Global Warming

Good News: Man-Made Global Warming Delays New Ice Age for 100,000 Years

But the Little Ice Age nearly became a Big Ice Age

|

IceAgeLiberty
rnusa

Researchers associated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have just published a new study in Nature claiming that because of man-made global warming, the next ice age will start 100,000 years rather than just 50,000 years from now. During the last glacial maximum about 21,000 years ago, glaciers covered about 25 percent of the Earth's land area and sea level was more than 400 feet lower than today. Global average temperature was about was 3°C to 5°C cooler than the present. The rhythm of ice ages over the past 3 million years or so is related to how predictable changes in the Earth's orbit affects the amount of sunlight hitting the northern hemisphere. During the last ice age levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fell to below 200 parts per million.

What I found most interesting in the study is that the researchers suggest that we barely missed entering a new ice age a couple of hundred years ago:

Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth.

IceAgeMap
funcity

For reference, the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is around 400 ppm largely thanks to humanity.

NEXT: Little Girl Suspended for 30 Days Because She Lent Her Inhaler to a Gasping Classmate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sounds like selling my snowmobile was a wise choice after all.

    1. Snowmobile?!? I knew you were secretly Canadian!

      1. Ski-doo would be a better tell.

        /hoser

        1. FoE is too crafty for that. He’d never slip up and call it a Ski-doo. He never calls mac and cheese Kraft dinner either, and believe me, I’ve been watching.

          1. Real hose-heads call it “KD,” d00d.

            “Kraft Dinner” is what our moral and intellectual betters in the Canadian MSM call it. Usually with a barely-noticeable sniff of disdain.

            1. Just go get me a Double Double and some Timbits, you knob!

      2. This is probably the worst thing you’ve – no, anyone’s – ever said to me.

  2. Without a doubt the most idiotic thing I have heard today. I just saw a study showing the global warming will eliminate diabetes and will save children from broccoli by 2030. I am sure the new generation will thank us at the dinner table.

    1. You ought to start reading responsible media not that rabid right Breitfart & Glenn Beck.

  3. Haha Winning! Screw you Gaia!

  4. …because of man-made global warming, the next ice age will start 100,000 years rather than just 50,000 years from now.

    Fix the article’s title, then.

    1. Ha! Good catch fist.

    2. OK now I’m thinking about it a bit, and it seems correct.

      We delayed it for 100,000 years by delaying it by 50,000 years.

      For vs. By.

      1. I prefer “. . . Delays New Ice Age by Another 50,000 Years”

      2. Global Warming didn’t delay it 100,000 years. It only delayed it 50,000 years. The qualifying clause at the start dooms him.

    3. Considering we are currently in an ice age the article is even more wrong. It may have delayed the next glaciation by 50k years. But it does point out that there can and are beneficial aspects of a warming planet and we would do even better a bit warmer than we are now.

      1. Well in 50,000 years one of us owes the other a Coke.

  5. Finally, the proof we need to blame everyone from 20,000 yrs. ago up to 100 yrs. ago for our current climate catastrophe!

  6. Yay, us!

    [pours diesel on pile of tires, tosses match]

    Global warming good!

    1. That’s not global warming, that’s global stinking.

  7. Researchers associated with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have just published a new study in Nature claiming that because of man-made global warming, the next ice age will start 100,000 years rather than just 50,000 years from now.

    Crisis averted!

    It’s Miller time!

    “Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.”

    But let’s have one, anyway. Anything to get rid of Capitalism.

  8. What I find most interesting is how Ron Bailey will believe anything a climate scientist tells him.

    1. But doesn’t Reason pay him to?

  9. Your welcome!

  10. 100 000 years?

    WE HAVE TO ACT NOW!

    1. How many years is that in Canadian?

      1. How many hockey seasons have there been?

        1. A few years ago the fad was to claim global warming was gonna eradicate outdoor skating rinks.

          Idiots.

          http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo…..years.html

        2. A few years ago the fad was to claim global warming was gonna eradicate outdoor skating rinks.

          Idiots.

          http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yo…..years.html

      2. Right now?

        Approx. 141,000 years. According to OANDA. Or mebbe that’s how long it’ll take before the loonie’s at parity with the U.S. buck again. I’m never sure.

        Or should I say “aboot” instead of “Approx.” for all the U.S.-based doofuses (er, “doofi”?) who think a Central/Eastern Canadian regional dialectal oddity applies to everyone right across our Glorious Great White North? 😉

        1. +1 Stompin’ Tom Connors

    2. All jokes aside, this is why this study is bullshit. The alarmists say we have to act now to avoid disaster in the next century, and this study claims that our CO2 contributions have had a major impact on a natural climate event, postponing it one hundred millennia.

      1. I don’t understand your objection. Why is this study bad? What is the problem?

        1. The study is bad because the same weak BS science that warmists spout is being used to support this idea.

  11. People would rather vacation in Mexico than Canada. Where’s the crisis?
    If people are really making the climate a little more pleasant, what’s the problem?

    1. Capitalism is still happening, and that’s a problem.

    2. People would rather vacation in Mexico than Canada.

      But, but…we have…um…milk in bags? And…beer! And…er…Montreal?

      Yeah, I got nothing.

      1. Moose hunting?

        1. Like we’d let you people within 10 miles of our precious mooses.

          1. Moose Head?

            1. Hey, whatever jiggles your handle, Adans.

    3. I have spent a couple fishing vacations in Canada,one was two weeks. We caught lots of fish and drank lots of beer.Good times

  12. Climate disaster averted; women and children hardest hit.

    1. Politicians and greedy psuedo-scientists hardest hit. ftfy

  13. Thanks for nothing Prius drivers. free riding sobs

  14. “For reference, the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is around 400 ppm largely thanks to humanity.”

    There are other ways humanity can ruin our lives.

    Take all those ridiculous “solutions” people on the left are always wanting the government to inflict on the rest of us.

    You can’t measure concentrations of that crap in the atmosphere, but their “solutions” threaten to ruin the future of humanity all the same.

    1. Ron repeating this BS should tell all you need to know about his credibility as a science writer.

    2. CLEAN ENERGY will take decades to implement….MYTH EXPLAINED:

      Though they’re’ not celebrated by environmentalists, hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants produced 85% of America’s clean electricity in 2014, and 25% of total electricity.
      Wind and solar generate a fraction of that, 4.8% of the country’s electricity, though they are increasing quickly.

      CLEAN ENERGY is expensive…..MYTH EXPLAINED:

      Clean energy, hydro and nuclear in particular, is already providing affordable power every single day. Hydropower is the cheapest of the renewable power sources. And though it’s a traditional fuel, natural gas burns cleanly causing less pollution, allowing the fracking boom to massively cut carbon emissions while also slashing American’s power bills. Even newer clean energy sources are getting cheaper: in the last 5 years, wind power prices dropped by 35% and solar prices by 50%.

      Science is ANTI Conservative……MYTH EXPLAINED:

      Science discovered the tools to deal with the Ozone hole & the skin cancer epidemic.
      Ronald Reagan led the world to fix the ozone hole with the Montreal Protocol.
      Science discovered the tools to deal with the mass destruction of entire forests.
      George H.W. Bush used free market policies to solve the acid rain crisis, cutting pollution by 80%, at one fourth the expected cost.
      America has successfully solved environmental problems with conservative ideas, and we can do so again.

  15. To the Canyonero!

  16. Hate to pour warm water on this, but no it hasn’t.

  17. In the Jurassic CO2 was around 2000ppm with global temps in the neighborhood of 22C.

    In the Cambrian CO2 was around 7000ppm with global temps in the neighborhood of 22C.

    In the Carboniferous CO2 was around about 500ppm with global temps in the neighborhood of 20C.

    1. Looks like global temps are clamped at around 22C no matter what CO2 is doing.

    2. CO2 is nothing to worry about.

    Of course, the models are shit. Post modern science is just politics. Not one CAGW prediction has come to pass. Their latest paper by Marvel, et al has been shown to be shit. TCR and ECS estimates are trending down. The whole premise is semi-bogus. Bailey is way over his head.

    1. It is most certainly not semi-bogus.

      1. It’s semi-bogus because we definitely influence the climate a bit. UHI is real, some increase in temps is likely as the result of C02 emissions but the doubling sensitivity is likely so low that the effect is minor. It’s the C in CAGW that is bogus, AGW is likely technically true but so small that it is not a concern.

    2. 1) Isn’t this a little sloppy? Maybe CO2 matters at lower temp ranges.

      2) What is Marvet et al? Is this the ‘there is no pause’ paper? How do you know it’s shit.

      3) Sorry to be basic but what are TCR and ECS? Source?

      I am always suspicious. That’s why I seem paranoid.

  18. The bigger story was that the World Economic Forum (a boogeyman to most progressives) has ranked failure of climate changeitagation and adaptation as the greatest threat facing mankind over the next 10 years. Yes, even a greater threat than weapons of mass destruction.

    http://www.theactuary.com/news…..ng-report/

    1. *mitagation

      1. C’mon, little fella! You’re so close! One more try.

    2. joe wasn’t an idiot mouthpiece for appeals to authority either.

      He also didn’t think libertarians were obsessed with WMD as the greatest threat to mankind.

      I’m tellin’ y’all. It ain’t joe.

      1. It ain’t. But don’t disturb their wet dream.

        1. That was an insult to you.

          You not being as sharp as joe is an insult.

          You dream of being dumber than joe?

          1. Enjoy your evening, Ken!

            1. Fuck you, Jack!

    3. Oh look, joe is Chicken Little. Which is appropriate considering his stature.

      1. If you lived in Lowell, you’d be wicked paranoid, too.

    4. Yep, greatest threat in ten years! Ice age postponed 10 expotential 4

    5. greatest threat facing mankind over the next 10 years.

      Fuck, time to dump all those green energy investments that aren’t expected to pay out within the window!

      1. If the World Economic Forum says it, then it must be true.

        . . . especially if progressives don’t like them. That’s an important qualification for some reason.

    6. The climate isnt ‘changing’.

      1. Alrighty then!

      2. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    7. What was that you were saying about Munich Re and the insurance industry?

      2015 US Natural Catastrophe Losses Curbed by El Ni?o; Brutal North American Winter Caused Biggest Insured Losses

  19. Space is cold.

  20. Climate created or saved?

    *I had a couple of shots and a nap earlier. I went back to the Haiti article and see that Eleanor thought that perhaps I was endorsing colonialism. After I started snoring there was some dispute about that.

    Eleanor – I was not endorsing or condemning anything. The haitian slaves were treated horribly, exponentially worse than slaves here in the US. After they liberated themselves from the French they were a population of completely ignorant, technically inept, politically primitive, backward people. No one went there and did anything for them at all. In fact, everyone avoided the place like the plague. Haiti would be a much better place today if the French had educated at least a few of their slaves.

    I was merely noting the fact.

  21. If this is true AGW has already prevented more death and destruction than it could ever cause. IF true.

  22. It’s a glaciation, not an ice age. We are currently in an ice age, and have been for several million years.

  23. These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

    What’s Really Warming the World?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/graph…..the-world/

    If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

    New study finds ‘no substantive evidence’ of a global warming ‘pause’
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ing-pause/

    Kerry Emanuel Testifies In Defense Of Climate Science
    3w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=12kMjUkNl5Y

    Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
    3w(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.