Next Ice Age Delayed By Global Warming Gases, Study Finds

By Nina Chestney

LONDON (Reuters) - High levels of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere mean the next ice age is unlikely to begin for at least 1,500 years, an article in the journal Nature Geoscience said on Monday.

Concentrations of the main gases blamed for global warming reached record levels in 2010 and will linger in the atmosphere for decades even if the world stopped pumping out emissions today, according to the U.N.'s weather agency.

An ice age is a period when there is a long-term reduction in the earth's surface and atmospheric temperature, which leads to the growth of ice sheets and glaciers.

There have been at least five ice ages on earth. During ice ages there are cycles of glaciation with ice sheets both advancing and retreating.

Officially, the earth has been in an interglacial, or warmer period, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years, and estimates vary on how long such periods last.

"(Analysis) suggests that the end of the current interglacial (period) would occur within the next 1,500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations do not exceed (around) 240 parts per million by volume (ppmv)," the study said.

However, the current carbon dioxide concentration is of 390 ppmv, and at that level an increase in the volume of ice sheets would not be possible, it added.

The study based on variations in the earth's orbit and rock samples was conducted by academics at Cambridge University, University College London, the University of Florida and Norway's University of Bergen.

The causes of ice ages are not fully understood but concentrations of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, changes in the earth's orbit around the sun, and the movement of tectonic plates are all thought to contribute.

The world is forecast to grow hotter as greenhouse gases continue to rise, increasing threats such as extreme weather events and sea level rise.

Scientists have warned that global temperature rise should be limited to within 2 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst effects of climate change but delays in curbing emissions growth are putting the planet at risk.

(Editing by Alessandra Rizzo)

Comments

[jonoruf]

11:33 PM on 01/11/2012

I believe that only people who are completely disconnected from nature and the Earth can really believe that there is nothing wrong with our current situation regarding the environment.

[Robco1]

01:42 AM on 01/12/2012

Unfortunately there are many of those to go around I'm afraid. But I think it may go even deeper than that, into a basic cultural premise that the natural world is something we should "conquer" and control for our own whims, without care to the natural laws governing those systems. This dominion over the earth idea seems hard-wired into far too many of us. It is a foolish idea, and deadly wrong. Imagine making a flying machine while ignoring the laws governing aerodynamics and gravity. Want to entrust your life in that machine?

[jonoruf]

01:47 AM on 01/12/2012

Agreed. Have you ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? Excellent book and reflects upon your comment.

[old soil guy]

04:48 AM on 01/11/2012

Soil scientist with 35 yrs of field experience. I can testify that slow changes in vegetation and animal behavior has be changing. Fires, insects in our forests with affects not seen before. The question of climate changing is answered and over despite what a few misguided people want to hang on to. It is happening. Not so fast is some areas but surely in the artic areas. We don't know for sure what this all means but it won't be good for many areas of the planet. I doubt we can do much about the cause without more political will. It will be up to the people to figure out ways to minimize the effects. But without governments and their money sources I fear not much will ever be done. Our children and grandchildren will need to adapt to a very different world. I'm sure I'll be long gone when it gets real bad but I feel for the people who will be dealing with this. I hope some smart people are able to minimize the affects a bit but don't have much hope. Like Churchill said "Americans will always to the right thing after they have exhausted all other ways". We'll likely be too late on this one.

[jonoruf]

11:30 PM on 01/11/2012

Agreed, but I don't know how 'long gone' you will be before it gets bad. This could throw us into an ice age, which apparently can happen very quickly.

[Cj Medina]

10:54 PM on 01/10/2012

in1978we were going in to an ice age the scientists said...How come they were wrong then and not now....hmmmmmmm?

[Publicola]

02:00 AM on 01/11/2012

Science denier talking points never die, no matter how many times a stake has been driven through their hearts.

Climate Crock of the Week: "In the 70s, They said there was going to be an Ice Age"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

[maslin]

03:04 AM on 01/11/2012

Love the music.

[jimboy71]

02:00 AM on 01/11/2012

Oh for crying out loud. There were SIX papers about aerosols and cooling. Nothing about an ice age.

Do a little research before spouting off.

[Rich Cash]

09:14 PM on 01/10/2012

Greenhouse gases cause global warming. Global warming means ice is less likely to form and what ice there is may melt. Ipso facto, the next ice age will probably be delayed. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...lol.

[IkeSoc]

06:52 PM on 01/10/2012

This is priceless.

What the scientists are saying seems quite plausible, but the "hay" that GW deniers are making of it just shows the silly lengths they will go to.

First of all, why are people who largely say there is no significant global warming crowing over an article that says "global warming is preventing an ice age"?

Secondly, the ice age according to the scientists was likely to occur in 1,500 years. Now it may come later or not at all. So what!? It doesn't address one way or the other, whether AGW will be having catastrophic effects in the next 30-100 years.

Maybe in 100 years we'll be in a position to think 1,500 years ahead. Actually I doubt that, but I expect in 1,500 years, if we can make it through the next 100 or so without complete disaster, we will have the technology and theoretical understanding to modify the climate and do a great deal to prevent dangerous hurricanes and tornadoes, floods, droughts, etc.

See RealTruthProject.org and in particular "Corollary to the Big Lie Theory" at http://therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2010/07/corrolary-to-big-lie-theory.html

[Publicola]

02:23 PM on 01/10/2012

Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Dr. Roy Spencer Debunked

Sealtheborder1: "Spencers latest research paper shows a near 200% difference in the actual heat lost to space"

Roy Spencer's latest paper has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by other climate scientists.

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/3lsqtmz
http://tinyurl.com/3qxuas4
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/roy-spencer-persecuted-by-own-data/

Indeed, Spencer's paper has been demonstrated to be such poor science that the editor of the scientific journal that published the paper -- a relatively new scientific journal with little to no expertise in climate science -- subsequently resigned in an attempt to save the reputation of the journal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/9/2002/pdf

More generally, Roy Spencer's work has been repeatedly corrected and debunked by other climate scientists for many years.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/roy-spencers-great-blunder-part-1/
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/18/science/earth/18CLIM.html
http://tinyurl.com/5r47ed

Roy Spencer believes that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.

http://tinyurl.com/44up9q3
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (PDF)

Roy Spencer is a Creationist.

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Roy Spencer's repeated failures to have climate science conform to his religious fundamentalist beliefs notwithstanding, science deniers parrot Roy Spencer with zero skepticism.

[Publicola]

03:55 PM on 01/10/2012

Roy Spencer is also on Board of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Here's the Cornwall Alliance on their belief that per Biblical prophecy God will protect us from global warming:

---------------------------------------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...

We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...

Earth and all its subsystems - of land, sea, and air, living and nonliving - are the good products of the wise design and omnipotent acts of the infinite, eternal, and unchangeable Triune God of the Bible. As such they reveal God’s glory. Mankind, created in God’s image, is the crown of creation. Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth...

Human beings have the divine mandate to multiply and to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth, transforming it from wilderness into garden. They act as stewards under God to cultivate and guard what they subdue and rule. 

continued...

[Publicola]

04:09 PM on 01/10/2012

...Cornwall Alliance, continued

Calling them to be His vicegerents over the Earth, God requires obedience to His laws - in Scripture and imprinted in the human conscience - in their stewardship. Although sin, universal among mankind, deeply mars this stewardship, God’s redemptive act in Jesus Christ’s death on the cross and His instructive activity through Scripture, communicating the nature of creation and human responsibility for it, enable people to create wealth and decrease poverty at the same time that they pursue creation stewardship and, even more important, the true spiritual wealth of knowing their Creator through Jesus Christ.

The Biblical worldview contrasts sharply with the environmentalist worldview...

Environmentalism tends to substitute subjective, humanist standards of environmental stewardship for the objective, transcendent standards of divine morality...

The providence and promises of God inform a Christian understanding of creation stewardship, helping to avert irrational or exaggerated fears of catastrophes - fears that are rooted, ultimately, in the loss of faith in God... 

God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.

-----------------------------------
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor.pdf

Amen.

Sealthebor­ders: "The warmers hold onto it like a new religion..­­..it gives them a reason to be......"

Science denier irony is eternal.

[wonderinbear]

06:48 PM on 01/10/2012

As your banner states fats are a funny thing, fact weather patterns change, fact earth was warmer for the majority of its existence, fact man is the smallest contributor to greenhouse gases, I would go on bu t I doubt you would read them. I'm not buying the new religion of climate change, climates change and have so for millions of years. One reason for my skepticism is your insistence in only one answer "yours" and your posts speak volumes as to your fanaticism. Secondly the only thing you could come up with appears to be a personal attack that fails to discuss the findings of the research. I disagree with your interpretation and position.

[chrisd3]

07:10 PM on 01/10/2012

Fact, everything in your comment is either irrelevant, misleading, or wrong.

The Earth may have been warmer for most of its existence, but we weren't here, and neither were our cities and farms.

Man contributes only about 3% of all CO2 emissions, but that is ALL of the excess that natural processes can't absorb, and it is therefore responsible for ALL of the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Climate change in the past is not an explanation for the current change any more than last year's illness explains why you're sick now. If you have an explanation for the current strong warming trend, let's hear it.

[gunnerfan5]

07:18 PM on 01/10/2012

"As your banner states fats are a funny thing"

Are we talking saturated or unsaturated here?

[intolleft]

01:54 PM on 01/10/2012

Wow, the demise of man delayed by an extension of prosperity. The horrors.

[Publicola]

03:33 PM on 01/10/2012

Gee, intolleft, I thought you believed that AGW was a hoax.

Science deniers are nothing if not inconsistent.

[intolleft]

04:05 PM on 01/10/2012

Gee...I do. But don't let the difference between AGW and the climate changing keep you from distorting.

[Publicola]

04:17 PM on 01/10/2012

Me: "Gee, intolleft, I thought you believed that AGW was a hoax."

intolleft: "Gee...I do."

Gee... in which case even you don't believe your own rhetoric above of "Wow, the demise of man delayed by an extension of prosperity­."

Again science deniers are nothing if not inconsiste­nt.

[EArizona]

06:14 PM on 01/10/2012

I don't recall reading anything about "extension of prosperity". Just because an ice age isn't coming soon, doesn't mean a drought can't kill us.

[GhostOfFDR]

01:46 PM on 01/10/2012

I've only read the paper abstract so far, but the abstract says that preindustrial CO2 levels were 280 ppm, and that a level of 240 ppm is required to prevent an ice age from starting in 1500 years. Doesn't that mean that there wasn't going to be an ice age in 1500 years in the first place?

[Publicola]

05:01 PM on 01/10/2012

Dham good question, GoFDR...

You motivated me to download the study and read it.

Here's the relevant passage:

"The extent to which preindustrial CO2 levels were ‘natural’ has been challenged [10,11] by the suggestion that anthropogenic interference since the mid-Holocene led to increased greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, which countered the natural cooling trend and prevented a glacial inception."

Which is to say, the study builds on the hypothesis that human contribution to atmospheric CO2 began thousands of years before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, via deforestation.

[GhostOfFDR]

06:11 PM on 01/10/2012

Thanks for the info and for taking the time to dig up the article. Like most minor functionaries, I've been in meetings that are important to someone else most of the day. 15 minutes off to get some coffee....

[sophie M]

01:36 PM on 01/10/2012

The Man in the Moon told me last night..........that we best beware..

[Acemkr6]

01:10 PM on 01/10/2012

Hmmm, I guess the Ice age they predicted in the 1960's and early 70's was because of the acid rain that was going to ruin the rain forest in the 1980's that made the blue whale extinct but later was found out to be living in large quantities. But then there was El Nino and La nina years and there hasn't been a flood that size since the 1930's but global warming caused this flooding but the flood that was that size in the 1930's that happened because of excess rain?? This is as convuluted and impossible to be factual as the so called scientist who predicted all of this stuff that was false!

[Publicola]

01:13 PM on 01/10/2012

Acemkr6: "Hmmm, I guess the Ice age they predicted in the 1960's and early 70's..."

Science denier talking points never d|e, no matter how many times a st@ke has been driven through their hearts.

‪"Climate Denial Crock of the Week - In the 70s, They said there'd be an Ice Age"‬

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

[Katmandu01]

01:31 PM on 01/10/2012

The only thing that's convoluted is your incoherent rambling but I'll pick up on a couple of the points you may be trying to make.
"...the Ice age they predicted in the 1960's and early 70's..." In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet and in fact, not one national scientific academy ever endorsed the idea of an impending ice age while today every single national scientific academy in the world is warning us of the threat posed by anthropogenic global warming.
"...the acid rain that was going to ruin the rain forest in the 1980's..." Acid rain posed a definite threat to the forests of North America but through sensible legislation like the Acid Deposition Act(Science, policy, and acid rain: lessons learned. Renewable Resources Journal. 15(1): 9-13) and cooperation between the US and Canada resulting in the Air Quality Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Quality_Agreement) the problem has largely been brought under control.

[Publicola]

12:53 PM on 01/10/2012

Multiple assertions downthread demonstrate that several posters here do not understand what a scientific theory is, including this one:

Fine7760: "Much of the science that we are depending on is only theory not hard facts. They talk of a hole in our atmosphere but said hole is only theory and it is not actually visible."

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution As Fact and Theory

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory... If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ...

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts...

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world... In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

http://tinyurl.com/5m4n6

[blueshield]

12:58 PM on 01/10/2012

Oh gawd, publicola, please don't get them started on evolution! Bwha!

[Publicola]

01:06 PM on 01/10/2012

Lol..

[Claudia L]

02:21 PM on 01/10/2012

I don't believe in survival of the fittest. I think you just have to be in the right place at the right time like when the last huge solar flair that killed 90% of life forms. if you were on the dark side of the planet, you made it. Just a "THEORY".

[Publicola]

02:39 PM on 01/10/2012

"Survival of the fittest" is not an accurate summation of Natural Selection, which is the scientific THEORY that in large measure (along with Sexual Selection) explains the scientific FACT of evolution.

HTH.

[jimboy71]

09:07 PM on 01/10/2012

As Publicola points out, you don't really grasp the concept of natural selection.

As to your second postulate, which solar FLARE was it that did what now?

We have this thing called a "magnetosphere" which is generated by differential forces in the molten outer core of the planet and the very dense iron nickle inner core. The magnetosphere traps wide bands of radiation, both from solar and cosmic sources and prevents them from reaching earth, while simultaneously deflecting more.

The end result is that solar flares do not generally cause mass extinctions...one would have to hit JUST at the moment of a geomagnetic reversal...and even that is not established as factual. We just don't know what happens during GMR events yet.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

12:52 PM on 01/10/2012

Well its all about you, so I doubt your post will surprise anyone. But it does tell us that selfishness is the third leg of the denier stool.

[REMEMBER2050]

01:16 PM on 01/10/2012

Nicely put! My son has three-legged stools in his furnished college apartment. Surprise, surprise, every one of the danged things is broken.

[gallon]

12:52 PM on 01/10/2012

This poster has obviously come over with the intent of trolling and disrupting the joint.

[Publicola]

12:43 PM on 01/10/2012

AGW "Skeptics": God Will Protect Us From Global Warming

Prominent global warming "skeptics" including Roy Spencer (a climate scientist favored by "skeptics"), Ross McKitrick (economist and purported "hockey stick" slayer), and Joseph D'Aleo (weatherman / Icecap blog) preach that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming, along with other signatories of the Cornwall Alliance's "Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming":

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/blog/item/prominent-signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

Roy Spencer is moreover on the Cornwall Alliance's Board of Advisers:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/about/board-of-advisors/

More from the Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation on their belief that per Biblical prophesy God will protect us from global warming:

-----------------------
The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels... is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use...

We believe that idea... fails the tests of theology... with a worldview of the Earth and its climate system contrary to that taught in the Bible...
 
God’s wisdom, power, and faithfulness justify confidence that Earth’s ecosystems are robust and will, by God’s providence, accomplish the purposes He set for them.
------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/27murl6 (PDF)

Sealtheborders: "The warmers hold onto it like a new religion..­..it gives them a reason to be......"

Science denier irony is eternal.

[blueshield]

12:42 PM on 01/10/2012

Deniers forget, it's not only scientists who are alarmed about climate change.

Insurance companies are now paying out hundreds of billions for damages related to climate change, and their risk analysts have determined their losses will continue to climb, threatening to wipe them out.

Swiss Re, the world's largest reinsurance company (they provide the money to insure the insurance companies), has not only independently confirmed climate change and it's risks, they're at the forefront of proposing solutions to head it off.

If they fail, they and their investors will lose (literally) trillions in claims due to damages resulting from climate change.

http://www.swissre.com/rethinking/climate/

[REMEMBER2050]

01:23 PM on 01/10/2012

Oh, skeptics have an argument for this fabulous application of capitalism--insurance companies are trying to rip us off! Sort of like another favorite skeptic argument that everybody gets to be a capitalist except Al Gore--god forbid HIM betting on which technologies are up and coming--although they have NO problem with Koch brothers' factory pollution actually causing cancer.

You know, being a skeptic is so much damned work! It's almost impossible not to contradict yourself, so every argument you make has to be followed by a "but...."

[fine7760]

12:35 PM on 01/10/2012

.With all the warnings about global warming and how our environment is being wrecked how do we know the steps being taken are correct? A case in point is Los Angeles, Ca. Smog is hardly noticeable now but is that solving the problem or increasing it. When the Spaniards first arrived they saw a brown haze covering the (Los Angeles) basin. It is believed it was caused by the camp fires in the native American villages. Perhaps this natural pollution was a benefit to the environment not hurting it. Much of the science that we are depending on is only theory not hard facts. They talk of a hole in our atmosphere but said hole is only theory and it is not actually visible

[Publicola]

12:47 PM on 01/10/2012

Um..

The existence of the ozone hole is verified by instrumental data - which is to say it is "visible" to scientific instruments.

HTH.

[Climate Lurker]

12:54 PM on 01/10/2012

"The term "theory" implies that scientists have high confidence that a theory's predictions will prove accurate in the future. Theories differ from hypotheses in that the latter are more speculative and tentative. Scientists propose hypotheses to explain and predict observations that are poorly understood. If evidence accumulates that an hypothesis makes accurate predictions, then that hypothesis become a theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Climate Lurker]

12:54 PM on 01/10/2012

(comment directed at Fine7760)

[Chudye]

12:55 PM on 01/10/2012

Your post is too funny!

[Publicola]

01:08 PM on 01/10/2012

Yup - this for example was a good one:

"A case in point is Los Angeles, Ca. Smog is hardly noticeable now but is that solving the problem or increasing it."

Science denier rhetoric is beyond parody.