Contributors

Friday, July 13, 2012

Can Global Warming Cause an Ice Age?

Though some parts of the country have been hammered by powerful storms and roasted by hellish heat waves, climate change skeptics insist that this is just normal variation and not proof of global warming. But a year and a half ago many of those same skeptics were saying that the extensive snowfalls that hit the northeast "proved" that climate change was a hoax, and that we were really on the brink of an ice age. Why is one snowy winter sufficient to disprove climate change, while a 100-year trend of ever-increasing average temperatures no proof at all?

Other articles, like this one from Pravda, claim that theories of Anthropegenic Global Warming ignore long-term historical trends and that we're really entering another ice age. The article insists that humans aren't generating the increased CO2 levels, but rather natural warming is causing CO2 levels to rise. The mechanism they propose is potentially reasonable for previous ice age cycles, but this time it's different: this time seven billion people are pumping megatons of CO2 into the air every day. CO2 levels are increasing much faster than the historical norms they're referencing.

It's interesting that the Koch brothers and the Communist propaganda organ Pravda are on the same side of the climate debate. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Russia is one of the world's biggest oil exporters?

Forecasting climate change is complex and difficult science. But predictions that NASA scientist James Hansen made 20 years ago in an article in Science are proving to be true. From the article's abstract:
Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.
We are seeing all of these effects, just 20 years on.

The funny thing about the climate change skeptics' claims that we're entering an ice age is that scientists have long feared global warming could cause an ice age. The reason is that a current along the American east cost, the Atlantic Conveyor, brings warm water up from the south Atlantic to Europe: this is why western Europe has much warmer winters than land-locked Russia.

The melting of the Greenland ice sheet could bring a flood of fresh water into the north Atlantic, deflecting the Atlantic Conveyor away from Europe. A colder Europe would have more snow cover, reflecting more light back into space, cooling the planet, allowing more snow to fall in North America, which would cool the planet even more and potentially cause an ice age.

I have to admit the Atlantic Conveyor seems rather esoteric. Hansen's paper, however, brings up a different scenario when he mentions volcanic aerosols. It's well known that massive volcanic eruptions can cause world-wide cold snaps. The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa cooled temperatures globally by 1.2 C for five years. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled the earth by one-half to one degree Celsius. The Little Ice Age may have been caused by volcanoes. And the Bubonic Plague may have been caused by volcanic eruption in 535.

Now there's a lot of water locked up safely in the polar ice caps. When they melt that water will go into the sea, causing sea levels to rise, and into the air, as water vapor.

If a large volcanic eruption such as Krakotoa were to occur during the Northern Hemisphere winter, temperatures would cool drastically. The water that global warming had freed from the ice caps at the poles could then precipitate out as snow over the entire Northern Hemisphere. This would reflect sunlight back into space, cooling the earth and amplifying the effects of the volcanic aerosols. This could mean years with no summer and no growing season.

Each year of the cold snap caused by the volcano more and more of the snow would stay, and the earth would grow cooler. After the the effects of the volcano wore off it would be too late: the northern hemisphere would be locked in permanent winter, for thousands of years.

If all that water had still been locked in the poles, the area of the volcano-caused snow cover would be inherently limited, and an ice age would be less likely. But since global warming allowed the water in polar ice to migrate across the planet, all that ice could reform further south as snow, cooling the planet significantly.


Of course, a sufficiently large volcanic eruption could cause an ice age by itself. But with so much water freed from the poles by global warming, much smaller eruptionswhich happen every few yearscould have the same effect, raising the likelihood of an ice age.

10 comments:

6Kings said...

Long term projections show earth has been cooling.

Extreme weather is part of climate.

One again, Global Warming Alarmists and their merry band of supporter nitwits are retards and not scientists. None of the data coming out of recent studies are showing anything in support of the AGW theory, just lots of debunking and exposing data manipulation and yet you keep pushing the agenda.

Here is a nice summary of your Global Warming Hoax.

Mark Ward said...

Wow. A list of right wing blogs to "prove liberals wrong." That's original.

I guess the NAS are a bunch of "retards and nitwits" eh, 6?

6Kings said...

I guess you can't understand facts when they are presented, eh M?

Still pushing debunked and disreputable theories? Great work there brainiac.

Mark Ward said...

I'm very familiar with all the arguments put forth by the Church of the Climate Denier, 6. They aren't rooted in any sort of scientific method at all. From one of your links...

They pursue this quest in order to impose ever greater and clearly unconstitutional control on the economy and personal liberty in the name of a hypothetically omnipotent government.

That's not science. That's paranoia.

What I'd like to see is a serious scientific analysis by you regarding the NAS research. No links to right wing blogs. Simply refute the evidence using the scientific method. Can you do it? Here's the link.

http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/

GuardDuck said...

NAS didn't do that research. Their paper is based upon the research of the IPCC, which is based upon others research including that of the CRU.

6Kings said...

I'm very familiar with all the arguments

You are familiar with the arguments but not the science to back them up. Read more and promote bunk science less!

Mark Ward said...

but not the science to back them up.

That's because there is no science to back them up.

Anonymous said...

Wow, nice retort. It would be clever if it wasn't so sad.

juris imprudent said...

That's because there is no science to back them up

Of course not, nothing of the sort.

Solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations1, are an important driver of Holocene climate2, 3. The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6 W m−2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750 (ref. 4), but the trend varies considerably over time, space and with season5. Using numerous high-latitude proxy records, slow orbital changes have recently been shown6 to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era. Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records.

Anonymous said...

In other words, compared to volcanoes, what we do doesn't amount to jack squat? We're still not as warm as we were during the Medieval Warm Period, let alone the Roman. "Could be consistent with global warming", but also, "could be consistent with natural variability." Unless you diddle the numbers a la Mann, Briffa, and catastrophist Hansen.

And Nikto, you dumb slut, the tornado season is below average. Heat waves happen. Droughts happen. It's nowhere near as bad as the 1930's. Fear mongering, panic peddling, and apocalypticism. Repent now, sinners! Or the Earth Mother will scourge you!