Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us
A group of Swedish scientists at the University of Gothenburg have published a paper in which they argue that spreading peatlands are inexorably driving planet Earth into its next ice age, and the only thing holding back catastrophe is humanity's hotly debated atmospheric carbon emissions. "We are probably entering a new ice age …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Ice age?
I thought we were already in an ice age? Hence the polar caps?
Re: Ice age?
I thought caps were on the top - hence only one is a cap (either depending on which way up you hold the Earth). The other is then surely more like a polar panty liner.
Re: Ice age?
There is no up or down in space. The Earth has no top.
Re: Ice age?
Actually, it's pretty safe to say it does. The Milky Way has a distinct planar orientation to it (the starts within are not distributed in a globular pattern but spiral out pretty flatly). There's also the idea of orienting worlds on their orbital or rotational axes. Earth's current coordinate system is oriented on rotational axis.
Re: Ice age?
That simply means there is a vertical axis. Which end of that axis is 'up' or 'down' is merely convention.
Re: Ice age?
"That simply means there is a vertical axis. Which end of that axis is 'up' or 'down' is merely convention."
But either way, there is an up and a down whichever is which. So the original point is right. Or would if they hadn't misunderstood "cap" to mean a type of head-clothing, rather than in the sense of things that "cap" the ends of something.
Re: Ice age?
RHD Rule:
Wrap your hand around the earth . (figuratively speaking). Fingers with the direction or rotation. Up is with your thumb.
I got so confused trying to do this I think East is toward my adams apple.
Re: Ice age?
Actually, it's pretty safe to say [Earth] does [have a top]
I'm looking forward to us contacting extraterrestrial life so that we can decide which side of the "topist" and "bottomist" divide we lie on. Or to put it another way, whether we root more for turnwise or widdershins.
I've only one niggling doubt: wasn't this already played out in Gulliver's Travels?
Re: Ice age?
So what if you hold it upside-down? From the perspective of someone outside the Sol system, their perspective may be different from ours (IOW, we may see it as the underside of the Milky Way, they'll see it as the top side).
Re: Ice age?
If the Earth has no top how do you explain Australia being on the bottom of the planet? Hah.. thought so, no answer to that smartypants. And for the pedantics that insist on proof that Australia is indeed at the bottom of the planet, first of all England is at the top, so that alone should be sufficient proof, but when you take into consideration they have summer at Christmas - clearly wrong and completely against nature - then the evidence is there for all to see.. unless they're some blinkered, head-in-the-sand-at-Christmas Australian standing upside down on the bottom of the world.
Re: Ice age?
WHAT is your favourite colour ? horn-gloat rag-strewn...
(Holy Grail etc )
Follow the money
No matter what happens, the politicians will seize it and tax. We get an ice age..look it's climate change, hot and dry, oh look its climate change....I'm reminded of fleas on an elephants back thinking that they can predict where it will go, and perhaps, just perhaps they can get it to change course.
Re: Follow the money
Never mind the money, it might be too late to wake up early, but me will continue to try to understand, anyway.
Re: Follow the money
Yep and only the politicians and scientists are interested in money and some in private industry has nothing to gain by continuing with the status quo.
Authoritative is as authoritative does....
"..it's true that 'Mires and Peat' isn't exactly Nature or Cell..."
Umm. I am aware that it hasn't got the same global presence or (probably) highly inflated opinion of itself as those two establishment publications.
But, without having done a lot of research, I suspect from the name that it is pretty hot on the chemistry and ecology of mires and peat bogs. In fact, I would not be surprised to find that it was the world's authoritative publication on those subjects......
Re: Authoritative is as authoritative does....
I'm sure it's absolutely boffo on the subjects of mires and peat. Global climate? Less so. Doesn't even fit the interglacial timings.
No surprise to see it waved around on El Reg, mind.
@Andy Gates
Why would it matter whether they are experts on global climate? The only conclusion of the research is the unprecedented scale of carbon sequestration in peat, and the enormous rate of growth of mires and bogs. The additional conclusion that the amount of carbon sequestrated might be high enough to offset human industrial CO2 emissions is added almost as an afterthought.
By the way, annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions are within the margin of error of estimates on amount of CO2 emissions from a medium-sized volcano eruption. How could human-made CO2 be responsible for anything? That's the thing that I've never seen climate scientists refute. It's like they're trying to explain how we can heat an ocean using a candle.
Re: Authoritative is as authoritative does....
"Mires and Peat" . Nah, not a patch on Bogs and Sod.
If the science holds up...
.... we should get a new directive from our Dear Leaders.
Instead of banning the use of Peat in horticulture, we should encourage it. Possibly providing grants for pensioners to dig it into their gardens? And certainly expanding its use in power stations....
Isn't climate science wonderful? Especially allied with a command economy run by moronic politicians with no technical knowledge whatsoever...
Re: If the science holds up...
" expanding its use in power stations"
if I understood this correctly, we want to leave the peat bogs alone so they can capture the CO2 from the fuel we are burning and so balance teh temperatures out, NOT burn more peat!
Re: If the science holds up...
I think you missed the point. I read it as we're heading into an ice age and unless you burn all of the peat, it'll happen more quickly (as it were).
Am I wrong?
Re: If the science holds up...
@theodore, no YOU missed the point. If we don't stop the cause of the next ice age, how are the politicians going to justify all the anti-CO2 taxes?
They may have no technical knowledge
But there's still room in their wallets and time for skiing trips or Mohitos in Tuscany
Also...
On the subject of climate, is there any follow up or outcome on this story yet?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/29/boaden_tribunal_information_refusal/
Mires and Peat
I must be hungry. I initially read that as "Pies and Meat" mmmmmnn - ice-age mammoth pies,
Without getting into the debate about whether warming is super-damaging or not-a-big-deal, I thought this rather elegantly shows the "last 10/12/16 years have not shown any warming so AGW is a crock" statement to be a load of denialist bollocks.
Good Point
...but have you seen the same GIF for the last 1000 years?
"have you seen the same GIF for the last 1000 years?"
What would it show and what would that mean?
(Just trying to keep up).
Graph proves article accuracy
Unless I misread your graph, it appears to show that temperature over the last 15 years to have been flat or declining - exactly as the article stated. It does also show that over 40 years, it has increased by 0.5 degrees. The two facts are not mutually exclusive.
Re: Graph proves article accuracy
Temperatures have been flat or declining only if you treat the Daily Mail as science.
Re: Graph proves article accuracy
And the medieval warming period was also caused by human activity...
...pull the other one, it has bells on.
Hurrican Sandy caused by global warming?
Nonsense. Everyone knows it was the homosexualists*
*Note: This is a joke.
Re: Hurrican Sandy caused by global warming?
Thought is was all them "Commie" satellites that did this?
Beer Friday is upon us. Cheers everyone!
Re: Hurrican Sandy caused by global warming?
You're wrong, of course. It was them chemtrails what did it.
Re: Hurrican Sandy caused by global warming?
Hurricanes are caused by warmth.
This has been the most expensive US election ever.
There has been blanket politicking throughout US.
Politicians spout hot air.
Hurricane Sandy hit at the peak of the electioneering.
The election is over, and there is no hurricane.
Q.E.D.
"If Franzén and his team are right, the big chill is now under way, and is only just being held off by increasing human carbon emissions - perhaps explaining why temperatures have been merely flat for the last 15 years or so, rather than descending."
Surely this is wrong. If Franzén and his team are right then we can expect the world to be still warming and can expect significantly more warming over the 21st century, just like all those climate scientists are saying. That's because Franzén and his team's work is saying CO2 is a strong driver of global temperature. They only predict cooling IF CO2 levels fall. But CO2 levels aren't falling and won't fall without emission cuts. CO2 levels are rising sharply due to human emissions of now over 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. In contrast Franzen and his team say the peatland sink *might* reach 3.7 Gt yr. So it isn't likely to even dent the increase in CO2.
So there is simply no cooling or big chill predicted. Instead expect continued warming. Global temperatures over the last 15 years are consistent with this.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/
30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
So if I read you correctly - and I have no figures here of my own you understand - human activity is emitting 30 billion tons of CO2 per yer, and the peatlands may extract up to *3700 billion* tons (3.7 giga tons) per year.
And you think the peatland will barely dent the CO2 increase? If those numbers are correct, they'll annihilate it...
Re: 30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
Well it depends on what you mean by billion, but you have it backwards regardless. I'm assuming American usage, so billion = 10^9, which is also what Giga means (10^9) so 30 billion tons is about 8 times 3.7 Giga tons.
Re: 30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
Given human emissions are about 4% of total global emissions :s
Re: 30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
An -additional- 4%. That's why it's forcing change.
Re: 30 billion tons vs 3.7 giga tons?
Oops - just let a good one off!!...0.000000000001% added
Oh, except it wasn't a dry one.
OK, shower and washing machine tonight...0.00000001% then.
Well, if peat sequestrates CO2...
Why the hell is a lot of my town heated by a peat-burning power station? I think they have similar in Sweden.
I thought that burning released the CO2 from the peat??? Plus, the immense effort and 'global warming' of putting a new road from the northern peatlands to Oulu so the trucks (CO2 again...) can transport it...
The Irish have a way with peat
They build a power station where the peat is, water is always there also. Then they strip the surrounding soil and leave the land barren.
I think a power hungry world won't leave any beneficial peat, we'll burn it.
Good news for IT then
As there won't need to be vast spaces taken up by cooling equipment.
I lump together
... climate scientists with dieticians, boy bands, and politicians as sources of credibility.
This topic is closed for new posts.
