Monday, April 29, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Science & Technology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Science & Technology

Human carbon emissions could delay ice age

By T.K. Randall
January 10, 2012 · Comment icon 59 comments

Image Credit: NOAA
Scientists believe the next big ice age could be delayed for years thanks to human carbon emissions.
Another ice age is expected within the next 1500 years however thanks to global warming it might not even happen at all. "It's an interesting philosophical discussion," said Cambridge University paleoclimatologist Luke Skinner. "Would we better off in a warm world rather than a glaciation? Probably we would." At a time when the concept of climate change has been receiving nothing but negative press could the idea of global warming actually be a blessing in disguise ?
Cambridge university scientists say that a new Ice Age is due to start within 1,500 years. But due to human carbon emissions, the lethal 'big freeze' could be put off.


Source: Daily Mail | Comments (59)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #50 Posted by 12 years ago
Soon 2005 was published in Geophysical Research Letters journal (GRU). you have quoted text from a different journal. My mistake - but the principle and intent of the Journal is exactly the same. They recieve many thousands of submissions and it is estimated that a subeditor has one day to assess and manage each letter submitted. This is not peer review in the general sense of the word. Br Cornelius
Comment icon #51 Posted by Little Fish 12 years ago
My mistake - but the principle and intent of the Journal is exactly the same. They recieve many thousands of submissions and it is estimated that a subeditor has one day to assess and manage each letter submitted. This is not peer review in the general sense of the word. Br Cornelius you state Soon cooked his data - wrong you state you "know" he cooked his data - wrong you state it was not peer reviewed - wrong you state it was a letter response to the editor - wrong you state it was only reviewed by the editors - wrong you state the review process was 14 days with one cycle of review - wrong ... [More]
Comment icon #52 Posted by BFB 12 years ago
thanks, the different TSI data sets seem to corroborate Soon et al, 2005. if you plot from 1900 for each dataset you'll see similar shapes for the TSI which match the shape for the arctic temperature, a rise in TSI from 1900, followed by a decline in the mid century followed by a rise. it is not very plausible that this correlation is coincidence. ????? I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use? The only way i can get it to look similar to the Soon 2005 graph is by using the data from Hoyt(Which is obsolete) Soon hasn't cooked/manipulated any data, he has simply ... [More]
Comment icon #53 Posted by BFB 12 years ago
????? I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use? The only way i can get it to look similar to the Soon 2005 graph is by using the data from Hoyt(Which is obsolete) Soon hasn't cooked/manipulated any data, he has simply used incorrect (outdated) data. This is the major flaw in his paper. The best TSI reconstruction available would be Steinhilber et al and Viera et al, which in no way resemples the Hoyt TSI reconstruction(Used by Soon)
Comment icon #54 Posted by Little Fish 12 years ago
????? I am getting no where near the same result as you. What data did you use? the data you provided in the Leif link you provided, Leif, Dora, Wang, etcselect the respective column in a spreadsheet after 1900 and click the plot button, they all show the same shape, rise in TSI from 1900 to mid century, falls then rises again, same as Hoyt.
Comment icon #55 Posted by BFB 12 years ago
the data you provided in the Leif link you provided, Leif, Dora, Wang, etc select the respective column in a spreadsheet after 1900 and click the plot button, they all show the same shape, rise in TSI from 1900 to mid century, falls then rises again, same as Hoyt. When using Whang's (actually all of them except from the Hoyt and Lean data) data i get no* way near the same result. Could you please upload your graphs? Remember Hoyt and Lean based their calibrations on science which are no longer valid.
Comment icon #56 Posted by Little Fish 12 years ago
leif C, dora D, wang E, lean F, krivova K, all 1900-2000 and hoyt from Soon 2005
Comment icon #57 Posted by BFB 12 years ago
leif C, dora D, wang E, lean F, krivova K, all 1900-2000 and hoyt from Soon 2005 I see in no way that they resemble the Hoyt graph
Comment icon #58 Posted by Little Fish 12 years ago
I see in no way that they resemble the Hoyt graph there is more resemblance between the graphs and Hoyt, than there is between the graphs and co2.if the question was, what seems to be most likely warming the arctic, would your answer be, co2 or TSI?
Comment icon #59 Posted by BFB 12 years ago
there is more resemblance between the graphs and Hoyt, than there is between the graphs and co2. if the question was, what seems to be most likely warming the arctic, would your answer be, co2 or TSI? Clearing all the knowledge from my brain and only looking at the graphs, i would say TSI.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Top 10 trending mysteries
Recent news and articles