"Carbon dioxide did not end the last ice age" is the headline for science news outlets all over the place. But this is hardly a new finding. It is however a grabable sound bite for the usual denialist blogs out there who, predictably, are running with it.
The study's author, Lowell Stott, provides a very unfortunate quote that can only serve the anti-science forces of darkness: "You can no longer argue that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages"
Yes, it is true that it is not a defensible position that CO2 alone caused the end of the ice ages, but...who ever said it did? So, another strawman is defeated, big deal.
What is new is this: "this study suggests that the pace-keeper of ice sheet growth and retreat lies in the southern hemisphere's spring rather than the northern hemisphere's summer."
Further down in the study`s press release we get the appropriate hit tips to the critical realities with regards to today`s anthropogenic warming trend:
- "The study does not question the fact that CO2 plays a key role in climate."
- ""I don't want anyone to leave thinking that this is evidence that CO2 doesn't affect climate," Stott cautioned."
- "The link between the sun and ice age cycles is not new. The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth's orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size."
But of course, the damage is done, the headline is the dominating message and the septics gloat amongst themselves, happily oblivious to the complexity of reality.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
This demonstrates the problem with the entire debate. It has been reduced to sound bytes on both sides. On one side they use them to justify their position, just as on another side they use examples of cherry picking to discredit a position.
I've no idea what the answer is, since 95% of the population is not interested in reading beyond the sound bytes to really appreciate the arguments.
Politicians are at least starting to make a positive choice.
Hi Mark,
Fortunately it is not necessary to rely on soundbites from media outlets, we have the fantastic work of the IPCC to turn to. It is an assessment of the science, as presented in peer reviewed scientific journals, and not the political arguments. The scientific evidence of human driven climate change is compelling and overwhelming.
Coby, my man, hi! Nice Web page.
The article was a bit sloppy as "The theory of Milankovitch cycles states that periodic changes in Earth's orbit cause increased summertime sun radiation in the northern hemisphere, which controls ice size".
Hmmph. Milankovitch cycles are periodic orbital wobbles and they cause changes of insolation over the whole planet. Full stop. It's been generally _thought_ that the NH insolation was the pacemaker for ice ages, but this article suggests that the termination may be caused by SH spring insolation.
Interesting but it doesn't relate much to the current situation, does it?
Hey John!
Yes, it is all somewhat misleadingly worded/presented. I wonder if Stott is intentionally stirring up faux controversy?