From the BBC:
Human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next Ice Age, say scientists. The last Ice Age ended about 11,500 years ago, and when the next one should begin has not been entirely clear.
Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit and other things to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one. In the journal Nature Geoscience, they write that the next Ice Age would begin within 1,500 years - but emissions have been so high that it will not.
"At current levels of CO2, even if emissions stopped now we'd probably have a long interglacial duration determined by whatever long-term processes could kick in and bring [atmospheric] CO2 down," said Luke Skinner from Cambridge University...
Excellent news!
The original Ice Age was quite good fun, but the follow-ons 'The Meltdown', 'Dawn Of The Dinosaurs' and 'Continental Drift' were increasingly unfunny, repetitive and full of anachronisms.
Monday 9 January 2012
"Carbon emissions will defer next Ice Age"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
So if we cease using fossil fuels, we might get an ice age?
Does this mean our great grandchildren will sit around wind and solar panel farms demanding their removal, and a return to cheap, natural coal, to prevent the earth from freezing?
BQ, yes and yes, respectively.
Can,t wait to go mammoth hunting,have i got a surprise for them since the invention of the .700 nitro-express.
BQ, No. AFAICS, despite all the hot air produced over Global Warming, we haven't had the slightest effect on the earth's temperature, so it makes no difference whether we cease using fossil fuels or not. If global warming is man-made, then how come the icecaps are also retreating on Mars?
Anon 13.00, mammoths are extinct, I'm afraid.
B, hang about here - according to NASA satellite data, avg temperature has gone up by a terrifying half a degree C over the last 30 years, a period in which man made CO2 emissions doubled (with unknown positive impact of output of crops).
It can be argued that global warming is a myth or won't be that bad but two things can't be argued:
1.Mercury, lead and other chemicals in the air are never a good thing
2.Mahmoud Ahmajinedad, Hugo Chavez et al are real and they're not our mates. Giving them billions of dollars a day is not in our best interests.
I think improving efficiency is lower hanging fruit in terms of reducing pollution and petrodollars. Doesn't sell as well as fancy green energy projects though.
Whatever you side you support in the climate game, "will defer the next Ice Age" is a drastic climb-down from killing millions via climate catastrophe.
"B, hang about here - according to NASA satellite data, avg temperature has gone up by a terrifying half a degree C over the last 30 years,"
So now we have: There hasn't really been a rise at all, and even if there had been, it was due to the sun, and if it it wasn't due to the sun, but due to us, it's a good thing in the long run as it defers the next ice-age. Kinda weakens the argument for carbon emission reduction bollocks, doesn't it. Mind you, fossil fuels are going to run out at some point and so reducing consumption is a good idea, green lunacies notwithstanding. Personally, I think the only way forward in the long term is nuclear fusion.
M, see my next post.
AKH, you're the expert, what does it all mean?
B, I was trying to get into the spirit of things!
You're supposed to say "OMG! Half a degree over thirty years! If we go on like this, then in three centuries we'll be another five degrees warmer! We're all going to die!"
It is so easy to define the Green camp.
The Left hand "troughers".
The right hand "useful idiots".
MW, BTW I was meaning the whole world and not just the UK in my comment in yr last one. The UK is pretty efficient at turning oil into economic activity. It's the 'Merkins who could do a whole lot better. I lived in the US for 2.5 years and my god they love to burn a spot of 'gas'. They claim to be Israel's biggest friend but the amount of money they make OPEC and others dwarfs any aid to Israel. It's not just the oil that they consume, it's the effect on prices. They might not consume anything from Iran, but the price that Iran gets would collapse if they put their money where their mouth is and put a tax on petrol.
M, well yes, but trying to save £129 a year per person (£350 per vehicle) is pointless for the UK (and the rest of Europe where petrol prices and consumption are similar).
It maybe that the Yanks have average of only 20 mpg, so they could save maybe £300 per person if they got to 50 mpg, but the costs in terms of replacing all their cars would be enormous.
And sure, the Yanks ought to tax petrol higher, that would be good news all round. But by the same token, sooner or later they will increase their own extraction, which will also put a lid on prices.
Post a Comment