You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
You know those greeehouse gases? Now they cause Ice Ages.
2009-01-01
Researchers at the University of Birmingham found that 630 million years ago the earth had a warm atmosphere full of carbon dioxide but was completely covered with ice.

The scientists studied limestone rocks and found evidence that large amounts of greenhouse gas coincided with a prolonged period of freezing temperatures. Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed, the university's school of geography, earth and environmental sciences warned.

While pollution in the air is thought to trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up, this new research suggests it could also have the opposite effect reflecting rays back into space.
In other words, they haven't a clue ...
This effect would be magnified by other forms of pollution in the earth's atmosphere such as particles of sulphate pumped into the air through industrial pollution or volcanic activity and could create ice age conditions once more, the scientists said.

Dr Ian Fairchild, lead investigator, said: "We came up with an independent test of a theory that the earth, like a baked Alaska pudding, was once hot on the outside, surrounding a cold, icy surface.

"It happened naturally in the past, but the wrong use of technology could make it happen again."

The limestones studied were collected in Svalbard in the Arctic Ocean, which is covered in ice and snow.
Scientists unclear on the distinction between causation and correlation. Sigh.
Posted by:lotp

#24  ION FREEREPUBLIC > RESEARCHERS: GRAPE-SEEDS CAN KILL CANCER CELLS.

You see, MADONNA, PAULA, this is why Daddy liked 'loved drinking GRAPE SODAS when he was a kid, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO certain Female Guam relations demanded to buy TAB + FRESCA instead, thus ruining both CHILDHOOD + MEDICINE + EARTH'S FUTURE.

1980's BLOOM COUNTY Skit > THIS IS WHY ALL WOMEN MUST BE BANNED [among other], LIKE ASBESTOS!
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-01-01 22:08  

#23  Yes the sun wasn't as bright but there is little evidence of glaciation in the billion or so years before the Sturtian and Marinoan period.

Of course the interior of the earth might have been an important source of heat.

The real mystery here is how the Sturtian and Marinoan periods (and other glacial periods) could have ended. With the high reflectivity caused by glaciation, cooling should be self perpetuating. One theory is that the weight of the glaciers made volcanos more active producing carbon dioxide and injecting water vapor into higher altitudes (where it is much more efficient as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). The volcanos might also have produced enough dust to reduce the reflectivity.

We really need a time machine to check this stuff out.
Posted by: mhw   2009-01-01 21:54  

#22  When the main source of funding is the Government, the answer is always going to be more government!

Honesty in science now has to mean the government stepping back from directly funding science.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-01-01 21:00  

#21  Who does peer review on these idiotic climate papers?

I'd suggest bean-counters who see grant $ if you toe the meme
Posted by: Frank G   2009-01-01 20:47  

#20  "Who does peer review on these idiotic climate papers?"

AlBore?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-01-01 20:32  

#19  Well 650 Myears ago the Sun was about 4% less bright; so, of course it was colder most of the time most everywhere. Who does peer review on these idiotic climate papers?
Posted by: rammer   2009-01-01 20:30  

#18  Actually the arctic does have an ozone hole. Its smaller, weaker and shorter lived (some years it isn't detectable).

There was ridiculous priority given to this phenomenon given that nobody suntans in the Antarctic anyway and that's the primary health effect.

Of secondarily interest is that a large ozone hole would, in the numeric models, produce some global cooling.
Posted by: mhw   2009-01-01 19:19  

#17  Actually, Poison Reverse, the ozone hole turned out to be an entirely natural phenomenon, which has always been present over the Antarctic for about 6 weeks at dawn (i.e. polar spring: they have a six month daytime and a 6 month night-time). It requires temperatures below -30C, which are only available during the polar winter/night and a few weeks afterward, and direct sunlight, which is only available during the polar summer/day. The Arctic never gets cold enough to have an ozone hole. Ozone destruction occurs on the surface of sulfuric acid cloud crystals, and needs to be catalyzed by certain chemicals. Chlorofluorocarbons can do it, but over 80% of the catalysts that actually do it are contributed by volcanoes, not man. The ozone hole has been present since the first observations during the 1957 Geophysical Year, and has not increased in size or magnitude since that time.

Once it was understand that man had no role in the ozone hole and that it couldn't ever expand beyond Antarctica in a 6-week window, everyone lost interest.
Posted by: Skunky Angeack7024   2009-01-01 19:02  

#16  As I have been saying for over 3 years...Negative phase of the PDO. We have now gone negative with the AO. And now...the sunspot minimum which has now been physically linked to long tern atmospheric and oceanic cooling.
Posted by: anymouse   2009-01-01 18:56  

#15  It's the eighties again! Woo Hoo!
Posted by: Scott R   2009-01-01 18:28  

#14  Hell, why don't they just tell us what "offerings" we need to make to appease some angry god/s while they're at it? It would make about as much sense as this drivel.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-01-01 17:22  

#13  The ozone hole was a scam. The "green" scientists used the weather GEOS to take thermal pictures of the North Pole during an aurora. The aurora made the satellite pics look like there was a hole in the ozone.

This and other cheap camera tricks provided plenty of tax payer funding for the universities out there.
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2009-01-01 17:16  

#12  I want to know about the ozone hole!! Has everyone forgotten the ozone hole???
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2009-01-01 17:02  

#11  Well gosh. According to Wikipedia, which I'm sure our good Dr. Fairchild can't be bothered to read because, after all, he's an expert, 630 million years ago was the end of the second "Snowball Earth" period, when the glaciers covered all or almost all of the entire planet, oceans included. One supercontinent was breaking up in order to form a second... leaving the watery bits unmoderated by intermixture with those pointy land bits that gain and lose heat so differently. If I recall correctly, this being yet another subject on which I am not expert, the supercontinents when not covered by glaciers were mostly desert in their interiors, with therefore very little in the way of green plants to absorb the carbon dioxide, thus driving up the CO2 level.

We have no supercontinent today, the desert area is relatively small compared to the amount covered by green plants, and the seaweed in the ocean is thriving, absorbing at least as much if not more CO2 than the land plants. Oh, and we are not at the end of a Snowball Earth ice age. Other than that, I've no doubt the good Dr. Fairchild's theory about the near future holds precisely true.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-01-01 16:16  

#10  This would be the Sturtian and Marinoan glaciation period of the pre Cambrian era.

This was before the earth had much vegetation and the atmosphere had very little free oxygen.

The article does sound like drivel perhaps the scientific paper makes sense (or perhaps its worse drivel).
Posted by: mhw   2009-01-01 16:13  

#9  The Financial Turmoil and Deepening Recession has reached academia. Hell and they call Bushitler a fearmonger.... he's an amateur.

Posted by: .5MT   2009-01-01 15:55  

#8  Trying to follow this logic is making my brain hurt.
Posted by: DarthVader   2009-01-01 15:53  

#7  you see it is because of all the trapped heat that it is getting so cold. ;)
Posted by: Abu do you love   2009-01-01 15:37  

#6  Dr Ian Fairchild, lead investigator, said: "We came up with an independent test of a theory that the earth, like a baked Alaska pudding, was once hot on the outside, surrounding a cold, icy surface.

Somebody, get the PhD Revoking CommitteeTM on the horn!
Posted by: Poison Reverse   2009-01-01 15:33  

#5  "Pick ONE"

They do, BJ - whichever ONE will get them grant funding and/or power over the little people at the momemt.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2009-01-01 15:29  

#4  Warming or Cooling.

Pick ONE.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2009-01-01 15:19  

#3  deserves to be punched in the CV

That's cold, Frank. You really know how to hurt an academic LOL
Posted by: lotp   2009-01-01 15:11  

#2  Such glaciation could happen again if global warming is not curbed, the university's school of geography, earth and environmental sciences warned.

Any "Academic" that could say that with a straight face deserves to be punched in the CV
Posted by: Frank G   2009-01-01 15:04  

#1  And they are also unclear about the concept that a theory must be falsifiable. Specifically, if high CO2 concentrations cause global warming and high CO2 concentrations cause global cooling, then clearly the theory so described can't be demonstrated false.

Might as well substitute "God's Will" for "high concentrations of CO2".
Posted by: Flerens Dark Lord of the Wee Folk6525   2009-01-01 14:53  

00:00