Good news: Global warming’s holding off the next ice age!
September 9, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: Latest News & Views, News
Finally, we know why a new ice age, so predicted in the 1970s, never materialized. Global warming’s keeping the ice away!
That’s the conclusion of a new climate change study published in the Sept. 4 edition of Science Magazine.
The study probably won’t convince the global-warming-is-a-hoax crowd because it confirms what most scientists and researchers, federal agencies through Republican and Democratic administrations, and international scientific organizations have been touting for years: Global warming is a problem and it’s not going away.
Bottom line: Greenhouse gases (GHGs), like carbon dioxide (CO2), cause the climate change phenomenon, and that these GHGs are man-made.
The proof of this is in Arctic ice core samples studied by researchers at Northern Arizona University (NAU).
They found that over the past 2,000 years, the Earth was slowing cooling. This average cooling trend continues through a warming trend in the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age that ran from the 13th to the 17th centuries. Then this cooling trend was reversed in the 20th century and dramatically after 1950. The effects of global warming or climate change are most pronounced in the Arctic Ocean, partly due to the tilt of the earth’s axis.
The Arizona Daily Star reports that the NAU explains why:
- Arctic temperatures have risen 2.2° since 1900 even though the Arctic has been receiving less of the Sun’s energy due to the tilt of the earth over the past 8,000 years
- The years 1999-2008 were the warmest in the Arctic in 2,000 years
- The years 1950-2000 were the warmest 50-year period in the Arctic in the same 2,000 years, and
- Arctic warming could be causing the unusually dry weather in the American Southwest by pulling winter storms farther north.
The full article on the study is available to Science subscribers. A free abstract of the NAU study is here. The Christian Science Monitor reports on the study, here.
Tags: carbon dioxide, GHG emissions, Little Ice Age, University of Northern Arizona
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
September 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Yea right! And the sky is falling the sky is falling. I lived throught the 70’s and heard all about the new Ice Age from the same climatologists that touted the global warming theory. Now all of a sudden there is no new Ice Age it’s Global Warming and we give a moron the Nobel Prize for his B.S. and misinformation. Next it will be the Gobal (new word- Cycleization-) Theory. We are going through cycles of warming and freezing. DUH!!! Quit beating a dead horse let it drop.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
“Debating” over whether global warming is “real” is not productive. In spite of the fact that the scientific evidence of global warming is solid, we should focus on the fact that if we do not develop new, sustainable forms of energy, our way of life will go the way of the dinosaur.
ASM
September 10th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Isn’t that strange. I just watched a Nova program that demonstrated as the oceans warm more and more it’s releasing the huge pockets of Methane trapped under the cool layers of water deep in the ocean which will add to gobal warming and eventually trigger some type of ice age. Greenland went from a veritable paradise of animals and farming to covered in ice.
We really need to concentrate on leaving as little a foot print as possible on the earth and let nature take care of herself.
Bwahahahaha, like it’s not too late already with people and cities everywhere, pollution running rampant, none of the governments really caring, just eye wash. We better get way better at space travel fast and start the colonization of habitable planets. This one will be ruined in a short while.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
When I was young in the ’50s we burned leaves in the gutters and the smoke in the air was bad for peoples health. Volcanoes around the world were spewing ash into the atmosphere. We were told that the world was cooling and that we wouldn’t be able to raise enough grain to feed everybody. Therefore it seems to me that the solution is to explode bombs in the deserts to put dust in the atmosphere and the global warming is solved. Hope that we don’t overdo it and start freezing.
September 11th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I was wondering when the enviromentalists would get around to trying to tie up this loose end and seeing as they want to look at in the large scheme of things just a short timeframe, 2000 years maybe they need to review the temeratures for about the last decade now, I personally do not believe that such short timeframes can be considered but lets humor anyway, the temperature has dropped enough to erase the gains of the last 150 years. I do however have to say that I find this as arbitrary since we have only been able to record global temp for maybe the last 40 years which is probably even a strech. I guess this must mean the “Ice Age is coming crowd” can revive their efforts from the 70’s.
So I guess this must mean we need to decide whether to heat the planet with Greenhouse gas or cool it with the bomb-in-the-desert approach. Larry I do not mean any disrespect to you point, I just believe that this whole thing has gone beyond any possible reasoning.
What I would really like to see is the truth, the facts without any of the bias from either side. There are as many opponents to Global warming as there are Pro Global warming unfortunately the Politicians and Media feel the need to only allow one side to be heard, therefore the real truth will never really be know, I personally cannot say one way or the other but I am a cynic and when someone tries to shove something down my throat I tend to not trust that point of view.
September 11th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Recall in the ’70’s when the ozone layer protecting us from the sun’s harmful rays developed a hole in it. The hole eventually was described as the size of Greenland. It was determined to have been caused, or largely caused, from chlorofluorocarbons. These are found in sprays and freon, the chemical then used in air conditioning systems. When these CFL’s were greatly reduced, that hole in the ozone also was greatly reduced. That’s evidence our scientists can see that our actions affect the environment.
Secondly, I have been wanting to ask, if “An Inconvenient Truth” had been presented by a person with whose politics you agreed (i.e., maybe Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh or John McCain or whichever conservative you like) would you be more open to accepting the conclusions? Politics, folks, are really coloring your opinions. And, it’s not nice to call our former Vice-President a moron.
September 11th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Judy the simple answer is NO. Lying and spreading misinformation, it does not matter what your politics are. So do not even try that poor excuse.
Also that hole in the ozone is still there. And they do not know when it was formed only when it was discovered. So the hole could be a natural occurance.
As for “Global Warming” it is a theroy not a proven fact. The scientist qouted started with a theroy and picked facts that supported it and ignored everything else.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:40 am
I agree with Mr. McDowell that debating the global warming issue isn’t productive at all, because people largely either believe what they want to believe or what they’ve been brainwashed into accepting as truth. Let’s face it, the scientific community jumps to a great number of conclusions–after all they’re human too–as much as we seem to ignore that fact. However, the common sense of respecting our dependence on a functioning natural world and the value of good stewardship of what we’ve been blessed with could never be a bad thing, could it?
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 am
Judy, Recent evidence says that the hole in the ozone gets big then small, big then small, big then small, the hole in the ozone get big then small all through out time.
October 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I agree with Jo Phillips and Scott McDowell, too. For those who think all the changes are just due to natural occurrences, you’re at least partly correct. There are natural cycles – AND it certainly appears these have been greatly accelerated over time. The world’s population took until about the 1800’s to reach one billion and since then it’s grown to over six billion. That multiplies the effect of human activity on the planet. It would be so great if we could just do anything we want and not pay attention to the effects of our actions, but we or future generations will pay for that approach with a far poorer quality of life. We do need to be good stewards, even though it takes extra effort or is not always convenient. If the recycle bin is a few feet from the regular trash, for instance, we can choose to use it.
October 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Judy,
I agree that we need to take care of the earth. Dumping DDT, strychnine, arsenic around wasn’t a good idea, but as for climate change look at the facts; each time the sun becomes more active, the earth warms at the same rate. When the sun becomes less active the earth tends to cool at the same rate. Shortly after the warming trend co2 levels go up. Shortly after a cooling trend co2 levels go down. Coincidence? Next look at the wild weather aspect. In 1950 the US experienced around 50 deadly tornadoes per year. By 2006 the US was averaging 20 deadly tornadoes per year. As for hurricanes we have held at an average of 7 per year since 1900 with a low point of 1 in about 1915 and a high point of 19 in about 1932. As for the sea level rising, it has been rising at a rate of about 7 inches per year ever since the 1800’s with no increase after the massive rise in human activity during the 1900’s Once again I do think that taking care of the earth is a great idea so as long as we don’t panic, use our head about it and use good solid facts to do so.
November 12th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
It doesn’t take a scientist (Not even a rocket scientist) to figure out that we can’t go on forever treating our planet like a giant cesspool! The earth is a living organism that will respond to abuse just as any other living organism would…
November 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Seems like everyone is in agreement that we should try to minimize civilizations detremental effects on our planet. I whole heartedly agree that we should take better care of our planet that’s why the manmade global warming farce makes me angry. It will take away resources that could be used to really have an impact on improving the planet. Every time it rains the sewage systems in every city on the east coast spew millions of gallons of essentially raw sewage into the ocean. We have the technology to correct this problem but not one slim dime was committed to this problem in the recent stimulus package nor is it given any attention by the geniuses in Washington. Why ? Because you can’t use this as a cause to tax and redistribute our economic resources.
You really care about the planet ? WAKE UP and do some research on your own instead of being a lemming that believes whatever BS is handed to them. Your ignorance will lead to the downfall of our planet.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
We unfortunately have an elite green fringe in this country and world that want to control everyone as much as possible. And they now have a majority of scientists on their bandwagon to promote the global warming THEORY. And so those “green establishment” scientists are not derided for the sheep that they are, they have now come up with a lame attempt to explain why those brilliant green power scientists thought we had an ice age coming just 30 years ago. There are many other scientists, some with better credentials, who do not subscribe to this THEORY. And it IS only a THEORY. But let’s change the whole world around it — after all, brilliant scientists thought the earth was flat for many centuries. I do believe in having as small a footprint as reasonably possible, but when you can spend 20%-30% to eliminate 80%-90% of the air and water pollution, you generally find that the last 10%-20% is going to cost ten times as much. It would be much better to just give this money to the emerging countries in Asia and elsewhere and let them reduce 80%-90% of their pollution that would achieve several times the bang for the buck. We could eliminate a lot more of this pollution from the world’s atmosphere and it would be done at a reasonable price. Then, it would be nice if the green powers that be could allow for a reasonable discussion of their THEORY with other even more brilliant dissenting scientists, to see what other theories are out there, and that not everyone agrees with them. And finally, maybe these green powers could stop developing problems and responses to them that are primarily motivated by their desire to implement their social agenda throughout the whole planet. Okay — time to stop dreaming.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
After reading many of the reactions, I thought I’d point out Judy Buckley has a good point when she speculates how people would feel about Inconvenient Truth had it been written by someone who is apolitical. I grant this. I also wonder what Ms. Buckley thinks regarding Al Gore’s information when she understands he also takes credit for inventing the internet. Finally, it seems to me we have examples of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas who probably had a hand in their own demise and not put aside the climate debate to an extent and just focus on being more practical. Is there really anything wrong with trying to reduce, reuse, recycle and re-purpose? Being a throw away society does have collateral damage if left unchecked. But all must done in balance. Unfortunately, humans sometimes need necessity to give birth to inventions. Better late than never.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:52 am
It is interesting that the latest info on the data that has been manipulated from the authorities on “Climate Change” has been ignored by the media. It is also interesting that we are proceeding full speed ahead with crippling our economy further without reviewing the misinformation that has been provided. Sad day for the country and the planet.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Did anyone see all the “new” evidence that came out last week from the emails of all the most “respected” global warming experts saying basically that they don’t have the evidence to support their theory but that they would keep pushing it anyway.
Looks as if all of us taking the common sense approach were right!
Scott, you are right though, that there are many benefits to reducing, reusing and recycling much of what we consume. But forcing crap and tax only benefits the already powerful rich and will do great harm to the emerging small business’s that employ the majority of U.S. citizens.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Scott, thanks for the supporting comments. I would like to point out that Al Gore has been saddled for years with the UNTRUTH that he claims to have invented the Internet. I looked this up some time ago on one of those sites that digs out the truth of what was said, and he hever said that. It shows if a statement is repeated enough it is accepted as truth. Also, kind of related, proves the point that once a negative statement is repeated about a political candidate, for example, public opinion of that person goes down. Interestingly, when the statement is subsequently proved false, puclie opinion goes up again, but not to the level it was before the statement was made. Therefore, damage to the person was done because some people still believe the statement even after proof it was false. Also, I’m glad to hear people are at least supportive of reducing, reusing and recyclying as much as we can. I’m guilty of using a lot of paper towels, but I recycle everything I can, even if I have to separate some items I think are not recyclable from a package. And, I’ll even wash some plastics so I can recycle those. So, I hope that makes up for the paper towels! Getting back to the source of the statements in An Inconvenient Truth – I believe I actually speculated on the reactions of folks if the statements were made from people they respected on the conservative side – but maybe I mentioned apolitical, too.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Judy, If what Al Gore preaches is truth, then why have the British courts banned use of his film in schools unless the school points out that most of his points are fiction? Also after the release of emails last week why are the Brits looking into charging the global warming folks for fraud? It’s because horse hockey these fine folks have been feeding us. Next question, why is the US government pressing on with Cap’n Tax without good evidence?… Greedy little buggers aren’t they.
December 1st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Judy:
I accept virtually anything can be done with computer animation, but I have to write I saw and heard the clip where he made the “internet” remark. To me, this was no different than when Secretary of State Clinton while running for her party’s nomination for President described the hostility she was subjected to on the tarmac (coming under gunfire) when, in fact, there was no danger of such an action and for which she subsequently made conciliatory remarks. I also saw where using infra red photography of Mr. Gore’s home had an immense and luminous “exothermic footprint”. To change my mind about what I saw not read in both of these (video clip and photo) would need hard evidence presented of fabricated photos for me to believe what someone else reports as an urban myth. What I saw and heard directly from what appeared to be his lips is worth believing. I must confess to you I am at the point where I doubt virtually everything the press or a politician tells me. I loved my country, but I don’t know who or what to believe. Energy Star is supposedly testing products to help us conserve and make wise choices, yet over a year ago Consumer Reports caught them administering tests on refrigerators which were anything but “real world” tests but was this heavily reported? People bash PVC and our government has gone as far as to ban 6 different phthalates because there’s allegedly a correlation between those children in China’s sexual development and their proximity to PVC mills, yet you can go to any Children’s hospital and see blood and other collection bags which are made of PVC which you know are not just in close proximity to, rather are intravenous. So where are the studies confirming this as being dangerous? Where are the malpractice lawsuits? Why did the co-founder (Patrick Moore) of Greenpeace leave? What is he doing now and why doesn’t his new organization (Greenspirit) get any media coverage. Why doesn’t CFACT get any media coverage? My last rhetorical question of the night – If it’s true any large corporate entity probably releases only monolithic self-serving propaganda (think any of the press’s usual suspects from Big Banks, Gun Lobbies, to American Chemical Society) why would we think there would be anything by the same biased and imbalanced messages coming from “the media” who also are large corporate entities who usually think the same way before FOX network came along. But to me FOX isn’t any better or worse. Both sides of the Press on any issue no longer really cover the story and share facts, they share opinions. I want facts. I don’t care what the political leanings are I want as much empirically verifiable information I can locate without all the drama and embellishment and mud slinging. Leave your bias baggage at the door before you go on the air. That’s what I want to see and that’s what I want out of our climate centric mavens out there. Who knows what to believe any more? I do know it isn’t our God-given right to trash up the environment any more than it is to trash up a State Park or my Father’s house, so why do we thing the common ground of our world is OK to trash? Because we’re lazy and because we’ve succumbed to a misconception that temporal is better than durable and reusable.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Scott, Here is a link to a study supported by several thousand real scientists with real world global warming facts. http://www.petitionproject.org/ And here is a more bias site founded by a former NOAA top dog http://www.icecap.us/ I hope this helps.
December 7th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Thanks for the information. Ill read it and get back to you.
BTW: Not in favor of any “Cap and Trade”.
In favor of incentives or tax credits for reduce, reuse, recycle, re-purpose and R&D.
January 1st, 2010 at 9:27 pm
The one obvious fact is that current science has no real handle on climate change. The impact of CO2 has been vastly overplayed, and they haven’t even cranked in the geopulsation cycle, which is actually the key factor. (See Roots of Cataclysm:Geopulsation and the Atlantis Supervolcano, Algora Publ.NY 2009.)