Thursday, January 01, 2009
Greenhouse gases to lead to ice age?
We've been told for years that rising levels of "greenhouse gases," particularly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, will raise the temperature of the planet catastrophically. Now comes a study that says that greenhouse gases could lead to the next ice age:
Researchers at the University of Birmingham found that 630 million years ago the earth had a warm atmosphere full of carbon dioxide but was completely covered with ice.
The scientists studied limestone rocks and found evidence that large amounts of greenhouse gas coincided with a prolonged period of freezing temperatures.
Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed, the university's school of geography, earth and environmental sciences warned.
While pollution in the air is thought to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up, this new research suggests it could also have the opposite effect reflecting rays back into space.
Ah, that clarifies things. We do not know what greenhouse gases will do, only that it will be bad. Apparently, the only optimum level of greenhouse gas is that which prevailed shortly before the invention of the internal combustion engine and electricity. Check. That's why it is essential that we regulate ourselves into poverty even if there is declining evidence that the planet is warming. It might be cooling!
We cannot help but wonder whether Barack Obama will ask James Hansen about any of this following his "personal appeal" to the president-elect and future first lady.
10 Comments:
By 
chuckchuck, at
Thu Jan 01, 09:32:00 PM:
Or just maybe it comes from all the hot gas beginning at Washington, DC.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Jan 01, 09:49:00 PM:
Meanwhile, from a University of Oregon news release dated tomorrow:
"Abundant tiny particles of diamond dust exist in sediments dating to 12,900 years ago at six North American sites, adding strong evidence for Earth’s impact with a rare swarm of carbon-and-water-rich comets or carbonaceous chondrites, reports a nine-member scientific team.
"These nanodiamonds, which are produced under high-temperature, high-pressure conditions created by cosmic impacts and have been found in meteorites, are concentrated in similarly aged sediments at Murray Springs, Ariz., Bull Creek, Okla., Gainey, Mich., and Topper, S.C., as well as Lake Hind, Manitoba, and Chobot, Alberta, in Canada. Nanodiamonds can be produced on Earth, but only through high-explosive detonations or chemical vaporization.
"Last year a 26-member team from 16 institutions proposed that a cosmic impact event, possibly by multiple airbursts of comets, set off a 1,300-year-long cold spell known as the Younger Dryas, fragmented the prehistoric Clovis culture and led to the extinction of a large range of animals, including mammoths, across North America."
Link:
http://pmr.uoregon.edu/science-and-innovation/uo-research-news/research-news-2009/january/six-north-american-sites-hold-12-900-year-old-nanodiamond-rich-soil/
By Kinuachdrach, at
Thu Jan 01, 10:18:00 PM:
On the one hand, we have to give these guys credit. They realize that anthropogenic CO2 is a mechanism only for global warming -- not for generalized climate change. So they are trying to plug one of the gaping holes in their religious (oops, scientific) beliefs. But they still can't quite get it right.
"Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed ..."
Note the comical misuse of "global warming" as a cause of glaciation where they ought to have said "anthropogenic CO2".
But if CO2 was naturally higher 630 million years ago, without any possible anthropogenic influence, then is it possible that recent rises in CO2 are also natural, not anthropogenic? How would a real scientist go about disproving that obvious possibility?
And, to state the obvious, life on Earth survived that dreadful time of high CO2 630 million years ago, so what's the problem?
As religions go, this global warming/climate change one is pretty lame.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 01, 10:32:00 PM:
The religion is fear.
This decade's chapter is "Anthropogenic Global Warming". (movie paranoia like "The Day the Earth Stood Still")
15 years ago it was a hole in the ozone layer.
25 years ago it was "The Population Bomb". ("Soylent Green")
35 years ago it was "A New Ice Age".
50-60 years ago it was nuclear megadeath. (lots of movie paranoia like "The Day the Earth Stood Still")
As Roseanne Rosannadanna used to say, "It's always something!"
I wish these so-called "scientists" would actually get around to working on something substantial instead of trying to scare the bejeebus out of us all with silly bedtime stories.
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Jan 02, 12:50:00 AM:
"Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed"
Hahaha!
Turn off the heat or we'll freeze!
By , at
Fri Jan 02, 01:13:00 AM:
I remember reading about this in the early 70s in HS. Scientists unsure whether gases would block out the sun's rays, cooling the planet, or trap the heat via the greenhouse effect. The beauty of this is that CO2 is bad in either scenario and must be controlled by centralized planning.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jan 02, 07:56:00 AM:
I remember that, too, feeblemind. But back then the winters were so cold and snowy we were hoping it would get warmer.
By , at
Fri Jan 02, 12:09:00 PM:
Then there are these two who point to a reforestation in the western hemisphere as the cause of the Little Ice Age. The reforestation, which coincided with a 8 ppm reduction in the CO2 concentration, was the result of the abandonment of agricultural land after the population crashed. Since exposure to new diseases has been blamed for the population collapse they are essentially saying that Columbus caused the Little Ice Age. Is there nothing evil white men can't do?
http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=886
alan
By Tim Lambert, at
Sat Jan 03, 08:13:00 AM:
The study did not say that greenhouse gases could cause the next ice age. The reporter did not understand, at all, what the study found. Details here.
By , at
Sun Jan 04, 12:25:00 PM:
You all are embarrassing yourselves by taking the Telegraph seriously. Read Tim's link above.
