Now, I’m sure this is the same sort of junk science that constitutes the global warming debate, but it would be very ironic if it were true. According to a group of scientists global warming has saved us from a second ice age:
The United States researchers, led by William Ruddiman from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, used a climate model to test what would happen if these greenhouse gases were reduced to their “natural” level.
They wrote in the journal, Quaternary Science Reviews: “In the absence of anthropogenic contributions, global climate is almost 2C cooler than today and roughly one-third of the way toward full glacial temperatures.”
At the peak of the last ice age, which began 70,000 years ago, 97% of Canada was covered by ice.
The research showed that without the human contribution to global warming, Baffin Island would today be in a condition of “incipient glaciation”.
“Portions of Labrador and Hudson Bay would also have moved very close to such a state had greenhouse gas concentrations followed natural trends,” said the scientists.
The experiment had probably underestimated the amount of ice that would exist today in north-east Canada without human interference, they said.
Anthropologist Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University, said: “If the research findings are correct, a radical change in the perception of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions will be required.
“Instead of driving us to the brink of environmental disaster, human intervention and technology progress will be seen as vital activities that have unintentionally delayed the onset of a catastrophic ice age.”
Heh.
There are two kinds of scientists who still deny the existence of global warming: those currently on the payroll of the oil companies….and those formerly on the payroll of the oil companies. Now, the anti-science pollution apologists have Michael Crichton in their corner, which I’m sure represents some sort of symbollic victory for their efforts to continue arguing that global warming doesn’t exist but weapons of mass destruction in Iraq do.
I’m looking forward to Crichton’s next novel about how Chris Columbus was part of a radical Portuguese group that was bent on manipulating the global population about the Earth being round…and having succeeded at it for centuries. After that, Crichton and Anti-Science, Inc. should expose Gallileo’s obviously delusional theory that the Earth and other planets revolve around the sun rather than everything revolving around the Earth.
Thank you, Jay, for posting this. The report is a valuable contribution in that it confirms that human activity does, indeed, influence climate. Caused by us, but in ways totally beyond our control, we are shaping the world (which in turn, I might add, shapes us, as can be seen in the Aceh region).
Of course, being the anthropocentric beings that we are, we tend to think that the world as we know it is exactly the world as it ought to be. Rightly so, too; I would not like Canada to be all covered in ice.
However, your conclusion that all worries about climate change is unfounded is faulty.
These two things are apparent from the report: our activities have an impact on climate, and this change in climate again has an impact on us.
It is not clear, though, how our current activities influence future developments. What will be the consequences if (through our doing) the average planetwide temperature continues to go up? Say good-bye to Aceh, for good? Turn Canada’s coast into marvellous spas? Tropical thunderstorms in Norway? Or will everything be more or less like it is today, with the slight change in clothes we wear?
Discarding all concerns about climate change on the basis that at this moment it seems to favor us is not the way to go. I do not advise panic about climate change and global warning. I do advise caution. Blasting tons of exhaust gases into the atmosphere on a daily basis simply because human activity of the last 50,000 years made Canada somewhat inhabitable still seems like a bad idea to me.
Mark – I was quite surprised by Crichton’s State of Fear and I’m sure that the data he presented should all be taken with a grain of salt. However, tw statements that he made were interesting to me:
– How can anyone be so presumptious to think that we can understand how are actions are effecting the environment.
– How can we possibly be responsible for life on earth 1000 years from now? It’s taking me enough effort to think about planning for retirement in 30-40 years…and whatever actions I take in that arena are certainly not going to guarantee me a care-free retirement. How can we assume that reducing emissions of this or that is going to really help things out in 100, 500, or 1000 years? The study that Jay brought up shows that we really haven’t a clue about environmental science.
This report is like all climatological models – an assumption based on a limited set of data trying to model a system that’s infinitely more complex than we can measure.
The tsunami in Indonesia was caused by a massive earthquake. Blaming that on mankind is completely unscientific.
The planetary climate has varied for millennia without any catastrophic effects. The ocean levels around the Vanatu island chain and the Maldives chain has shown much the same thing.
Just on a prima facie basis, anyone who argues that a handful of limited models can predict with any accuracy the global climate in 20 years is a charlatan, pure and simple. One volcanic eruption can spew out more particulate matter and CO2 than all of recorded civilization, yet the Earth’s climate has withstood thousands of volcanic eruptions.
Consensus is not science. It doesn’t matter how many people say something, what counts are reproducable results. The science behind global warming needs to be conducted to the same levels as other scientific disciplines – double-blind studies conducted by truly independent research organization. Yet right now all a scientist needs to do is proclaim that the sky is falling and any number of environmentalist endowments will throw wads of cash at you. The environmentalist lobby is a $1.5 billion/year industry, and growing.
Oooh, I should get into environmental science. Wads of cash you say? Beautiful women at my beck and call?
If no one can tell me what the weather will be like this Friday I would not be investing in snowmobiles when they say there will be an ice age.
What the evidence of ice ages and very warm periods in the past tells us is that climate is not constant. Whatever happens will not leave us a burnt cinder or a frozen block of ice. That does not mean we should not try to reduce our impact on the climate if for no other reason than to save money, become less dependent on insecure energy sources and become more efficient at using energy not to mention the resources lost to habitat destruction. That being said, global warming hysteria only provokes unreasonable demands from those who buy in to it and cynicism from those that don’t. We are already moving in the right direction with R & D on efficiency and alternative energy, conservation initiatives etc. Certain environmentalists should spend less money on scare studies, rallys and lobbying and invest in solutions.