Save the planet! Burn more coal!

Avoid this - drive your SUV

Environmentalists should be very careful what they wish for. Let’s look at the choices:

  1. a modest warming over the next few decades, which will eventually level out or decline as new technologies replace fossil fuels for efficient and economical energy generation (and solar and wind are neither efficient or economical, by the way); or,
  2. a rapid plunge into the next Ice Age, rendering much of the planet uninhabitable and killing much of the global population, and which is due, er, right about now.

Which would you choose?

A new paper suggests that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses may be averting option (2):

Earth could be entering a new Ice Age within the next millennium, but it might not, the deep freeze averted by warming from increased carbon dioxide emissions. Humans could be thwarting the next glacial inception, a new study says.

Even in the comparatively long time scales of Earth history, we’re kind of overdue for another ice age — our current Holocene era has lasted about 11,600 years, roughly 600 years longer than the average interglacial (between-ice-age) periods of the past. If atmospheric CO2 levels were lower, the next ice age might have started sometime within the next 1,000 years, according to researchers from University College London and Cambridge University.

Their conclusion is based in part on abrupt temperature changes in the overall temperature contrast between Greenland and Antarctica, according to a Cambridge news release. The North Atlantic would cool rapidly while Antarctica warms, fluctuations that would only happen if expanding ice sheets were calving icebergs huge enough to impact ocean circulation. These temperature see-saws can therefore be used to pinpoint the activation of a new ice age, a “glacial inception.”

Chronis Tzedakis from UC London and colleagues examined our present conditions, including temperature averages and solar radiation strength, and found a close analogue to the present, an era called Marine Isotope Stage 19, or about 780,000 years ago. The eras have a similar astronomical configuration and climate, although their CO2 trajectories are pretty different (ours is on the rise).

A phenomenon called insolation was a key factor here. Insolation is the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation, which changes a tiny bit over tens of thousands of years due to tiny variations in Earth’s orbit around the sun. These little differences are one of the factors that can help trigger a cooling event, cascading toward an ice age. The insolation minimum in the MIS19 era was similar to our own, so it’s a valid analogy, the researchers say.

The team applied their glacial inception fingerprinting method to MIS19, looking at ice core samples, plankton remains and debris that would have floated on the encroaching ice, and determined at what point the glacial inception would have started. Then they compared that time frame to the Holocene time frame.

“Taking the [current era] to MIS19c analogy to its logical conclusion implies that the current interglacial would be nearing its end,” the researchers write. If, that is, atmospheric CO2 levels were comparable to the MIS19 era. Which they aren’t. This shows that while insolation is an important ingredient, apparently it’s not as potent an ice age determinant as CO2.

“The current insolation forcing and lack of new ice growth mean that orbital-scale variability will not be moderating the effects of anthropogenically induced global warming,” the authors conclude. (source)

The GWPF links to Australian Popular Science as the source, however the article has vanished from their site (cached version still exists here). Not sure if Popsci broke the embargo (it doesn’t appear on Nature Geoscience yet), or whether the Warm-mongers have got to it…


  1. 4TimesAYear says:

    Unfortunately, the amount of energy we use/burn depends entirely on the weather/climate, lol – which is precisely what warmists fail to recognize 🙂

  2. Personally I’ll take option 3:
    “The planet’s climatic system will do whatever it wants to do, regardless of humans miniscule input or output. Weather and climate can’t be controlled by paying extra taxes or turning a CO2 switch off or on!”

    • Yip Baldrick; miniscule is the key word!
      Some reality checks or reminders for the sheeple, gullible, fraudsters, politicians, CSIRO, BOM, green cult, etc.:
      1. One hour of the SUN’s energy = mankind’s generated energy in one year (“p*ssing against the wind” comes to mind).
      2. Mount Pinatubo eruption in the 80’s (just over a year) it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth.
      3. Manmade C02 = 0.001% of earth’s atmosphere.
      4. C02 lags warming by approx 800 years. Therefore; ice age in 2900 could be affected (what are the chances? Even if we double fossil fuel emissions to 0.002% – never less; “farting against thunder”).
      5. I lived in countries where the night temperatures dropped to – 7 deg C and heated up to 38 deg C during daytime (45 deg C swing in one day – C02, no f*cking ways! Can only be the……. SUN!). IPCC/UN/Durban bullshitters want to control the temp within 2 deg C to avoid catastrophe for mankind. How dumb has man become!
      Someday someone is going to pay for this FRAUD!

      • True Staal and miniscule in the sense that it would only take 20,000 out of 4,500,000,000 years to remove all of man’s footprint on the Earth … concrete buildings, steel structures – everything.

  3. Well, there goes my argument! I was always using the fact that they tried to scare the snot out of us in the 70s by telling us that our aerosol cans were bringing on the next Ice Age! I guess they’ve heard that point made enough times, and now they have to try to undermine it. Maybe we can design a car that runs on AquaNet and kill two birds with one stone!

  4. Well Scott, killing birds does seem to be one of the main priorities for green alarmists.

  5. In all probability they would welcome Option 2. The basic premise behind most of this Eco-fascist “Save the Planet” bullsh!t is that there are too many people on the planet, pillaging the resources. Therefore, option 2 produces the desired result (“killing much of the global population” – which they hold in disdain) quickly and efficiently.

  6. NOT burning coal, and relying on moronically inefficient “green” power is certainly destroying the world economically.

    Mankind needs cheap efficient power to prosper.

  7. Must be a busy day in the media – no sign of this!!!! If we get stuck with option two all I ask is that they get busy with Mammoth DNA so we can all have a mammoth for transport and meat breeding. I have been pointing this out to the other side for decades to no avail…

  8. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    A new post by Prof. Nir Shaviv, On IPCCs exaggerated climate sensitivity and the emperor’s new clothes. This latest post follows a recent meeting in Israel between Shaviv and Andrew Bolt.

    Nir Shaviv quips,

    “If they [the IPCC] do not admit that there is a joker, they must conclude (as described above) that the climate sensitivity must be low. But if it is low, one cannot explain the 20th century without a joker. A classic Yossarian dilemma.
    This joker card is of course the large solar effects on climate.”

  9. uhavitbad says:

    Insolational denialism. I should write paper on this.

  10. charles in texas says:

    we would first have to believe that ghg was actually causing significant warming in order to accept that it is holding off an ice age. i reject that premise. water vapor is the 900lb gorilla of ghg. co2 is a gerbil.

  11. If they can’t get weather predictions right, how can they get climate predictions right?

    Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology on January 04, 2012 speaking of Canberra’s weather: “The Weather Bureau’s Ryan White says … For the next three months up until the end of March … temperatures, both maximums and minimums are likely to be above average as well.”

    Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology on January 12, 2012 speaking of Canberra’s weather: “The weather bureau says an extreme cold front has broken a series of low temperature records for Canberra … Forecaster Sean Carson says the snow is unseasonable, but not rare. In Canberra, the mercury dropped to 1.6C, eclipsing the record of 1.8C set in 1956.”

    Now if they can’t predict things within a space of week, how do they really know anything in a space of 20 years?

  12. Adre Lewis says:

    Yet more catastrophe nonsense dreampt up the CSIRO and another Qld Uni warming nutter (aren’t they all?):

  13. burning more coal to save the planet is same B/S as burning less coal. Because CO2 has nothing to do with the phony Global warming; has insignificant positive affect in improving the temperature. (for the Smarties: global warming and climate changes are COMPLETELY two different things)

    Water improves the climate / more water on the land benefits on many different ways; plus extra water in the air = more raw material for replenishing the ice on the polar caps. Tragically, most of the Skeptics buy most of the B/S from the Warmist – one of the Warmist theories is that: water vapour is bad for the phony GLOBAL warming… plus they put for the Skeptics in the same dish the phony warming with the real climatic changes – to short – circuit their brains…


  1. […] the original post here: Save the planet! Burn more coal! | Australian Climate Madness keyword id=’Save the […]

%d bloggers like this: