If historical patterns of climate change strongly indicate that we are now due for another ice age...?

They don't.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that, 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years."

In short, we're not due for another ice age for at least 20,000 years, so unfortunately the answer is no.

The problem is that the rate of warming is much faster than natural rates, so it is more than a "counter balance." The faster rate could change climates fast enough that our ecosystems can't keep up. This could cause reductions in agricultural production, water supplies, shifts in zootic diseases, changing ocean characteristics (currents, sea level, acidity). The "balance" (specifically the carbon balance) is out of whack.

Dr. Jello, you obviously are not a Dr. Of mathematics. I'm guessing a PhD in propaganda. Trying to make the change from 0.028% concentration that is responsible for about a 30C increase in mean global temperature to a 0.038% concentration sound "minor" just shows you like to mislead whenever possible. This difference is responsible for a 0.7C increase on average in temperature globally, and temperature is likely not reached an equilibrium yet. The relationship is not a linear one, so I would not expect a 10C increase in temperature from a 1/3 increase in the concentration, but physics indicate a rise in temperature.

Historically (before the industrial revolution 100 years ago) CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm (0.028%). Now, they are about 380 ppm (.039%). To help you with math

(380-280)/280x100 = 35.7% increase

Current concentration - historic concentration = the simple difference. Divide by the historic concentration to get the fraction change from the historic concentration. Positive numbers indicate an increase, negative a decrease. Multiple by 100 to change the fraction to a percentage.

You can do exactly the same with the percentages if you want (I'll let you try that on your own for practice!) I know it suits your purposes better to mislead though. Most people are smart enough to see the lie.

If you don't understand the equation, I'm sure you can get some tutoring - see any middle school math teacher.

No we can not. we can merely administration the human contribution to the dituation. Ice an prolonged time and international warming are cyclical. we'd desire to continuously do despite we can to do away with or shrink toxins, yet we can not end the cycles of nature. a number of this comes from the selfish view that the earth exists for mankind. the fact is that mankind is a parasite upon the earth and is as inconsequential interior the extra desirable scheme of issues as one grain of sand in an ocean of water.

Dr. Jello is right on. Remember, CO2 increases follow the warming of the earth cycles. It is basic science.

Yes - While man is too insignificant to have any effect on climate (co2 has increased just 0.01% in 100 years) the natural cycles clearly show the Earth has stopped warming and is now cooling.

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/c...

This cooling is expected to last 30-40 years and will make those who complain about being 0.6 degrees warmer look foolish.

History channel has had shows with scientists saying it's coming.

Check their website.

I think it very unlikely that humans can influence the natural temperature cycles of the earth.