it’s none of the above that is caused by carbon dioxide, because it is physically impossible for backradiation to warm the surface, and if the energy is going into warming the atmosphere there would not be enough left for all the backradiation which they are out there measuring – or at least think they are measuring. Funny how direct sunlight seems to have nothing to do with it.

AndyG55

“Over the past million years, the Earth’s carbon dioxide levels, as recorded in ice core samples, have never reached more than 280 parts per million in the atmosphere. ”
That’s because all the CO2 that was originally meant to be in the atmosphere, GOT BURIED !!!
CO2 has been balanced precariously, just above plant-subsistence levels.
Thanks to us humans, the proper, intended, balance is gradually being rectified.

sophocles

I’ve just finished reading Prof Brian Fagin’s book “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850.”
After that, I can say with absolute certainty: I like this warmth … a LOT! In fact, I LOVE this warmth… leave it alone! It’s great, wonderful, comfortable and not everyone is starving! Don’t mess with it!
We’re in an Ice Age, in an interglacial warm period. One thing is certain: the glaciers will come back. I don’t mind at all if they can leave things as they are for the rest of my lifetime :-). If it takes CO2 to make this warmth, then light some more bonfires!

the_Butcher

“We haven’t seen this high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for several million years,”
So we see it again, and?

The worrying thing is, when this scam is finally exposed, we’re just not going to have enough rope.

Al Gored

So slick. Now they can conveniently explain any cooling cycles, forever. Its that coming Ice Age overwhelming AGW, while that lasts. Keeps the AGW story alive but I can’t see how it helps the CO2 warriors/industry… unless they can somehow fool people into thinking colder is better.
That will be some trick.
Maybe it needs to get colder to kill off terrorists or some demonic Facebook virus. I’m sure they’ll think of something.

Edim

Yeah right. LOL.

A. Scott

IF CO2 has any net warming effect on a long term basis, rather than trailing temperature, it would make some sense in theory at least that it could be a contributor to the current seemingly delayed descent into another glacial period.
By many indications it would seem we are overdue, especially when compared to past cycles patterns. But this time – while we’ve seen the relatively steep temperature increase – for some reason it leveled, at a point below the peak seen in the last recent interglacial maximums.
The temp has leveled and remained within a small (comparatively) range for about the last 12,000 or so years. As opposed to the normal sharp peak and following immediate sharp descent into the glacial period.
This activity intrigues me. Clearly it is not AGW related as there was no significant anthropogenic effect 15,000 years ago. Something capped the increase in temps below the typical glacial peak and has also kept them suspended at that point – preventing them from the normal sharp descent to the glacial period. The record seems to indicate an unusual equilibrium.
That is, what seems to me, what makes the warmists narrow focus on the last few or few hundred years so silly. Even IF you use the hockey stick the warming shown is well within the natural variability of the last 12,000 or more years of overall stable temperatures. Even the hockey sticks warming does not exceed that range of natural variability.
How any of the warming cabal (or any AGW proponent) can ignore the last 12,000 years of stable temps and the fact the recent warming falls well within that range is beyond me.

Color me old-school. As a card-carrying AGW bah-humbug, I look upon this latest study with a jaundiced eye.
At the moment, the reality is that the warming effect of GHGs is completely swamped out by natural variability. As compared with the background temperature ‘noise’, AGW is so bloody minuscule that we can’t even measure it. This study does not alter that fact.
One of my concerns is that my fellow Climate Realists will trumpet this study. If some of us do that, we’d appear to be two-faced: AGW only works when we want it to!
There are reasonable PARTIAL mitigation steps that we can take to blunt the full fury of the next Big Glacial Advance (BGA). One obvious approach is to estimate the full extent of the continental ice sheets. Then build a ring of dirty, old-fashioned, coal-fired power plants just South of that zone {in the Nth hemisphere) in the early stages of that BGA. At the height of the continental glaciers, we could fire up these power plants during the Summer, on sunny days when the wind is blowing in a Northerly direction.
Depositing lots of nice, black soot on the melting ice would decrease the albedo, increase the rate of the melting process, and increase the habitability zone a bit. Hey, creating a habitation ring that’s a few extra miles wide across the major continents is better than nothing!
On less favorable days, we could jack up the modern methane-burning power plants for peak loads. And of course, we should have the nuclear power plants on all of the time to supply most of the base load. Yes, there would be redundancy, and that would drive up costs somewhat. But that would be a reasonable price to pay for a slightly increased habitability zone, eh? 🙂

Morph

Richard Black is already out of the blocks, all over the BBC this morning with interviews of the paper’s authors and a big splash. Don’t remember this being done when a paper suggests something different.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

John Marshall

And during the Ordovicean , with atmospheric CO2 content at around 8000ppmv, there was a severe ice age.

John V. Wright

Some of the best AGW fun to be had these days is listening to the BBC stumbling their way through these news reports. This morning on the Today programme, John Humphreys hurried through an interview with some hapless warmist scientist, inviting him to explain why a planet that is warming enough to stave off the next Ice Age is a bad thing.
Folks, it was hilarious. The toe-curling embarrassment of a senior presenter like Humphreys having to ditch his journalistic principles to allow this flapping scientist his five minutes of warmist propaganda was evident. And it was tucked away at the end of the show so that not too many people would hear it.
How BBC journalists can look the British public in the eye over AGW when their coverage is biased, disengenuous and unbalanced is beyond me.

SunderlandSteve

“Ice sheets will continue to melt until the next phase of cooling begins in earnest.”
And then we’ll really be in the shit!

Old Goat

Needless to say, the BBC were all over this on the Toady programme – Richard (Push-the-Meme) Black was in his element. Apparently, there’ll be no further ice ages, because we’ve pushed CO2 to the limit and it will only get warmer, thanks to us miserable humans daring to live. Even the interviewer (John Humphrys, who is old and experienced enough, surely, to know better) said that he didn’t realise that there could be another ice age. Do these people no read at all, did they not go to school? Are they not aware of the planet’s cyclical climatic history? And combatting the next ice age won’t be an advantage to us at all, because it will become uncomfortably hot….

Human civilization neatly fits into the last inter-glacial period (10,000 years). The previous 90,000 years was a glacial period, and this cycle has repeated itself for the last million years. What remains a complete mystery still is the origin of 100,000 year main cycle. From 3 million to 1 million years ago the glaciations lasted 41,000 years and there was no evidence of a 100,000 year signal. Milankowitz cycles can explain the 41,000 year cycle which is due to the change in obliquity of the Earth’s axis. Everyone then assumes that the 100,000 year signal is due to the change in eccentricity of the ellipitical orbit of the Earth. Hoever, it just doesn’t work out as the net annual solar radiation hardly changes. Hence the claim that CO2 drives the ice age. However if that really were the case – then why did this not apply for 2/3 of the Pleistocene ?
Where I do agree with the authors is that cooling towards the next ice age is due to begin in 2000 years time. However, to fully offset the catastrophic effects of new glaciation, I calculate CO2 levels would need to rise to ~700 ppm and then be kept at that level for another 90,000 years.
more about all this at this at clivebest.com/blog

Beesaman

The arrogance of humanity is beyond belief!
First to think that we could have more influence over global temperatures than the sun and natural cooling and warming cycles and now to think that we could stop an ice age by increasing a trace gas that plants might thrive on but will have inconsequential effects on warming.
Just think about the amount of energy we would have to use to break up vast ice sheets as they spread south from the Arctic. It is about as plausible as plugging a volcano or stopping an earthquake. Next it will be trying to stop earthquakes and tsunamis from happening or why not how to prevent lightning or tornadoes?
Human beings should get over themselves and start dealing with the consequences of natural events not the causes.

Mark Penn

One of this papers protagonists was on BBC R4 this morning (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0194dj5 if you care to listen, adout 2 hours 45 minutes in). Apparently, not only have we saved ourselves from an ice age but we have gone too far and are in even graver danger! Its all based on models (assumption), predictions (assumption) and theory (assumptions) . I think even arch warmist John Humprys was struggling to hide his incredulity with this interview.
This is pure propaganda dressed up as science (as usual).
By the way, Hi, from a long term reader of the site.

Bloke down the pub

This does sound like they are trying to create a fall-back position for when everyone starts to realise that increasing CO₂ doesn’t result in the increased temperatures they promised.

Allan MacRae

Posted recently at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/increased-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age/#more-54312
Excerpt:
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.
_________________________________
Antarctica is melting – be very frightened!
This paper appears to be really silly – not worth reading.
As usual, Nature (the journal) seldom fails to disappoint.
Wish I could call the stock market this well.

Richard M

The problem is these guys keep forgetting to consider gravity. For CO2 to produce more warming is has to be carried higher in the atmosphere. For that to happen it has to fight the force of gravity. Adding more CO2 makes that more difficult as it is the energy of the atmosphere that lifts heavier gases like CO2. At some point the energy available is maxed out (Just like a one stage rocket, adding more fuel adds more weight and doesn’t help gain a higher altitude).
We have already reached the maximum greenhouse effect and adding more CO2 will only make plants happy.

Thanks for featuring this distasteful report. It is truly offensively stupid, but we readers of WUWT have to be reminded once in a while just how g-awful the nonsense being fed to the public (including the “Scientific public”) really is.
The horror of the thought of being without the Web, and WUWT in particular, to shield against the assault on sanity and survival, is unspeakable.

Kelvin Vaughan

The total solar Irradiance on the earth is 1366 watts. The area under the curve of the solar spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
The amount absorbed by co2 is just a fraction of the area. How is this tiny bit of the spectrum supposed to be making any difference to the Earths temperature????
The amount of co2 in the atmosphere is minute and the radiation absorbed is minute.
Back radiation will be minute squared.

“Unfortunately, the authors find a way to make this out to be bad news, by suggesting Antarctica is melting. So far, we’ve seen no evidence of that. In fact Antarctic Sea Ice is trending upwards in the past 30 years:”
If most of Antarctica was sea ice that might be true, but since sea ice is only a fringe along a far larger ice sheet, which is in fact losing mass overall, your point is moot.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n12/abs/ngeo694.html
The very small sea ice increase is not enough to compensate for the large loss of land ice on the continent.
The Cryosphere Today website you linked to also showed that global sea ice is going down:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
fred berple:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/new-paper-agw-may-save-us-from-the-next-ice-age/#comment-858244
“One taken in the polar regions, the other from an active volcano.”
You do realize that there are dozens and dozens of CO2 monitors all over the world, not just the one at Mauna Loa, and that they all agree to within a few ppmv? In fact, the one that has been around the longest is in fact in Antarctica. Mauna Loa is the one cited because while it started a few years later, it has the longest *continuous* record, while the one in Antarctica had a few years of no data decades ago. They show the same increase in CO2.

TimC

Interestingly, the recent article on Sir Fred Hoyle’s 1999 paper (see the link below) showed that he and Prof Wickramasinghe thought glacial conditions would persist due to increased albedo until some catastrophic event occurred such as impact of a comet-sized object into an ocean. The water thrown into the atmosphere would then create greenhouse effect sufficient (presumably with associated feedbacks) to initiate a new interglacial rapidly and discontinuously – seeking not to quote the paper too much!
Here is the link:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/08/increased-co2-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age/
If Hoyle’s was right in 1999, presumably such an impact at any time during an interglacial will have the same effect and also delay glaciation. However, for myself I’d far prefer gentle, logarithmic, anthropogenic CO2 warming, which I expect humankind will anyway have the technology to be able to control within the next century or two. If CO2 theory is right our politicians will then be able to set the earth’s thermostat to whatever they all agree on … (hmmm – did I really just say that)?

There are three false assumptions in the CAGW model for global warming. 1. The rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100% attributable to anthropogenic emissions. 2. That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is reducing the rate of energy lost to space. 3. That our present observed atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are the highest they have been in the last million years based on air extracted from ice cores. This paper falls apart on all three.

Change is bad… m’kay.

Joules Verne

If CO2 isn’t warming the globe then we’ll have to invent some other way to do it.
That’s pretty much the bottom line. Absent anthropogenic intervention the Holocene interglacial will end and much of the densly populated nothern hemisphere will be covered by hundreds of meters of ice. Maybe some Europeans long for the days when they made living hunting wooly mammoths on the glaciers that covered northern Europe. Or maybe they are dangerously deluded kool-aid drinkers that are stupidly proposing things to cool a globe that is going to freeze anyway unless we do something to stop it.

Interstellar Bill

I’ll re-post the idea that all we need to stop the next Ice Age
is to drop plane loads of coal dust on the incipient glaciers,
particularly in Labrador and Northern Europe,
from whence the last glaciations began their march south,
and it all starts with leftover snow accumulating every year.
Once that starts more CO2 won’t prevent the next Glaciation.

Big Dave

I think it is very odd that anyone would find a cold, nearly plantless world to be preferable to a warm, abundant environment albeit with slightly reduced shorelines.
Who are these people and why don’t they use the brains they were entrusted with?
Cheers,
Big Dave 

Ice core CO2 readings should NEVER be considered absolute. Samples are much too traumatized to even pretend that the CO2 contained is retained unchanged. Even Jaworowski, the world’s authority on ice cores indicated that there is 30-50% losses of CO2 from ice cores during extraction.
If you take the ice core readings and back calculate the losses, we end up with atmospheric CO2 the same or higher than today!
As plants fail to grow much below 220 ppm, why would these clowns think that we have been flirting with planetary death when it is quite clear that plants have been growing quite steadily and consistently for millions and millions of years.
And there is clear evidence that CO2 has been many times higher than now during the vast majority of the last 600 million years.
These guys buy into the junk science graph of CO2 being consistently low until just recently.
They also assume vast amounts of heat is retained by a small increase in a trace gas and assume that we will put off the next ice age for 10,000 years. Where do they go to score their weed?

Sparks

There are only theories and speculation that we will ever have another Ice-age or not, But I have an experiment for the idea that man made CO2 will prevent the next Ice age if we were to have one.
Items that you will need for this experiment.
a. 1 large balloon filled with man made Carbon dioxide.
b. 1 freight train.
c. 1 tray of large eggs (ostrich eggs would be best for effect).
The idea is that you place the large balloon in front of the tray of eggs to prevent the freight train from smashing into them, so that you will not get egg on your face.
If you end up with egg on your face then you should conclude from this experiment that a very small quantity of man made atmospheric gases compared to the effective volume of the entire Earths atmosphere consisting of other gases are no match for the enormous forces such as those that theoretically produce cyclical ice-ages.

Colin in BC

From the various comments, it seems I wasn’t the only one who had difficulty reading the article. It’s amazing really, that humans haven’t really moved on from the days when it was believed the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. Human-centric theories, such as AGW, simply continue to perpetuate the general meme, that humans are central figures in Nature. The hubris is amazing.