Onset of the Next Glaciation

Guest post by David Archibald

Baby boomers like me have enjoyed the most benign period in human history. The superpower nuclear standoff gave us fifty years of relative peace, we had cheap energy from inherent over-supply of oil, grain supply increased faster than population growth and the climate warmed due to the highest solar activity for 8,000 years. All those trends are now reversing. But it will get much worse than that. The next glaciation will wipe out many countries and nothing will stop that from happening. For example, the UK will end up looking like Lapland. As an indication of just how vicious it is going to get, consider that there are rocks on the beaches of Scotland that got blown over on ice from Norway across a frozen North Sea. As scientists, our task is to predict the onset of the next glaciation.

Onset of interglacials is driven by insolation at 65°N. That is where the landmass is that is either snow-covered all year round or not. It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period. For an interglacial period to end, the oceans have to lose heat content so that snows will linger through the summer and increase the Earth’s albedo. Thanks to the disposition of the continents, our current ice age might last tens of millions of years yet. From the Milankovitch data, this graph shows insolation at 65°N from 50,000 BC to 50,000 AD:

clip_image002

The green box has the Holocene ending at 3,000 AD – an arbitary choice. Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat. We just have to get to that trigger point at which snows linger through the northern summer. Solar Cycle 25 might be enough to set it off. By the end of this decade, we will be paying more attention to the Rutgers Global Snow Lab data.

From the source at: http://most-likely.blogspot.com/2012/03/milankovitch-cycles-and-glaciations.html

Model input is obliquity and precession and model output is the inverted δ¹⁸O record, with zero mean during the Pleistocene, from Lisiecki and Raymo 2004 and Huybers 2007. Lisiecki and Raymo use orbital tuning to constrain the age of the benthic records, while Huybers explicitly avoids this, consequently the two datasets are occasionally completely out of phase, but generally in good agreement, especially in the late Pleistocene.

As fitness function we take the product of the sum of squared errors (SSE) between the model and the two reference records from 2580 thousand years before present, with 1000 year timesteps.

For the longer term perspective, this is a combined crop (to make a continuous timeline) of the two fulls panel from the model prediction of the Milankovitch data.

clip_image004

The time period represented is from approximately 450,000 BC to 330,000 AD. The scale on the vertical axis is change in O18 content. There is a very good hind-cast match between the model and past temperature change as shown by the work of Lisiecki et al 2005 and Huybers 2007. The next glaciation is fully developed between 55,000 and 60,000 AD, with the next interglacial 20,000 years after that.

References

Huybers, P., 2007, Glacial variability over the last 2Ma: an extended depth-derived age model, continuous obliquity pacing, and the Pleistocene progression, Quaternary Science Reviews 26, 37-55.

Lisiecki, L. E., and M. E. Raymo, 2005, A Pliocene-Pleistocene stack of 57 globally distributed benthic d18O records Paleoceanography, 20, PA1003, doi:10.1029/2004PA001071.

Source Data: Download the consolidated data, including orbital parameters, insolation calculations, reference data and model output: Milankovitch.xlsx

About these ads
This entry was posted in Glaciers, Global cooling and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

335 Responses to Onset of the Next Glaciation

  1. The next glaciation will wipe out many countries and nothing will stop that from happening.
    Luckily, the slide into a glaciation is long and slow, tens of thousands of years, and, of course, the sun has nothing to do with it [Jupiter has].

  2. richard telford says:

    “there are rocks on the beaches of Scotland that got blown over from Norway across a frozen North Sea. As scientists, our task is to predict the onset of the next glaciation.”

    But the first task is to stop making things up.

  3. davidq says:

    Perhaps we need to widen and deepen the Panama canal. Didn’t the current onset of glaciation start occurring after the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off?
    20 Miles wide, 300 feet deep. doable?

  4. With all our revulsion regarding models, it is difficult to say “OK, but this one refutes global warming”. Well, it might, but is it not still a model? And this ice age is how far into the future? No point in being alarmist at all, because the effects of continental glaciation are well known! It’s like running a big scraper across the world. Nothing will stop it.

    The Climate alarmists, on the other hand, need to raise alarm to curry support for what is largely a speculative circumstance. They need to invent a bogeyman, and invent a solution, which, like kinetic energy, compounds at the square of its velocity! They can’t define the problem, so how on earth can they propose a solution?

  5. Aussie Luke Warm says:

    This article has spooked me. In fact, I’ve just put on my hawthorn reg grundies.. Can we do anything to avert returning to an ice age?

  6. This post so apes the CAGW meme that I can’t help wondering if it was not written with tongue firmly in cheek Very much, “Back to the Seventies”.

  7. sophocles says:

    Hmm, I don’t think I’ll sell my wool shares just yet .

  8. Christian_J. says:

    This effort turns everything everyone has been told for the last thirty odd years, completely upside down. It puts paid to the increase in warming as those old studies have continually demonstrated, which will not happen and also introduces the fact that the Sun, remember the Sun, will have the last say after all. Meanwhile we pass the popcorn as the lunacy of the CAGW hysterics wanders on it’s already disturbing path. But this time, it’s all downhill.

  9. tallbloke says:

    Or, the 65N insolation may not drop low enough to cause glacial onset this time round and the Holocene may continue for another 50k years.

    Nobody knows.

  10. More likely those rocks were embedded in icebergs calved from Norwegian glaciers that got blown across the North Sea. BTW, they are called Drop Stones.

  11. Warm says:

    “For an interglacial period to end, the oceans have to lose heat content so that snows will linger through the summer and increase the Earth’s albedo”

    I agree,

    But… Where are the evidences that it is happenning ?

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=6

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=7

  12. jim says:

    OMG, Mann got his hockey stick up side down!
    Thanks
    JK

  13. Chris in Canada says:

    Just have to ask this:

    Given the recent discussion about geo-engineering to combat the alleged AGW (parasol gases and the like):

    How much human-generated CO2 would be required to counteract an ice age? If we have 1000 years to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, is it possible to maintain the interglacial indefinitely?

    (This, of course, assumes that humanity won’t do itself in, in some other way, in the intervening thousand years.)

  14. tango says:

    Please would somebody tell the Australian prime minister J Gillard what’s around the corner she is hell bent on destroying us with the carbon tax

  15. Petrossa says:

    I guess i won’t be around to notice. Good news then. No more need to worry about our grandchildren’s earth and how we leave it. Bummer for the ecofanatics though.

  16. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Obviously, as a geologist, I find this easy to read – but for those who may find it difficult to comprehend, the net result is we don’t have to worry for a good few centuries yet!
    In passing, I’m not keen on the use of the term ‘trigger’ for a glacial event – it implies a ‘non-reversible’ and ‘fixed’ point, kind of like the tipping point scenario that the warmista like to use for earths mean temp (which all geologists know is false!). Lots of factors have to come together, and remain together, for some considerable time for glacial onset to fully take hold (IMHO).
    What I mean is that a glacial period could be presented/considered by ‘coolists’ to be initiated by the onset of several cold winters, but this would be a false premise – in the same way as ‘runaway’ thermal heating didn’t occur as per the ‘warmists’ arguments in the 90’s! Obviously. no one ‘knows’ for sure, but I can’t imagine the next glacial period being able to be defined without at least a few centuries of data?
    An interesting piece, but to be fair, I think the timescale inferences have been perhaps lost to the general non-geological folk…just saying…

  17. Here is a link to the Rutgers snow extent graphs.

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=2

    Note the increasing winter snow extent trend, particularly from around 2007. Also the steep decline in spring snow extent.

    But perhaps the most interesting thing is the high year to year variability. Given the large albedo difference between snow and bare ground, it looks to me like natural variability plays a significant role in the start of the glacial phase.

  18. Truthseeker says:

    So, how long have we got before we are all screwed?

  19. Gerry B says:

    BRRRRRR!!

  20. Andy, Epsom, Surrey, UK says:

    Maybe it is time to have central heating installed (at last)

  21. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re Kev-in-Uk says: September 16, 2012 at 1:33 am

    Obviously, as a geologist, I find this easy to read – but for those who may find it difficult to com8prehend, the net result is we don’t have to worry for a good few centuries yet!

    Obviously as a concerned citizen, I think governments should be applying the precautionary principle and ACT NOW! Together, we can prevent glaciation. We can fight glaciation and the causes of glaciation. The developed western economies obviously have the most to lose, so I suggest a mere 1% of GDP is transferred to building the Atomic Hairdryer fleet. With suitable funding, we can blow that pesky ice back to the holocene optimum, all for a modest management fee.

  22. Brian H says:

    Andy;
    What have you been using up till now, campfires in a recess in the wall?

  23. Galvanize says:

    “As an indication of just how vicious it is going to get, consider that there are rocks on the beaches of Scotland that got blown over from Norway across a frozen North Sea.”

    Are you sure? Sorry, but this looks a bit like model based scare mongering to me.

  24. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Remember when the cemetery plot salesman is justifying their exorbitant prices by promising perpetual care, that “perpetual” will end once an advancing glacier covers over the graveyard, and your “eternal resting place” gets scraped and ground away to non-existence. Get the “dust to dust” over early and take the cremation.

    Although if anyone here feels up to the marketing challenge, there are many abandoned mines available that are suitable for conversion to thousands of glacier-proof burial vaults.

  25. anarchist hate machine says:

    How much human generated CO2 would counteract an ice age? If we burned all of the remaining fossil fuels found in the earth we couldn’t create a greenhouse effect enough to offset the next glaciation.

  26. kwik says:

    davidq says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:18 am

    “Perhaps we need to widen and deepen the Panama canal. Didn’t the current onset of glaciation start occurring after the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off?
    20 Miles wide, 300 feet deep. doable?”

    For modern man, it is doable. We can make huge “Canal Machines”. Just like the tunnel machines.

    Just click “Play”…..or “Dig”. But 20 Miles ? Make it 100 Miles wide.

  27. We can al move to central Siberia, that’s usually warmer than today during glacials,

    https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/Last%20Glacial%20Maximum%20in%20Siberia.pdf

  28. It’s like running a big scraper across the world. Nothing will stop it.

    Black carbon will. Well at least for a few hundred to a few thousand years.

    Legally mandated inefficient coal and wood stoves, building the dirtiest coal fired power stations we can, prescribed setting of forest fires, legally mandated field burning of agricultural waste, make sure those peat fires in SE Asia burn every year.

    It’s doable.

  29. mwhite says:

    “Earliest evidence for modern humans in Europe identified”

    http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1087

    “researchers dated the jawbone to between 41,000 and 44,000 years old”

    “The jawbone was first unearthed in 1927, but its significance wasn’t appreciated until now. ‘The site in Devon – Kent’s Cavern ”

    With a much lower sea level Devon was a considerable distance from the sea. Things will change but we’ll survive.

  30. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    tango says:

    September 16, 2012 at 1:23 am

    Please would somebody tell the Australian prime minister J Gillard what’s around the corner she is hell bent on destroying us with the carbon tax

    You wait til she introduces glaciation tax. It will be horrendous!

  31. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Truthseeker says:

    September 16, 2012 at 1:37 am

    So, how long have we got before we are all screwed?

    Usually around 80 years or so but with todays fast food diets and obesity it will probably fall to 50 years not too long from now.

  32. aksam@op.pl says:

    Glaciations take place when 65N is less insolated in springs and summers which causes snow not to melt. When snow is not melting most of solar radiation is reflected (instead of being absorbed by dark earth surface) so less energy is provided. Currently there is almost no snow at 65N in summers (despite the low insolation) so no glaciation can take place. And in the near future, because of Earth’s precession decade by decade 65N will be better and better insolated in sprigns and summers so glaciation will be less and less probable.

  33. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Aussie Luke Warm on September 16, 2012 at 12:26 am:

    Can we do anything to avert returning to an ice age?

    Cover the Earth-facing side of the Moon with reflective foil. NASA says the visual geometric albedo is only .12, a third of Earth’s. It only looks so bright because it gets a lot of sunlight. So cover that side in foil and bounce that wasted energy onto the Earth, keep the tipping point away and the glaciation at bay.

    Hey, we got people seriously considering fixing CAGW with a “solar shield” placed between us and the Sun. Investigating covering the Moon in foil should easily be worth a few million in research grants, and that’s just for the computer modeling.

    And if we do have several centuries of lead time, it’d be pretty cheap to do, as in a few decades we’ll be able to drop onto the Moon some self-replicating solar-powered robots to process the lunar material and do the work. Then whomever’s here just has to sit back and wait for the job to get done…

  34. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Building An Igloo
    amazon.co.uk/Building An Igloo
    Low Prices on Building An Igloo. Free UK Delivery on Amazon Orders

  35. DaveF says:

    kwik 2:22am:
    “Make it 100 miles wide.”
    I’m not sure that the Panamanians would be too keen on losing around a sixth of their country.

  36. DirkH says:

    In the description at “most likely”, I find no test for predictive skill of the optimized model. One would do that by optimizing the model on only a part of the past data and use the remainder of the past data for a validation. So, just as I tell the warmists, I have to tell this modeler: as long as I have not seen such a test, I won’t believe the model until I have seen it get something right that it was not trained on.

  37. David Archibald says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:57 am
    So much has been forgotten. Fred Hoyle’s book “Ice” has a good description of the Norwegian rocks out of place. Just think for a moment. For the rocks to be dropstones, sea level would have to have been higher than it is now.

  38. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Atomic Hairdryer says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:05 am

    Good idea! do you need a PA? LOL

  39. David Archibald says:

    Chris in Canada says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:09 am
    All the rocks we can dig up and burn will only get us to 600 ppm at best, good for only another 0.2 of a degree. Then the deep oceans will suck it all down.

  40. Michael Schaefer says:

    Well, normally, Tallbloke’s name in a posted comment appears with a direct link to his own Blog “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” – but not here:

    tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Or, the 65N insolation may not drop low enough to cause glacial onset this time round and the Holocene may continue for another 50k years.

    Nobody knows.
    —————————————————————————————————————–
    Also, the content of this comment makes me wonder, if we may perhaps have a Name Troll among us.

    Tallbloke – was that really you?

    [Not a Name Troll - IP and email is correct for Tallbloke ~mod]

  41. ExWarmist says:

    Very interesting if you happen to be alive during the transition…

  42. ExWarmist says:

    This is bullish for Australian real estate…

  43. Ian W says:

    Chris in Canada says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:09 am
    Just have to ask this:

    Given the recent discussion about geo-engineering to combat the alleged AGW (parasol gases and the like):

    How much human-generated CO2 would be required to counteract an ice age? If we have 1000 years to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, is it possible to maintain the interglacial indefinitely?

    (This, of course, assumes that humanity won’t do itself in, in some other way, in the intervening thousand years.)

    anarchist hate machine says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:19 am
    How much human generated CO2 would counteract an ice age? If we burned all of the remaining fossil fuels found in the earth we couldn’t create a greenhouse effect enough to offset the next glaciation.

    Carbon dioxide has a minimal effect on atmospheric temperatures and what effect it might have is merely to slow the loss of heat. If the heat is not put there in the first place then sorry it will still get cold however many SUVs you drive chasing flatulent cattle.

    From the paper by Gerard Bond – the ‘Bond Event’ drops into glacial temperatures can be rapid:

    “As was the case for the glacial events, the Holocene shifts were abrupt, switching on and off within a century or two at least and probably faster, given the likely blurring of event boundaries by bioturbation”

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al.,%201997%20Millenial%20Scale%20Holocene%20Change.pdf

    So perhaps tell your grandchildren to move to live somewhere warm,

  44. RexAlan says:

    Sorry Kwik no can do!

    Only picks and shovels allowed or the environmentalists will have a nanny fit.

  45. steve says:

    of course an ice age would be very easy to put off. just use the greenhouse gases that are 20,000 times as powerful as CO2 but don’t harm the ozone layer. a relatively small industry could do it. it’s probably how we will terraform mars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Using_fluorine_compounds

  46. Richard M says:

    If, as it appears, all radiation available to CO2 is already absorbed, then adding more CO2 will do nothing. However, there are other GHGs like N2O that may do the trick. The problem would be to find something that can be easily scrubbed after the fact. Otherwise, it may get too warm after the snow/ice is melted.

  47. William says:

    Variations of insolation at 60N does not pace or cause the glacial/interglacial cycle.

    The glacial/interglacial cycle and the cycle abrupt climate events are caused by the solar magnetic cycle restarting. I will as I have noted previously provide a detailed explanation with supporting papers of the entire mechanism if and when there is unequivocal observational evidence that the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted as well the observational evidence of the expected earth anomalies.

    The Milankovitch theory cannot explain abrupt climate change which is the cause of the glacial/interglacial cycle. The Milankovitch theory cannot explain why the glacial/interglacial cycle followed a 41 kyr cycle from roughly 3 million BP to roughly 800 kyr BP and then changed to a 100 kyr cycle. The Milankovitch theory cannot explain why the Southern Hemisphere abrupt cools when the Northern Hemisphere cools. (The seasonal variance in insolation is of course opposite in the Southern Hemisphere so the ice sheets should not expand as the summers are warmer and the winters cooler. i.e Opposite to the Northern Hemisphere.)

    Interglacial periods end abruptly, rather than gradually and there is evidence of cycle “RICKIES” – Rapid Climate Change Events, through the interglacial period and the glacial period. The finding of RCCEs “RICKIES” has one of the big surprises of the Greenland Ice sheet core analysis. At first the researchers did not believe the data and a second Greenland Ice sheet core was drilled a location where there was no ice sheet movement for the entire core period.

    This paper notes Milankovitch hypothesis cannot explain what is observed.

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    The Milankovitch hypothesis as formulated here does not explain the large rapid deglaciations that occurred at the end of some of the ice age cycles (i.e., the several large negative excursions in Figure 2): many studies point to the need to invoke internal dynamics of ice sheets as a mechanism for occasional rapid collapses if a threshold size is exceeded [e.g., Imbrie and Imbrie, 1980; Paillard, 2001] …. ….Nor do the results explain the mid-Pleistocene transition between an earlier interval characterized by 40 kyr durations of ice ages and a later interval with 80 kyr to 120 kyr durations: it has been suggested that this transition may have been due to changes in basal conditions under the ice sheet or perhaps chaotic ice sheet dynamics [Clark and Pollard, 1998; Huybers and Wunsch, 2005]

    This paper discusses the cyclic abrupt climate change events that correlate with a solar change. There is smoking gun the sun is the serial abrupt climate changer – the question is how does the sun cause what is observed.

    http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
    Until a few decades ago it was generally thought that all large-scale global and regional climate changes occurred gradually over a timescale of many centuries or millennia, scarcely perceptible during a human lifetime. The tendency of climate to change relatively suddenly has been one of the most suprising outcomes of the study of earth history, specifically the last 150,000 years (e.g., Taylor et al., 1993). Some and possibly most large climate changes (involving, for example, a regional change in mean annual temperature of several degrees celsius) occurred at most on a timescale of a few centuries, sometimes decades, and perhaps even just a few years. The decadal-timescale transitions would presumably have been quite noticeable to humans living at such times, and may have created difficulties or oppor
    The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on time scales of centuries to decades or even less. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11,500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well-studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (Interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.

    According to the marine records, the Eemian interglacial ended with a rapid cooling event about 110,000 years ago (e.g., Imbrie et al., 1984; Martinson et al., 1987), which also shows up in ice cores and pollen records from across Eurasia. From a relatively high resolution core in the North Atlantic. Adkins et al. (1997) suggested that the final cooling event took less than 400 years, and it might have been much more rapid.

    The event at 8200 ka is the most striking sudden cooling event during the Holocene, giving widespread cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a rapid return to climates warmer and generally moister than the present. This event is clearly detectable in the Greenland ice cores, where the cooling seems to have been about half-way as severe as the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene difference (Alley et al., 1997; Mayewski et al., 1997). No detailed assessment of the speed of change involved seems to have been made within the literature (though it should be possible to make such assessments from the ice core record), but the short duration of these events at least suggests changes that took only a few decades or less to occur.

    The Younger Dryas cold event at about 12,900-11,500 years ago seems to have had the general features of a Heinrich Event, and may in fact be regarded as the most recent of these (Severinghaus et al. 1998). The sudden onset and ending of the Younger Dryas has been studied in particular detail in the ice core and sediment records on land and in the sea (e.g., Bjoerck et al., 1996), and it might be representative of other Heinrich events.

    The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery by Maureen E. Raymo et al.

    http://rsai.geography.ohio-state.edu/courses/G820.01/WI05%20climate%20history/2002PA000791.pdf
    [1] For most of the Northern Hemisphere Ice Ages, from approx. 3.0 to 0.8 m.y., global ice volume varied predominantly at the 41,000 year period of Earth’s orbital obliquity. However, summer (or summer caloric half year) insolation at high latitudes, which is widely believed to be the major influence on high-latitude climate and ice volume, is dominated by the 23,000 year precessional period. Thus the geologic record poses a challenge to our understanding of climate dynamics.

    The solution to what causes abrupt climate change and the glacial/interglacial cycle is not the thermohaline conveyor.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm

    Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
    The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.

    A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
    “Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”
    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

    If you grow up in England, as I did, a few items of unquestioned wisdom are passed down to you from the preceding generation. Along with stories of a plucky island race with a glorious past and the benefits of drinking unbelievable quantities of milky tea, you will be told that England is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe’s mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.
    But from what specialists have long known, I would expect that any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate. The temperature difference between Europe and Labrador should remain. Temperatures will not drop to ice-age levels, not even to the levels of the Little Ice Age, the relatively cold period that Europe suffered a few centuries ago. The North Atlantic will not freeze over, and English Channel ferries will not have to plow their way through sea ice. A slowdown in thermohaline circulation should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic …. When Battisti and I had finished our study of the influence of the Gulf Stream, we were left with a certain sense of deflation: Pretty much everything we had found could have been concluded on the basis of results that were already available

    The following is an abbreviated list of paradoxes associated with Milankovitch’s theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

    100,000-year problem
    The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. In addition, despite the relatively great 100,000-year cycle, some have argued that the length of the climate record is insufficient to establish a statistically significant relationship between climate and eccentricity variations.[8] Some models can however reproduce the 100,000 year cycles as a result of non-linear interactions between small changes in the Earth’s orbit and internal oscillations of the climate system.[9][10]
    400,000-year problem

    The 400,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a strong 400,000-year cycle. That cycle is only clearly present in climate records older than the last million years. If the 100ka variations are having such a strong effect, the 400ka variations might also be expected to be apparent. This is also known as the stage 11 problem, after the interglacial in marine isotopic stage 11 which would be unexpected if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. The relative absence of this periodicity in the marine isotopic record may be due, at least in part, to the response times of the climate system components involved—in particular, the carbon cycle.

    Stage 5 problem
    The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem.

    Effect exceeds cause
    See also: Climate change feedback 420,000 years of ice core data from Vostok, Antarctica research station.

    The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).

  48. Rob L says:

    Fortunately we are more than capable of preventing the onset of an iceage, with seabed propellers to drive ocean heat circulation, balloons, space mirrors, fusion, fission, dust on icesheets. The most cost effective methods might only cost a couple of percent of global GDP.

    What’s the bet that the trigger for onset of a glaciation is a suitable large volcanic event? Drop the earth’s temp by 1°C and wham!

  49. <i.David Archibald says:
    September 16, 2012 at 3:23 am
    Philip Bradley says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:57 am
    So much has been forgotten. Fred Hoyle’s book “Ice” has a good description of the Norwegian rocks out of place. Just think for a moment. For the rocks to be dropstones, sea level would have to have been higher than it is now.

    If the rocks are well above sea level then they will have been transported by Norwegian glaciers that spread to Scotland during the last glacial maximum.

    http://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html

    A rock sliding across the frozen North Sea is completely implausible. Have you ever seen a frozen ocean? Its one ridge of ice after another. And a rock would be an albedo hotspot and would freeze into the ice after a couple of hours of sunshine.

  50. Another point, both LR04 and Huybers07 are based on benthic stacks and both gaze at the bad correlation with the 65North insolation, for instance around 420 thousand years when we had the highest benthic isotope swing combined with the least variation in the insolation.

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Milankovitch_cycles

    That should raise red flags.

    In this thread, one can read how the Greenland isotopes are NOT a proxy for temperature, but for absolute humidity

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=4074335

    Some comparisons there with fossil and paleobotanical records trash the temperature misunderstanding of the Younger Dryas.

  51. Athelstan. says:

    Who could dispute we’re on the down slope, certainly not me, it is a thought and often in my mind – above my head – there was, in the not too distant past – a couple of thousand feet of ice – awe inspiring thought.

    What is not in dispute, is that the world is still in the grip of an ice age, there may be a blip – another little ice age coming but the big one is still some time away.
    I’ve searched the York’s coast boulder clays, in it one can find all sorts of goodies; Shap granite [from the lakes], is fairly common and schists, gabbro, dolerites, basalt too and fossils aplenty some from the limestone of the Pennines – all left there by the ice and all from far flung parts.

    Another thing not in dispute, mankind’s puny surface scrapings and input of a minor but nevertheless vital trace gas are neither here nor there.

  52. Alberta Slim says:

    I say that we contact “Jimmy-boy” Hansen, and tell him he was right all along about the coming “ice-age” . [from his '70s claim], and get him back onto the “global cooling” bandwagon.
    That way we get rid of a warmist, and show the public that the warmists don’t know what to believe.

  53. Bill Illis says:

    You have to go back to the start of the glacial cycles to see how low 65N solar insolation values have to get in order to trigger the start of the ice ages. You have to go back to 115,000 years ago to see the last one.

    After the large initial drop, it takes two or three good upswings to break the back/decrease the volume of the ice-sheets enough to eventually melt out the ice in the next upswing. Once the volume builds up to a km or so high, one upswing is not enough to completely melt out the ice before another (smaller this time) downswing occurs. It takes two or three or four upswings.

    The next downturn of sufficient size to put us into an ice age is 50,000 years out (and perhaps 130,000 years out). The numbers are almost at their low point right now and it only declines very marginally for a few thoudand years in the future, not low enough to stop summer melt on Ellesmere Island for example.

    Technically, the solar insolation values can be accurately forecast out and back for up to 5 million years at a time before uncertainties become too great.

  54. ExWarmist says:

    CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere will lessen the impact of the glacial period on that part of the planet not covered in ice. The biosphere will benefit overall and human survival will be enhanced due to greater plant/crop productivity.

    Note that humans were bottle-necked down to approx 3000 individuals in the last glaciation and almost died out.

  55. Rhys Jaggar says:

    What would be more constructive than this scaremongering would be to work on where in the world, currently not devoted to producing the majority of the world’s food, would climate be suitable in an ice age, to produce the food which would no longer be producable in Canada, Northern Mid-West, Russia, Ukraine etc?

    Is it Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia? Is it the Northern Sahara? Is it the Middle East (the Arabian Deserts, Iraq, Iran etc)? Is it part of the Australian desert??

    Perhaps the answer to this is: ‘we can’t predict it exactly, but the most likely places are these’.

    What is clear is that the world will have the choice of starving people in the North to death or enabling a mass migration to more subtropical latitudes.

    The effect of an ice age on human beings will be almost entirely determined by their values as a species.

  56. stevefitzpatrick says:

    Humm…
    There is a very good chance Earth would contiune to follow cyclical glaciation, but descent into the next colder period will depend on net energy balance. While the very long term (10,000+ years) may bring glaciation, the current influence of GHG forcing makes a substantial delay jn that process likely. This is not speculation: the best estimate of ocean heat content is that there has been an increase (not decrease) over the past 50 years. Argo will contiune to collect heat data; your postulated loss of heat from the ocean would look more credible if the Argo data actually showed heat loss; it clearly does not.

  57. Steve M. from TN says:

    No matter what spin you want to put on it, the “normal” state for the past several hundred thousand years is COLD. We are in a nice comfortable warm period with a nice growing season in which we can feed the billions of people on the planet.

  58. Scarface says:

    Meanwhile, in the MSM…

    Thanks, David, for perfectly destroying my peaceful and quiet sunday afternoon :)

    Seriously, thanks for reminding us of some real-world climatology.
    Warmth is not to be feared. It’s the cold that will destroy us in the end.

  59. Allan MacRae says:

    A full Ice Age is not required to hurt the developed world. More moderate global cooling could suffice.

    Modern Western society is complex, so moderate global cooling, together with a crippling of our food and energy systems through green-energy nonsense, could have devastating effects. (Add a collapse of major global currencies due to excessive money-printing by central banks in the UK, Europe, the USA and Japan.)

    We predicted global cooling by 2020-2030 in an article written in 2002. I think there is a reasonable probability that this cooling will be severe enough to affect the grain harvest. Urgent study of this question is appropriate, but the climate science community is so contaminated by warmist hysteria that it is apparently incapable of objective analysis.

    Is this just more alarmist nonsense? Perhaps, but we have a strong predictive track record, unlike the warmists who have none.

    __________________

    Here are some background notes:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/ar5-climate-forecasts-what-to-believe/#comment-1064602

    [excerpts]

    Prediction Number 9

    In a separate article in the Calgary Herald, also published in 2002, I (we) predicted imminent global cooling, starting by 2020 to 2030. This prediction is still looking good, since there has been no net global warming for about a decade, and solar activity has crashed. If this cooling proves to be severe, humanity will be woefully unprepared and starvation could result. This possibility (probability) concerns me.

    8 Successful Predictions from 2002 (these all happened in those European countries that fully embraced global warming mania):

    See article at
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.

    1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.

    2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.

    3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.

    4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.

    5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.

    6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.

    7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.

    8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.

    [end of excerpts]
    ______

  60. standbythree says:

    “…there are rocks on the beaches of Scotland that got blown over from Norway across a frozen North Sea.”

    Another geologist here. It is true that Norwegian rock made it to Scotland in the last glaciation – but they were carried in ice flows, not blown by the wind. The North Sea was indeed frozen over though.

    Reference:

    “The ‘Pliocene’ gravels of Buchan: a reappraisal”
    Scottish Journal of Geology, October 1981, v. 17:185-203

  61. Steve says:

    It takes a warm ocean for a glaciation. You need the increased snowfall to last year round. Dry cold will not raise the Albedo.

  62. Matthew W says:

    DaveF says:
    September 16, 2012 at 3:12 am
    kwik 2:22am:
    “Make it 100 miles wide.”
    I’m not sure that the Panamanians would be too keen on losing around a sixth of their country
    ===========================================================================
    They won’t lose any ground, it will just be piled higher !!

  63. tallbloke says:

    Michael Schaefer says:
    September 16, 2012 at 3:30 am
    Well, normally, Tallbloke’s name in a posted comment appears with a direct link to his own Blog “Tallbloke’s Talkshop” – but not here:

    tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:39 am

    Or, the 65N insolation may not drop low enough to cause glacial onset this time round and the Holocene may continue for another 50k years.

    Nobody knows.
    —————————————————————————————————————–
    Also, the content of this comment makes me wonder, if we may perhaps have a Name Troll among us.

    Tallbloke – was that really you?

    [Not a Name Troll - IP and email is correct for Tallbloke ~mod]

    It was me alright. I find David’s posts interesting if a little overconfident.
    Ice ages end eventually. We don’t know whether the one we’re in ends with our Holocene interglacial or a different interglacial further into the future.

    If you want more detailed thoughts from the talkshop, google milankovitch on a site specific search. I don’t want to develop a reputation as a spammer here.

  64. Julian Williams in Wales says:

    Makes cheerful Sunday reading

  65. Mr. Archibald is correct. My own layman’s prediction is the slide into the next glacial will take two to 200 decades to be accepted by even the commoners. There is NOTHING we can do about it. If we can figure out how to control plate tectonics and push the continents to favorable positions, then probably. Regardless, I’m not holding my breath. I think Harold Ambler is worth mentioning: http://talkingabouttheweather.com/ and http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-Surprising/dp/0615569048/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1347802425&sr=8-1&keywords=dont+sell+your+coat

    Anyway, it will take centuries after it is ovious. Still, it will reduce the human population by double digit percentages. Cold kills. Warmer is better.

  66. Mickey Reno says:

    I’ve just bought Bahama Bank underwater property futures. I’m going to be RICH. A-HA-HA-HA…. wait, when did you say this was going to happen?

  67. Tom G(ologist) says:

    Ho-hum. Except for some geologists intersted in making a name for themselves in stratigraphic nomenclature circles this is a big non-issue. Those aspiring geologists have been trying to establish a new geologic epoch- the Anthropocene – (see my blog post on this one at http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2011/10/anthrop-obscene.html)
    But they are really just a sub-set of the same breed of geologist who named the Holocene in the first place. Geologically, the Holocene interglacial is NOT an epoch in the same way that the Pleistocene or Paleocene or Oligocene are. The Pleistocene was/is the epoch of the glacial and interglacial stages, characterized by periods of glacial maxima, punctuated by interglacial stages in which alpine gladiers alblated and the continental ice sheets retreated to Antarctica and Greenland. Which, of course, is the situation we have now. As long as we have conditions indicative of the Pleistocene we should never have counted ourselves out of the ice ages.

  68. Mike Fowle says:

    “Baby boomers like me have enjoyed the most benign period in human history. The superpower nuclear standoff gave us fifty years of relative peace”

    Factually correct, but it didn’t feel that great at the time with the ever present threat of nuclear annihilation.

  69. Billy Liar says:

    Philip Bradley says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:25 am

    Black carbon will. Well at least for a few hundred to a few thousand years.

    You obviously don’t ski in the Alps. Man’s pathetic attempts with particulate carbon are utterly dwarfed by the amount of Saharan dust that lands all over the Alps. On many occasions, there’s enough of it visible on the surface to make the snow look pinkish or yellowish. Woe betide you if you try to ski on the heavier accumulations of dust, your skis will come to an abrupt stop.

    In summer in the Alps most of the glacial firn areas will have a pinkish tinge if there has been significant melting going on.

  70. tallbloke says:

    I’ll just add that it’s worth noting that 65N insolation didn’t drop as far as at the end of the last half dozen or so interglacials, we’re already past the low point, and the Holocene is already longer than several past interglacials. Also, 65N insolation is not the only important factor. Eccentricity times well with the periodicity of glacial interglacial cycles.

    We might be in luck. I hope so, even if it means we just keep getting warmer and the AGW theorists carry on holding sway with their mumbo jumbo. I’d rather put up with bad science than the onset of a glacial.

    Hopefully, the shorter term multidecadal drop in T both David and I (and many others) expect from around 2014 onwards will put paid to the AGW meme forever anyway, once nature has performed the crucial experiment for us.

  71. vukcevic says:

    Stop the Next Glaciation Project – SNGP
    North hemisphere where majority of the land mass and the world population is concentrated has plenty of time to do a bit geo-engineering which should prevent the next glaciation.
    The idea presented here is simple, easily implemented with available technology and in gradual stages as required.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SNGP.htm
    You heard it here first !
    Views of civil engineers and geologist may corroborate feasibility of the suggested project.

  72. Leonard Weinstein says:

    Philip Bradley had it almost correct. Black carbon is relatively easy to use, but the most effective way is to dust the ground (possibly from large lighter than air airships) with powered coal, or any other dark material (even volcanic ash), rather than depending on natural air born deposition of burn products. Ground or air vehicles could easily cover vast areas well enough to melt accumulations early during local summers. Northern North America and Northern Eurasia would be the main targets.

  73. Fred from Canuckustan. says:

    “More likely those rocks were embedded in icebergs calved from Norwegian glaciers that got blown across the North Sea. BTW, they are called Drop Stones”

    When they grow up from little stones to big rocks they are called Eratics.

    New York’s Central Park is littered with them.

    Canada should either claim them as sovereign territory or demand those greedy Yankees give them back.

  74. davidmhoffer says:

    Chris in Canada;
    How much human-generated CO2 would be required to counteract an ice age? If we have 1000 years to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, is it possible to maintain the interglacial indefinitely?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    That’s one of those questions which, if you ask on a warmist blog, goes POOF! and disappears. ‘Cuz they’d rather not admit that CO2 is logarithmic, meaning it is subject to the law of diminishing returns. The accepted meme is that doubling of CO2 = +3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree. Let’s look at that starting with our current CO2 concentration of close to 400 ppm.

    PART 1

    400 x 2 = 800 = 1 degree
    800 x 2 = 1600 = 2 degrees
    1600 x 2 = 3200 = 3 degrees.

    So, if we quadruple our entire consumption of CO2 starting today, it will take about 800 years to get us an extra 3 degrees.

    From 1920 to now, CO2 concentrations have increase from about 280 to about 400. At that rate it will take only 2,800 years or so to get us an extra 3 degrees. Of course the warmists will point out that our CURRENT rate of increase is about double what it was in 1920. So at current rates, it will take 1,400 years to get another 3 degrees. And that’s assuming that feedbacks are not negative, an assumption that the science (in my opinion) is increasingly showing to be incorrect.

    I’m not particularly worried however. What is remarkable about human beings is our ability to confront the challenges of nature and defeat them. An ice age won’t happen in an instant, we’ll have centuries to both adapt to it and mitigate it. The only way an impending ice age defeats the collective ingenuity of the human race is if we lay down and die.

  75. Peter Miller says:

    “As an indication of just how vicious it is going to get, consider that there are rocks on the beaches of Scotland that got blown over from Norway across a frozen North Sea.”

    This statement makes the article seem like a warmist spoof. These rocks were obviously brought by the glaciers during the last Ice Age.

    We shall obviously return to another Ice Age sometime over the next 10,000 years, just exactly when is something which nobody knows.

  76. sunsettommy says:

    The Milankovitch Theory was given a big boost when it was shown by Gerald Roe in a published science paper be well established.The charts in the below link is quite revealing.

    In defense of Milankovitch

    http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Publications/MilanDefense_GRL.pdf

  77. Schitzree says:

    I’m so glad we have Cook and Lew-boy to tell us that skeptics are never skeptical of any theory except Global Warming, otherwise I might have gotten the idea that this article was being met with some skepticism.

  78. sunsettommy says:

    Here is a link to John Kehr who published a good book about the climate and what it portends in the future and I have the book in my possession and believe that it should be considered for reading because he has a good case about the CO2 conjecture being irrelevant because it promote so little warm forcing that it is not a big deal for us.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/the-book/

    Go to bottom the page and click on Chapters 8-10 and see what the series of charts show that we are already in Climate Autumn.Charts #3-5 shows a clear cooling trend that is in step with a NEGATIVE insolation trend at 65 degrees N.

    Climate Winter is not far off into the future.

  79. Bill Yarber says:

    Kevin-in-UK

    Don’t we already have 8,000 years of data (Holocene) and much, much more? We know that the current Ice Age began about 3m years ago and glaciations have occurred approx every 100,000 years, with brief (10-14k years) interglacials in between.

    I don’t pretend to be able to predict the obvious onset of the next glaciation, but under today’s ocean circulation conditions and orbital dynamics, we are 1,000+ times more likely to be in a glaciation period within 3-5,000 years than to have runaway global warming.

    At my age, and my children’s ages, I doubt any of my immediate family will see either potential outcome.

    Bill

  80. RobW says:

    I call first dibs on a Snow Tax. It is simple. If you let snow fall in your country, you pay a tax to….

  81. William McClenney says:

    Interestingly enough I was just re-reading this last night:

    http://westinstenv.org/wp-content/ANURGENTSIGNALFORTHECOMINGICEAGE.pdf

  82. RobertInAz says:

    Thanks for the excellent article especially the clean summary graph showing the cycle. I would love we are here indicator in the first graph.

    I did struggle with this sentence: “…That is where the landmass is that is either snow-covered all year round or not….” I have always wondered why insolation is usually given at 65 North.

    I guess 510 watts/m**2 refers to the daily average insolation at top of the atmosphere on the day of the summer solstice, at 65 N latitude (from Wikipedia – Insolation).

  83. Alvin says:

    I am not falling for the warmists that pose the question “How much CO2 needs burned to stop the cooling” as it’s a red herring.

    It’s akin to Spinal Tap turning their amps up to “11”

  84. Leo Morgan says:

    Apropos of the post, I remind myself that if I am not as skeptical about claims that support my beliefs as I am about those that oppose them, then I’m not a true skeptic; I’m merely an intellectual whore.
    The data linked to by ‘warm’ et al. certainly seem to discredit the post’s thesis for the time being.
    That said, Milankovitch’s theories have been triumphantly validated by Geologists.
    The failure of the warmist’s initial attempts at temperature hindcasting to incorporate the established findings of Geological Science relating to the Medieval Climactic Optimum, and the Little Ice Age is a major component of my skepticism about their competance to forecast the future.
    However, there seems to be a surprisingly vast array of estimates as to when we will enter the downphase of any one of his cycles. I would appreciate anybody who is more knowledgeable than I taking the time to post an explanation of those discrepancies.

  85. Gary Pearse says:

    “Drop Stones” from Norway would be rafted over to Scotland in sea ice after the glacial period was over, the ice breaks up, sea level rises and the thick ice collects over parts of submerged present day Scotland, melts and drops. David, remember many of your readers are going to think you mean actually blown over from Norway in a downpour of rocks.

  86. highflight56433 says:

    I recall some work done on the low temperature trends in the US by region. That trend is negative. There might be a gradual increase in snow cover in mountain or higher terrain that increasingly lingers. Not that last winter in Alaska and Bering Sea ice are anything as a singular event, but in the total global picture of early winter snows and lingering spring snow cover, the extended snow cover does increase the reflection of solar radiation. Would it not that in concert with a decrease in solar output be an indication of longer winters and drier climates?

  87. sunsettommy says:

    In reply to William McClenney http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/16/onset-of-the-next-glaciation/#comment-1079830

    I have posted your PDF link in my growing list of presentations in my White Earth forum section:
    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forum-55.html

    Always wanting more to add there.

    Thank you for that link!

  88. Ray says:

    I am glad I won’t be there for the next warm peak… some future generation of warmists will “disappear” the present peak for sure and will say that it is unprecedented.

  89. Fernando (in Brazil) says:

    And now… again…. after being banned along with solar barycentric theory,
    Jupiter: The Return
    confusing times

    http://www.argonavis.com.br/astronomia/servlet/orbitas.svg

  90. Very interesting and much food for long term thought. That said, I am taken back in time back to the 1970’s when all the models showed cold was bold. Then again to a later time when models showed heat was neat and CO2 was the key. We must all remember two things. This kind of long term anything based on proxies and models is great cosmology or mythology. Remember to keep a skeptical eye and Mother Nature plays with loaded dice.

  91. George says:

    . Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset.

    Yeah, I think we are close. It looks to me as you go back into historical temperature reconstructions that each cool period for the past 3000 years has been a bit cooler than the one preceding it. The Little Ice Age was long and cold. The next Little Ice Age will be a bit less “little” and longer and cooler than the period we call the LIA. But I also note the same that Tallbloke mentions above. We are in a rather odd insolation cycle in that insolation is actually going to INCREASE a little bit from here and our orbital eccentricity is low so those are moderating factors.

    But should we get things lined up just right … say a solar minimum, volcanic eruption, global patterns that result in colder than normal temperatures and that might be all that is required to overcome the hysteresis and tip us over into the “cold” stable state. That state is more stable than the “warm” stable state as we tend to stay there about 90% of the time and only briefly tip over into the “warm” state 10% of the time. I think all we need to tip the system is a summer with a greater than usual amount of summer arctic sea ice. I believe it is arctic sea ice or the lack thereof that tips us across the boundaries of those two states.

  92. Rosy's dad says:

    Great post! Good science fiction starts with facts and extends to the possible. The best part is that it’s all unprovable. I loved the commenters proposed solutions but don’t look forward to paying the hair dryer tax.

  93. Russ says:

    Reblogged this on The Next Grand Minimum and commented:
    David Archibald offeres readers good advice on where we should focus our attention, on vanishing sunspots and year to year snow accumulation.

  94. meemoe_uk says:

    >the sun has nothing to do with it [Jupiter has].
    OK Leif, I wasn’t expecting that from u. So how does Jupiter control Earth’s slide into ice ages?

  95. Blade says:

    Scarface [September 16, 2012 at 5:41 am] says:

    “Meanwhile, in the MSM…”

    ROTFLMFA!

    Anyone know the story behind that video? Is it a group of warmies thinking this actually helps their idiotic cause or yet another great parody by normal people illustrating absurdity by being absurd?

    I clicked through some if their links to figure this out and still can’t get a handle on it.

  96. vukcevic says:

    Scientist in question is Milutin Milankovic
    http://www.egu.eu/egs/milankovic.htm

    (posted by Milivoje Vukcevic)

  97. vukcevic says:

    Scientist in question is Milutin Milankovic
    http://www.egu.eu/egs/milankovic.htm

    (posted by Milivoje Vukcevic)

  98. dallas says:

    “The onset of the next glaciation is driven by the isolation at 65N.”

    Since that is wrong, every thing that follows is wrong.

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/internalthermaloscillations.png

    The center of the Earth’s thermal mass is just south of the equator thanks to the distribution of the land masses and current orientation of the axis of rotation. 65N is a red herring, pretty much like northern hemisphere warming is an indication of the degree of CO2 induced warming.

    Notice the similar dampened tropical temperature curve and the dampened solar insolation curve in the post. Most of the “climate change” discussion is irrational because the “indicators” of change have nothing to do with the assumed causes of the changes. Until you better understand the internal dynamics of this system, you can’t properly assign cause and effect.

    Kinda funny actually :) In thermo, follow the energy is like follow the money in politics. Happy Sunday.

  99. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Bill Yarber says:
    September 16, 2012 at 7:39 am

    I agree – we can expect to come out of the current interglacial in the relatively near future – unless of course we have managed to reach the warmists runaway tipping point beforehand (/sarc!). But of course, this presumes the causal cyclical variation and periodicity continues as per expectation!

    I still find it curious that excessive warming is declared after a few decades of slightly rising temps, in the same way as the so called ‘cooling’ was alarmingly declared in the 70’s – however, both deductions, when viewed on an appropriate scale, look more like insignificant ‘farts’ within the natural temperature variability range!! To then have the audacity to link some allegedly observed ‘little’ temperature rise to a trace gas (that has been at much much higher levels in the past), and extrapolate out to ‘catastrophe’ is really beyond any level of believability…..to a geologist anyway!

  100. JA says:

    Until scientists can explain with a hi degree of confidence what caused all the historic periods of cooling, warming, ice ages, etc., – and so far they cannot – then all is conjecture. More importantly, scientists have yet to explain how it is that the earth can move from a ball of ice to a very warm period, or vice-verse.
    What mechanisms caused the earth to warm drastically from an ice age? How is it that during long periods of very warm climate the climate reverted back into an ice age?
    Presently, scientists model stuff based on simplified models of the real world; well, this is what economists also do in their work, and their record in predicting anything is a PERFECT ZERO.
    The earth’s climate has experienced every possible type of climate well before humans set foot on this earth, and scientists have no idea what caused all these changes.
    There is some evidence that exogenous events have caused the changes (sun’s activity, cosmic rays, the earth’s orbital orientation, the position of our galaxy as it rotates, etc., etc).
    No model seems to take account of all these variables.
    Frankly, all these climate studies are junk science whose conclusions are mere guesses. If aerodynamicists designed aircraft the way climate scientists engage in their studies, there would be a dozen major airplane disasters every day.

  101. meemoe_uk says:
    September 16, 2012 at 9:23 am
    “the sun has nothing to do with it [Jupiter has]. ”
    OK Leif, I wasn’t expecting that from u. So how does Jupiter control Earth’s slide into ice ages?

    Glaciations are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit and axial tilt. Gravitational perturbations from [mostly] Jupiter slowly changes those parameters with well-known cycles [known several million years past and in future]. This is how. And has, of course, nothing to do with solar activity.

  102. dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 9:38 am
    “The onset of the next glaciation is driven by the isolation at 65N.”
    Since that is wrong, every thing that follows is wrong.

    no, you are wrong. The evidence for orbital forcings is very strong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    See e.g. their Figure 3.

  103. David Ross says:

    Stones rolling across from Norway?

    I don’t get the mode of traction.

    Though I try and I try and I try and I try.

    davidq wrote:

    Perhaps we need to widen and deepen the Panama canal. Didn’t the current onset of glaciation start occurring after the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off?
    20 Miles wide, 300 feet deep. doable?

    Perhaps, but the greenies would hate it. It has been proposed to open up a sea-level canal by “nuclear excavation”.

    Atlantic-Pacific InterOceanic Canal
    http://archive.org/stream/interoceaniccana00unit/interoceaniccana00unit_djvu.txt

    See also Operation Chariot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chariot_(1958)

    But I’m not sure of the need. It is just one glacial period we would want to avert not all of them. And there are probably other ways. Soot suits the bill.

  104. Gilbert K. Arnold says:

    @ Phillip Bradley (12:57): Phillip you are technically correct when you say those rocks in Scotland are called drop stones. However, to a geologist a drop stone is entirely different from a glacial erratic. Drop stone are typically found in deep water where the they have dropped off the bottom of an iceberg or ice sheet that is floating in deep water. The stones in Scotland are more properly glacial erratics in that they were transported on top of the ice sheet (usually due to a rock fall which dumped rocks on top of the glacier and they were deposited when they reached the terminus (aka snout) of the glacier or they were carried along the bottom of the glacier as it rode over the land surface.

  105. Leif Svalgaard says on September 16, 2012 at 12:07 am:

    “- – —- –.
    Luckily, the slide into a glaciation is long and slow, tens of thousands of years, and, of course, the sun has nothing to do with it [Jupiter has].”

    = = = = = = = = =

    Are you quite sure that Jupiter is working quite independently and on it’s own? –

    Is it not likely that there are possible Solar Cycles (SC) which we, at the moment, know didly sqat about” that influences things like planetary orbits and in fact everything else in the solar system?
    Come to think of it; why do sunrays still shine through orifices in stonewalls etc. (Stonehenge is one example – and there are many others) the same way as they did when they were first built in ancient times if the axial tilt of the Earth fluctuates back and forth between 22 and 24.5 degrees every 41000 years – and the globe also does a “Gyroscopic wobble” or a complete circle around it’s axis every 23000 years – which should mean that since it is, presently, mid-summer in the Northern Hemisphere in June when that hemisphere tilts towards the Sun – 11500 years (half a wobble) ago it would have been mid winter in June. – Any evidence for that in ice cores etc.?

  106. DirkH says:

    Scarface says:
    September 16, 2012 at 5:41 am
    “Meanwhile, in the MSM…”

    Mentally unstable. Probably SkS bloggers.

  107. John West says:

    Thankfully, by the time the next “ice age” starts to seriously affect our ability to feed the population of the planet, food production won’t be dependent on climate.

    http://www.plantlab.nl/4.0/index.php/social-contribution/
    http://www.omegagarden.com/

    Assuming, of course, we have not stifled electricity production to the point where these kinds of solutions are impossible.

  108. Hmmmm, – yes I know 11500 years ago there was a long winter coming to an end. But that is another story

  109. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    aksam@op.pl
    sept 16 3;01am

    party pooper

  110. Paul Penrose says:

    I’m not crazy about any of the models, this one included. But the data show that there has never been a time in the recent (last billion years or so) history of the earth that excessive heat caused extinction level events, no matter how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. However we know that there have been many ice ages, some lasting for millions of years. In fact, we are int the middle of one now and are just experiencing a short (in geological time frames) respite. The ice will return, that is not in doubt. The question is when and how much warning will we have? I don’t have much confidence in our ability to predict that right now, at least not in terms that are useful for human purposes. Saying it will happen sometime in the next 1-2K years is not helpful for making policy decisions. But I do know that doing anything that hampers our technological development (like hampering our energy supply) will be detrimental to our eventual survival, at least as a viable civilization. We will need every trick in the book if we are going to survive the coming ice. I just hope we don’t try anything drastic to stop it, because we could wind up making things much worse. I’m just hoping we will have hundreds of years to plan for it as some have suggested.

  111. tallbloke says:

    calderup says:
    September 16, 2012 at 8:30 am
    Nigel Calder suggests that a little history of glaciation science may be appropriate here:
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/next-ice-age/#more-782
    http://calderup.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/milankovitch-back-to-1974/

    Thanks Nigel. Probably the most important comment on the thread. Nice to see Kukla agrees with my assessment at
    tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 6:57 am
    too

  112. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    This idea of widening the Panama Canal to prevent the next ice age just shows you the absolute silly ignorance of the people who post here on WUWT. THE PANAMA CANAL HAS LOCKS!!!!!!! Any fool knows you would need to dig a SEA LEVEL canal through Nicaragua!

    Ignorance! Sheer Ignorance!!!!

    Eugene WR Gallun

  113. rgbatduke says:

    But perhaps the most interesting thing is the high year to year variability. Given the large albedo difference between snow and bare ground, it looks to me like natural variability plays a significant role in the start of the glacial phase.

    I agree. The Earth is clearly a system with a large “heat capacity” that exhibits considerable hysteresis and sufficient nonlinearity in the form of e.g. albedo and other feedbacks to sustain at least bistable behavior in the current glacial era. Bistable systems can, for certain values of the primary drivers (in the case of the Earth, at the very least net insolation but sadly there are many, many more and they themselves are highly nonlinear and possibly coupled and fed back independent of albedo or insolation per se) have two locally stable dynamic equilibrium states. The way the ice ages and interglacial eras should properly be viewed is on a timescale granularity of at least a thousand years if not longer, where long slow macroscopic (externally caused) changes in insolation associated with orbital resonances, precession, and possibly other unknown factors in the solar system or even the galaxy– not the Earth per se — create a cycle something like this: (starting arbitrarily with the Earth in a stable cold phase, since that is the most likely state in a glacial era):

    * Macroscopic changes push the Earth from the single dynamically stable state it is in into a state which is truly bistable, where the sustained cold is due to local stability from feedbacks like albedo and possibly global circulation patterns and the presumably relatively low temperature/heat content of the oceans. CO_2 may or may not play an important role in this feedback — I rather think it does, but it is almost certainly not the dominant factor as it appears to follow rather than lead (also, see Ordovician/Silurian transition!).

    * Macroscopic changes CAN — and at least sometimes, probably do — literally force the Earth out of glaciation by moving the climate system across the local stability boundary by force majeure, no fluctuations necessary. In this case the transition from stable cold to stable warm is directly driven and relatively rapid.

    * At other times the macroscopic changes may simply alter things so that fluctuations gradually carry the climate from one state to the other through a random walk in a basically neutral environment. One expects a very different “spectrum” of fluctuations in the two cases — in the latter case one might see rapid warming followed by rapid cooling followed by rapid warming before (perhaps) stabilizing in one state or the other (usually in response to an ongoing but slow change towards full stability in the final state).

    One way or another, then, we might well end up in the warmer interglacial phase of the glacial era, and initially it is quite likely that this warm phase is truly stable so that decadal or century scale noise (macroscopic or “microscopic”, the latter associated with phenomena or feedbacks in the Earth’s climate system itself) literally cannot cause transition back to a true cold phase. The end of the Wisconsin followed by the Younger Dryas fluctuation followed by the Holocene proper is a classic example of this sort of process — macroscopic drivers that first enabled, then mandated a warm phase transition out of the ice age to the point where even a global microscopic fluctuation like the YD could not stop the progression towards stable warmth.

    * The macroscopic drivers continue to evolve, however, and they gradually return the Earth into first the truly bistable regime — where if we were glaciated we would remain glaciated but since we are warm we remain warm — and then to a point where fluctuations be damned, a driven transition to a stable cold phase occurs. Again the spectrum of the global temperature during the cold phase transitions would be expected to be quite different in the case where the macroscopic drivers quickly and directly force the transition compared to one where the changes are slow enough that fluctuations drive the process.

    A glance at the thermal record of the Holocene suggests that the Earth is currently out in the bistable regime as far as macroscopic drivers are concerned. The paper above does nothing more than confirm this for at least one or two explicit models for those drivers. It also suggests that there could be time scales of decades to centuries before those drivers force the inexorable motion towards cold phase once again, but it quite literally cannot address the issue of fluctuation-driven transitions in the meantime because it does not provide much in the way of a MICROSCOPIC stability analysis or for that matter an analysis of macroscopic parameters with considerable variability outside of the model as well.

    One of the most interesting of these is that of solar state. The Sun is apparently a rather variable star, with not only its regular 11/22 year Hale cycle variability but with considerable modulation of that variability on much longer and (as far as I know) not particularly well-understood timescales, timescales against which the entire period of observation with modern instrumentation are utterly insignificant. However, there are many other unknowns to consider — the progression of the Sun (and hence Earth) through an interstellar medium of variable density, “black swan” events that we simply haven’t been around looking with modern instrumentation long enough to observe (major CMEs such as the 1859 event or even one an order of magnitude longer and stronger), divergences between even the observable proxies of solar state (e.g. sunspots) and ones that would have been invisible e.g. solar magnetic state until very recently.

    However, there is also noise due to volcanism — one good sized Tambora can ruin (or at least alter) global climate for years if not decades, global decadal circulation fluctuations, fluctuations in the “oceanic conveyor belt” (that may or may not have been responsible for the Younger Dryas), fluctuations in GHG levels outside of volcanism, and yeah, long term persistent changes due to human activity.

    For example, one can consider

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification

    Deserts are a prime example of a MICROSCOPIC bistable climate system that share many properties with the bistability described above. Plants tend to both cool the local climate and bind moisture. If there are enough plants growing on a major geographical tract of land with marginal rainfall (marginal to put it into the bistable regime) the plants cool and bind moisture sufficiently that positive feedback maintains the growing plants and the regime is locally stable in a non-desert state. However, once you introduce goats… they create the Sahara. Perhaps not singlehandedly, perhaps not all of it, but there is substantial evidence that the introduction of goats and farming culture caused the collapse of a fragile non-desert state in North Africa leading to the desertification of much of it, a process that continues measurably today as an exploding human population continues to push land at its boundaries across the stability boundary in between the desert/non-desert states.

    This sort of anthropogenic climate change has been occurring for thousands of years, and has occurred at a vastly accelerated rate in the 20-21st centuries as modern medicine and relative affluence have caused populations to increase in already strained local ecosystems. It absolutely has an effect on “global warming” — indeed century scale desertification of a substantial fraction of marginal land is precisely the sort of microscopic fluctuation that might be expected to have potential global effects due to feedbacks known and unknown within the global climate system. Curiously, it isn’t AFAIK invoked as even a partial explanation of late 20th century warming, although one would think that the shift of as much as 10% of the Earth’s land surface area in the strict direction of desertification of previously wild and vegetation covered lands over that same time frame might have an important effect quite outside of CO_2 levels (and indeed, has an important effect ON CO_2 levels as well).

    The last “interesting” piece of evidence is that the Little Ice Age, occurring in apparent coincidence with the Maunder Minimum, was the coldest period in the entire Holocene post the Younger Dryas fluctuation, and occurred as global temperatures had been gradually decreasing from the Holocene optimum for thousands of years. This large temperature excursion in response to what may have been a relatively minor variation in a primary driver (the Sun) strongly suggests that the Earth is either entering or is already solidly into the bistable regime where sufficiently sustained fluctuations can drive it nonlinearly towards the cold stable state, quite possibly drive it “rapidly” in that direction (where rapidly is still century long timescales — the LIA was simply not long enough and didn’t get enough e.g. albedo feedback going to affect a full transition).

    Some climate scientists I communicate with think it likely that the increased CO_2 levels have already shifted the Earth into a state where at the very least fluctuation-induced transitions are no longer possible — the Earth is no longer bistable (if it was in the first place, which of course we do not know). The CAGW prediction, of course, is that the Earth is at least tristable and that we may have shifted it or be shifting it all the way back to an even warmer phase that hasn’t been observed for some 50 million years of geologic time (and that intuitively seems a bit unlikely to occur in an ice age, interglacial or not). I have some doubts of this, largely because of the Ordovician/Silurian transition, wherein the Earth entered an ice age, relatively rapidly, in spite of having seventeen times the atmospheric CO_2 content that it does now when it began, and in spite of sustaining it at ten times the current concentration for the entire period the ice age lasted.

    This one event suggests that macroscopic (or microscopic?) drivers exist that at least can trump massively greater CO_2 concentrations than we currently have and force an ice age straight into the teeth of only greenhouse warming. Since we are already in a relatively brief interglacial of an ice age, at the probable end of that interglacial on the timescale of a few thousand years either way (likely already in bistable/unstable to the cold transition) the plausibility of a third-phase “catastrophe” seems significantly reduced. However, our ignorance is great. For all practical purposes, we have at most 33 to 50 years of “reliable” data on global climate based on modern instrumentation and knowledge, and sadly much of even that data has been corrupted by things like nuclear war and the extensive testing of nuclear bombs post World War II confounding efforts to normalize radioactive proxy scales and at the very least reducing the reliability of our knowledge of prior solar state based on strictly visible light observational records (e.g. sunspots).

    Lief an others appear to be conducting a truly heroic effort to rescue the situation, but in statistical modeling I like to tell clients the simple truth that you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip or make reliable inferences with inadequate or corrupted data. It’s not magic, it is information theory, and true information degradation cannot be restored or interpolated by statistics-fu.

    This same process is at work throughout climate science. The thermometric record — what should be the single most reliable measure of the state of the global climate across at least the century or two of reliable thermometric instrumentation at least approximately distributed around the globe — is manifestly profoundly corrupted by confounding phenomena from the UHI effect and desertification to systematic method errors in the way temperatures were sampled (on what is quite frankly a completely inadequate fraction of the Earth’s surface throughout most of that period). Once again the issue is simple information theory. One cannot restore the missing or corrupted information without making assumptions, and if one then uses the restored information as if it were data to arrive at new conclusions, those conclusions are inevitably contaminated by the assumptions made to the extent that they have no real predictive power.

    It has been said by very reasonable scientists that it will take at least a century of observation with modern instrumentation to be able to get a firm (predictive) grip on the climate. It will take us a good chunk of that to just get a good handle on the Sun, decades more of observation to come to properly understand the ocean, decades more to live through at least a few permutations of global decadal oscillations. Even over the last 30 years, however, there has been a truly substantial divergence between the off-the-cuff prediction of Hansen and at least some CAGW enthusiasts, a divergence that is gradually restoring a measure of sanity to the scientific discussion.

    Unfortunately, much of the political discussion remains extreme, both because “catastrophe sells” whether the product being sold is a politician seeking votes or a news medium seeking readers or watchers. Saying “there isn’t anything particularly interesting happening to the global climate, however variable the local weather is and always has been” just isn’t the sort of thing to attract votes or public attention. Even scientists are hardly immune to the lure of the extreme — the extreme makes it easier to get grants, attracts more fame and notoriety to published papers, solidifies prospects for tenure and life success. Who reads a paper that says “I performed a statistical analysis of a hypothesized increase in the violence and frequency in major tropical storms and found that they were if anything less violent and less frequent”? Even scientists might give a secret little sigh — the extreme is so much more appealing, making the temptation to discover extremity in boring, quotidian data far too great.

    Nowhere is this temptation more clearly visible in climate science than in the infamous extrapolations of “Sea Level Rise” (SLR). SLR has been recorded — and extremely reliably recorded, compared even to the temperature — for at least a century, and there is an overlap on a multidecadal timescale with satellite observations to further validate the fixed sea gauge-based results from all over the world. The data clearly show a nearly constant rate of SLR of 2-3 mm/year over nearly the entire period.

    Almost all of this rise is due to thermal expansion of the ocean water, not ice melt. The ocean itself is, in fact, one very, very large thermometer! The thermal expansion is directly related to the increase of the enthalpy content of the ocean water as the Earth has re-warmed from the LIA and Dalton coldward fluctuations (whatever their proximate macroscopic/microscopic causes). It suggests a smoothly averaged steadily increasing global temperature that is utterly divorced from CO_2 as a proximate cause. It is also highly extrapolable. At 3 mm/year, a full century of continuation is a solid 30 cm of SLR, period. There is no statistically significant acceleration visible in the entire record, and the linear trend significantly predates the era where anthropogenic CO_2 might have contributed to it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

    Yet state governments such as that of NC are being urged to plan for and spend money like water subject to the assumption of well over one meter of SLR over less than 90 years! The public is being warned of dramatic surges, flooding real estate, doom and destruction! Science papers, with carefully cherrypicked end points, seek to scry some sort of disaster from some small section of the 140 year long record, even though a glance suffices to reveal that global sea level has risen almost exactly nine inches over the last 140 years.

    Surely there is enough time to discern any such intense and dramatic acceleration in SLR rate and act on a decadal time scale, in plenty of time to avert any real or imagined disaster. But the actual 140 year record is not interesting enough, and does not sell newspapers or air time on the television. It does not attract the votes of either eco-nuts or mere ordinary citizens who have a perfectly normal concern about their environment (or oceanfront real estate). It does not make anyone’s research career to report that SLR is behaving the way it was when Teddy Roosevelt was riding over San Juan Hill, back when the sun never set on the British Empire, and most importantly, back when the global population of humans was roughly one seventh what it is today, and almost entirely non-industrialized by modern standards, with no cars or airplanes and only a few countries and continents even linked by rail.

    Nature has plenty of room for disasters. We could at any moment be hit by a gamma ray burst that sterilizes the entire planetary surface. An asteroid could fall and produce a real climate change catastrophe. A pandemic could start that wipes out six out of seven living people in five years. Yellowstone could erupt as a supervolcano, provoking environmental changes that wipe out half of the human race and a million species over a few years. And yes, we could still have a nuclear or nuclear/biological war that decimates the human race and alters the planet in profound ways. Several of these — the pandemic, in particular — are far more plausible than the CAGW scenario. Others are plausible (but unlikely) and if they happen there is damn-all we can do about them.

    It is a shame that people spend — or rather waste — quite so much time and energy and money on the prospects of unlikely disasters, so much more so when there are so many far more constructive uses to which all three could be put to the betterment of both the human race and for that matter the environment.

    Replanting the deserts, for example

    rgb

  114. george e. smith says:

    David,

    I’m always impressed when I see apparently quite random but continuous curves of finite length, being fitted to some “model” computation.

    Of course, given enough parameters, this is always theoretically possible, to some level of fit.

    Your curve doesn’t look like it is too serious a fit problem, but I am impressed with some of the high frequency stuff that also seems to be modelled.

    So then that begs the question: How much of this modelling exercise is based on, and calculated from real Physics (and maybe other science disciplines), rather than simply a brazen mathematical exercise on some data stream.

    And I plan to stick around to see if your prediction; excuse me, that’s projection, comes true.

    I think I’ll go back to New Zealand, to watch; just you try to get me there with your ice. You’re welcome to join us of course, but the place is a bit shaky; and is known to blow up from time to time; but I’m prtetty sure we have the ice problem licked.

    George

  115. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    September 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

    dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 9:38 am
    “The onset of the next glaciation is driven by the isolation at 65N.”
    Since that is wrong, every thing that follows is wrong.
    no, you are wrong. The evidence for orbital forcings is very strong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    See e.g. their Figure 3.

    The next Ice Age will not determine who is right but who is left!

  116. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    September 16, 2012 at 9:51 am

    dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 9:38 am
    “The onset of the next glaciation is driven by the isolation at 65N.”
    Since that is wrong, every thing that follows is wrong.
    no, you are wrong. The evidence for orbital forcings is very strong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    See e.g. their Figure 3……”””””

    So Dr Svalgaard, before I read your reference (which I will), it occurs to me, that Dr Archibald’s assertion (that 65N insolation drives interglacial onsets), is not at all inconsistent, with your suggestion that orbital changes are the key.
    That’s like saying that brake failure is what causes auto fatalities, in response to a statement that crashing into trees is the cause of auto deaths.

    While orbital change may be (and likely is) the system change that controls ice ages; that really is just the change that results in 65 N insolation eventually reaching a level that tips the see-saw enough.

    Having Enola Gay fly over Hiroshima, certainly led to the destruction of the city; but that didn’t actually occur, until a certain bomb detonated.

  117. DaveF says:

    Matthew W 6:17:
    “They won’t lose any ground, it’ll just be piled higher!!”
    Now that’s the difference between me and you educated blokes – I wouldn’t have thought of that :)

  118. LazyTeenager says:

    There is a contradiction here.

    One graph says the ice is back in 3000 years. The other graph says its back in 10-15 thousand years.

    The latter was my understanding so personally I am not worrying about glaciers in the near term of the existence of western civilization.

  119. Justthinkin says:

    ExWarmist says:

    September 16, 2012 at 5:25 am.

    Note that humans were bottle-necked down to approx 3000 individuals in the last glaciation and almost died out.
    Interesting.Got a link for that ,please.

    And as for glaciation,no need to panic.We Canucks get it every year,but glorious AGW fights it off for us. :):)
    And of course,any scientist worth more than a plugged nickel knows warm is good,cold is bad.

  120. O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:16 am
    Are you quite sure that Jupiter is working quite independently and on it’s own? –
    No [I said 'mostly' Jupiter]. There are also smaller contributions from Saturn and smaller yet from the other planets. But the evidence for orbital forcings is very strong: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf See e.g. their Figure 3.
    The insulation calculated from the known perturbations are almost a perfect match to the observed changes in ice volume changes, so the is little or no room [and no need] for any other causes.

  121. george e. smith says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:28 am
    So Dr Svalgaard, before I read your reference (which I will),
    Please do before commented too much
    it occurs to me, that Dr Archibald’s assertion (that 65N insolation drives interglacial onsets),
    This is not Archibald’s assertion, but that of Milankovitch, Koeppen, and Wegner back in the 1940s. And most of Archibald’s article is borderline wrong. E.g. if you look at his first Figure it should be evident that temperatures the next 30,000 years are heading up, not down.

  122. Ken Adams says:

    “Winter is coming”
    Sorry for the interruption, but someone had to say it. Carry on with the scientific discussion.

  123. dallas says:

    Leif said, “no, you are wrong” I don’t think so or I wouldn’t have said it :)

    Frankly, 45S to 65S would be the latitudes to watch most closely for glaciation. It wouldn’t take much of a reduction in solar forcing to increase the Antarctic sea ice which would reduce the efficiency of the circumpolar current. From there, all hell would break loss at both poles, but the tropical oceans would remain rather stable.

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/SouthernoceansSSTwithtanganyiuka.png

    Working up from the southern oceans the Nielsen et al. southern oceans reconstruction with the Tierney et al. tropics (lake tanganyika surface temperature) shows a different picture of the thermal oscillations in the oceans.

    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-best-place-to-start-is-at-beginning.html

    If you want a chuckle, I am looking at how longer term self organizing criticality can make “perfect” proxies of past climate rather easy to misinterpret. Since 40,000 years ago there were grass lands in northern Siberia, I am inclined to believe all glaciations were not created equally. The solar cycles provide a push, but need some help.

  124. tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:45 am
    Thanks Nigel. Probably the most important comment on the thread.
    Looks more like propaganda to me, but at least it is right that the next glaciation is tens of thousands of years away.

  125. Gunga Din says:

    davidq says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:18 am
    Perhaps we need to widen and deepen the Panama canal. Didn’t the current onset of glaciation start occurring after the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off?
    20 Miles wide, 300 feet deep. doable?
    =============================================================
    Google “Ploughshares”.
    There was once a plan to make a sealevel canal to replace the Panama Canal. The leading route was through northern Columbia. The only problem had to do with all the Nukes it would take ….
    (It would be kinda’ fun to watch the the reaction of the Envirorn-mentalist to learn that the solution to Ma Gaia’s latest prank was to set off a string of Nukes … through a rainforest no less!)

  126. Eugene WR Gallun says:

    CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE ROCKS ON THE BEACHES OF SCOTLAND THAT GOT BLOWN OVER THE ICE FROM NORWAY ACROSS A FROZEN NORTH SEA

    True! Want proof? Never heard of the SLIDING ROCKS OF DEATH VALLEY did you!

    “These rocks can be found on the floor of the playa with long trails behind them. Somehow these rocks slide across the playa cutting a furrow in the sediment as they move. Some of these rocks weight several hundred pounds.”

    There! Put that in your pipe and smoke it! And don’t give me any claptrap about Death Valley not being a frozen North Sea. The principle has been established by scientific observation. Next thing you know you will be denying the greenhouse effect as it is so widely applied. Wait! Wait! This is about the coming iceage — forget I said anything about the greenhouse effect. Sometimes I just get so confused.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  127. Gunga Din says:

    LazyTeenager says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:39 am
    There is a contradiction here.

    One graph says the ice is back in 3000 years. The other graph says its back in 10-15 thousand years.

    The latter was my understanding so personally I am not worrying about glaciers in the near term of the existence of western civilization.
    ==================================================================
    Whichever, you’d need to add 100+ years to it. Hansen said we’d all be well on our way to dying off by then. “Nature can’t take it’s course” till we’re all gone. Isn’t that the mantra? Nature would be fine if it wasn’t for us?

  128. DirkH says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:57 am

    “This idea of widening the Panama Canal to prevent the next ice age just shows you the absolute silly ignorance of the people who post here on WUWT. THE PANAMA CANAL HAS LOCKS!!!!!!! Any fool knows you would need to dig a SEA LEVEL canal through Nicaragua!”

    I don’t think the locks would stop the nukes from working.

  129. DavidG says:

    It seems both Axelrod and Svalgaard don’t know what’s going to happen, it’s a guessing game and rightfully so. Our knowledge is completely insufficient to make determinations about the next ice age. Axelrod seems a bit too certain of his guess and that is most likely where he is wrong; Svalgaard is too certain it isn’t the sun and he doesn’t *know* either. We are in an interglacial and the next one is coming but who knows when. The only thing I do know is not to let any of the morons with ideas of mitigating an ice age get any where near the switches to attempt any of the Rube Goldberg type idiotic ideas posted here.

  130. dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:51 am
    Leif said, “no, you are wrong” I don’t think so or I wouldn’t have said it
    You obviously didn’t bother to read: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    “The available evidence supports the essence of the original idea of Koeppen, Wegner, and Milankovitch as expressed in their classic papers [Milankovitch, 1941; Koeppen and Wegener, 1924], and its consequence: (1) the strong expectation on physical grounds that summertime insolation is the key player in the mass balance of great Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets of the ice ages; and (2) the rate of change of global ice volume is in antiphase with variations in summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes that, in turn, are due to the changing orbit of the Earth.”

  131. DavidG says:

    David Ross says he doesn’t get the mode of traction. That’s easy, 650 million years ago we were on the edge of being a snowball with ice at the equator. Later on, glacial ice melted at the bottom and left the debris of thousands of tons of rocks as it traveled and that’s what we can see in the US West, that proves the ice age happened.

  132. Ken S says:

    Not sure if a link to this paper has been posted above?

    AN URGENT SIGNAL FOR THE COMING ICE AGE
    By Peter Harris

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANURGENTSIGNALFORTHECOMINGICEAGE.pdf

    Comments regarding this old paper?

  133. pk says:

    David Ross:

    i believe that there is a better sealevel route from atlantic to pacific through nicaruaga. it got a bit of interest when the smart guys started talking about nuculear [sp] excavation in the fifties.

    however hidden rice bowls got into the act (mostly panamanian and the threat of the loss of traffic revenues).
    then someone pointed out the facts of radioactive fall out (they were not as knee jerk scared of it then) and another group figured out which way the subjective and political winds were blowing.

    now days the job would only rate a couple of column inches in the federal rfp advertisements.

    catapillar, letourneau and several others would smile though.

    C

  134. Ken S says:

    I see that it has already been posted above, so sorry!

  135. P Wilson says:

    Dennis Nikols, P. Geo. says:
    September 16, 2012 at 8:57 am
    “Very interesting and much food for long term thought. That said, I am taken back in time back to the 1970′s when all the models showed cold was bold. Then again to a later time when models showed heat was neat and CO2 was the key. We must all remember two things. This kind of long term anything based on proxies and models is great cosmology or mythology. Remember to keep a skeptical eye and Mother Nature plays with loaded dice.”

    Its interesting how it was thought that cold would lead to calamity, droughts and famines would ensue. When it is relatively warm, then warmth leads to calamity, famines and droughts.

    It says (to me) that the human race is never in a good position and good old big government is there to tell us how rotten we are, so that we pay surcharges and taxes to make it right – or until we go into a relative cooling period when the paradigm changes back again as to how awful we are for a cooling climate, and ought to be taxed for that.

    Afterall, if you want big taxes from a product, the product has to be vilified first.

  136. Mike McMillan says:

    Well, it’s been nice knowin’ y’all. We’ve had a good Holocene together haven’t we?

    In preparation for the glacial advance coming down from Illinois, I’ve gone over to Lowe’s and bought a couple hundred square feet of R-30 for the attic above the computer lab. I plan to wait it out, warm in the glow of my overclocked ‘386. At least until EPA shuts down the local power plant.

    Mike in Houston

  137. DavidG says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:33 pm
    It seems both Axelrod [sic] and Svalgaard don’t know what’s going to happen, it’s a guessing game and rightfully so. Our knowledge is completely insufficient to make determinations about the next ice age.
    You obviously didn’t bother to read: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
    “The available evidence supports the essence of the original idea of Koeppen, Wegner, and Milankovitch as expressed in their classic papers [Milankovitch, 1941; Koeppen and Wegener, 1924], and its consequence: (1) the strong expectation on physical grounds that summertime insolation is the key player in the mass balance of great Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets of the ice ages; and (2) the rate of change of global ice volume is in antiphase with variations in summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes that, in turn, are due to the changing orbit of the Earth.”

  138. tallbloke says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:56 am
    tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:45 am
    Thanks Nigel. Probably the most important comment on the thread.
    Looks more like propaganda to me,

    Says more about you and your allegiances than it does about Nigel Calder.

    but at least it is right that the next glaciation is tens of thousands of years away.

    Maybe, but we still don’t know for sure. Major league Icelandic volcanos could change things real quick.

  139. Bill Yarber says:

    Kev-in-UK

    We agree completely! And the idea the mankind can “control” or manipulate Earth’s climate in any measurable way is the height of arrogance, ignorance or both!

    Bill

  140. Donald Rapp says:

    There is more to it than this thread provides. See: “Ice Ages and Interglacials” 2nd ed. (403 pages) by D. Rapp (http://www.praxis-publishing.co.uk/9783642300288.htm)

  141. uto says:

    JA says:

    September 16, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Until scientists can explain with a hi degree of confidence what caused all the historic periods of cooling, warming, ice ages, etc., – and so far they cannot – then all is conjecture. More importantly, scientists have yet to explain how it is that the earth can move from a ball of ice to a very warm period, or vice-versa.
    ETC.
    = = = = =
    Pretty good.
    Climate changes.
    We know that.
    We don’t know why.
    WUWT produced, with its readers, a list of possible affectors of climate, some months ago. It was scores of variables long . . . .
    Probably some of the notions/ideas/hypotheses above are right.
    Which ones?
    I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does.
    From 10,000 [my guess] folk involved predicting climate, it is likely that a handful will get the next 20 years, and the next 500 years, about right.
    And how many by luck?

    Oh well, Monday dawns soon enouhg here – and I have a commute to the City.
    have a great week – come warm or come cold.

  142. Interested parties might wish to consult the figures from Elderfield et al Evolution of Ocean Temperature and Ice Volume through the Mid Pleistocene Transition http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6095/704.figures-only
    The relationships between the orbital eccenticity and obliquity cycles and global sea levels and ice volume are show very clearly in their fig 4A and B. The 100,000 year eccentricity cycle is modulated by the 41000 year obliquity cycle.When earths eccenticity insolation drops below about 360 w/meter the eccentricity frequency dominates – earlier the obliquity frequencies dominate ( Figs 1a and 1c) and the temperature and sea level variations are smaller.
    These major cycle are then themselves modulated by millenium frequency solar activity cycles and they in turn by solar centennial and decadal cycles and lunar orbital cycles, The realtionships between these orbital and solar activity controls on ocean and atmospheric temperatures and CO2 etc have recently been elucidated by Humlum et al http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658
    Now that we know how it all works we can obviously forcaste possible climate and temperature trends for the next few decades with some chance of being more right than wrong. SST data show that there has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8.5%. The PDO suggests a possible 20 – thirty year cooling trend and the Livingston and Penn data suggest the possibilty of a coming Maunder minimum – little Ice Age. In short -in order to mitigate the effects of cooling on world food production we would do well to emit as much CO2 as possible until mid century at least.

  143. vukcevic says:

    If the first graph is any good (??) then
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/toGl.gif
    plenty of time to implement SNG Project

  144. In an addition to my previous post I would suggest that Archibald might take a [look] at the SH insolation at 70 – 75 degrees because this seems to be the controller of Antarctic ice extent which is the main climate driver ( impacts excluded ) probably since Oligocene time.

  145. David Archibald says:

    standbythree says:
    September 16, 2012 at 5:50 am
    I stand corrected, with thanks.

  146. Kev-in-Uk says:

    uto says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    agreed.- when it comes to genuinely NATURAL events – we can explain or understand very little. A good example would be genetic mutations – which are seemingly random events in ‘nature’ – sure, we could encourage some by radiation, etc – but the effects are generally quite random. If we consider something we supposedly know something about – e.g. volcanoes, and actually think about how predictable they are (not!), where are we on the risk analysis and risk management scale? I would suggest the only thing we can currently say, with all our study of volcanoes, is – don’t live near one!! Earthquakes would be another good example – sure, we can see/measure them, and we can see patterns – and we know they occur in certain areas – but ‘prediction’ – don’t make me laugh! – and this is a relatively well studied area of a relatively SMALL part of planet! I’d reckon ‘climate’ is at least a couple of orders more complex and massive than an earthquake or volcanoes (in terms of ‘size’) and yet the climate boys reckon they can predict it!! Yeah, right!
    As you say – back to work tomorrow………

  147. David Ross says:

    DavidG wrote:

    David Ross says he doesn’t get the mode of traction.

    Sorry DavidG for being too oblique, I should have been more clear.

    rocks … that got blown over on ice from Norway

    I’m not an expert -just high school geography. But I live in Scotland and can recognize raised beaches and such. David Archibald makes it sound like the rocks are blown by the wind over the surface of the ice rather than carried with (within, on or under) the ice and deposited as erratics or morraines at its edge or when it retreats (which is the process you describe). My language was just an attempt at humour.

    Stones rolling across from Norway?
    I don’t get the mode of traction.
    Though I try and I try and I try and I try.

    Rolling Stones (i.e. the rock band)
    I can’t get no satisfaction
    Cause I try and I try and I try and I try.

    pk wrote:

    i believe that there is a better sealevel route from atlantic to pacific through nicaruaga. it got a bit of interest when the smart guys started talking about nuculear [sp] excavation in the fifties.

    I suspect a lot of it was political maneuvering i.e. to send a message to the Panamanians wanting more control over or revenue from the existing canal ‘Don’t get Bolshie or we’ll go build a better canal elsewhere.’

    Eugene WR Gallun wrote:

    This idea of widening the Panama Canal to prevent the next ice age just shows you the absolute silly ignorance of the people who post here on WUWT. THE PANAMA CANAL HAS LOCKS!!!!!!! Any fool knows you would need to dig a SEA LEVEL canal through Nicaragua!

    Ignorance! Sheer Ignorance!!!!

    Chill out Eugene.

    Nobody is really serious -just throwing out science ideas for discussion. It wouldn’t happen in our life times. We’re talking about reversing an event that happened a long time ago.

    The closure of the Panama Isthmus during the late Neogene, from about 14 until 2.75 Ma ago [1], caused large reorganizations of ocean circulation [2,3] with strong climatic impact. While the climate of the early to mid-Pliocene was characterized by higher temperatures than present and probably a stronger thermohaline circulation (THC) [4,5], a gradual cooling persisted during the late Pliocene [6], the reasons of which are still unknown. Striking is the temporal accordance of the final closure of the Panama gateway around 2.75 Ma with the intensification of the Northern Hemisphere glaciation
    http://mgg.coas.oregonstate.edu/~andreas/pdf/S/schneider06epsl.pdf

    Or here
    http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2508

    Any fool knows you would need to dig a SEA LEVEL canal through Nicaragua!

    Ferdinand de Lesseps was not any fool. Neither was John Findlay Wallace. The French intended to build a sea level canal across Panama as did the Americans when they initially took over the project. Technology has moved on a bit since then.

    In any particular group with similar interests some things are taken as ‘understood’. It is understood by (almost) everyone here that we’re talking about a sea level breach in the Panamanian Isthmus -wide and deep enough for, not just ships, but ocean currents to pass through. It would be a huge geo-engineering project but do-able (removing existing locks would be the least of problems).

    Backing up your arguments with evidence and propounding them in a civil manner is the best way to convince people, but any fool knows that.

  148. David Archibald says:

    george e. smith says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:06 am
    The author of the Milankovitch file (the link to it is provided above) is anonymous. It looks like he constructed the file to satisfy his own natural curiosity in February this year and then gave it to all Mankind in March. You are able to examine the file yourself and come to your conclusions on its veracity. As Lubos Motl said, I think it is really great.

  149. vukcevic says:

    Dr. Norman Page says:
    September 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm
    These major cycle are then themselves modulated by millenium frequency solar activity cycles and they in turn by solar centennial and decadal cycles and lunar orbital cycles,………. Now that we know how it all works…….

    We are making progress. There is also Geo-Solar cycle (details in print soon) which attempts to explain the decadal temperature changes
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
    Dr. Page, the progress is slow but inevitable.

  150. Rob Dawg says:

    In the interests of balance anyone objecting to this climate model for being a model is obliged to do the same for all the warmist models.

  151. ExWarmist says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

    Links to human population bottleneck within the article

  152. SØREN BUNDGAARD says:

    The sun gets its power from the outside – not inside!

  153. MikeP says:

    This might be a bit off topic, but does anybody know why the sea level graphs on the ENSO page have not been updated in a coon’s age?

  154. tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 1:23 pm
    “but at least it is right that the next glaciation is tens of thousands of years away.”
    Maybe, but we still don’t know for sure. Major league Icelandic volcanos could change things real quick.

    Or an asteroid could hit us, or Yellowstone could blow up, or …
    None of this has happened the past 750,000 years while the climate has faithfully been following the Milankovitch cycles, so it seems a bit silly to invoke the ‘maybe this, maybe that’ defense.

  155. dallas says:

    Leif, Have mercy! That is one big a$$ spreadsheet and unfortunately incomparable with my dinky openoffice.

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/westerncaribbean.png

    That is only 465,000 years of western Caribbean sea surface temperatures. Nothing personal, but I don’t live in the Antarctic. While I couldn’t load the solar forcing to do a proper comparison, I did eyeball a few similarities and a few not all that great matches with 8K and 10K lagged ice mass. I have no doubt that the orbital cycles are the cat’s a$$, I just don’t think ice is all that great an indication of what really happens in an ice age. Relating forcing to the main thermal mass of the Earth is a better route IMHO.

  156. clipe says:

    O/T but would this AP article see the light-of-day in 2012?

    “Perhaps, after 10,000 years of retreat from the ice-age maximum, researchers turned on their instruments just in time to catch the stabilization or re-advance of the ice sheet,” Richard B. Alley of Pennsylvania State University, wrote in a commentary accompanying the Science paper.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-18-wais-thicker.htm

  157. dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 4:40 pm
    Leif, Have mercy! That is one big a$$ spreadsheet and unfortunately incomparable with my dinky openoffice.
    You didn’t get it from me [I think, but correct me if I'm wrong - which is it?]

  158. Bill Illis says:

    Here is Alert Canada’s maximum temperatures over the past 6 months (it was about 1.5C above normal this summer but one can get the picture). Alert is basically ground Zero for the resumption of the ice ages (perhaps the Arctic sea ice not melting out at all in the summer would be another).

    Alert July high temperatures of 20C (average 10C).

    The snow melted out on June 16th and returned on Sept 5th. So there needs to be quite a bit of cooling here before the snow makes it through the summer and the July high temperatures.

    Higher elevations and the Torngut mountain chain which goes down through Baffin Island into northern Quebec is another story but solar insolation needs to fall down to 440 W/m2 (versus today’s 480 W/m2) before the snow makes it through the summer. That may not happen for even 170,000 years.

    http://s9.postimage.org/w8hkx23r3/Alert_Max_Temps_2012.png

    Here is a Zoom-in of 65N June solar insolation for the next 5,000 years. It declines by a tiny amount over the next 1,000 years before going back up (for anywhere between 50,000 years and 170,000 years.)

    http://s14.postimage.org/stpo0vf5d/65_N_June_Solar_insolation_10k.jpg

  159. gringojay says:

    Glaciers will cover our crop land someday; but since Maize offers 3,700 kcal/Kg -1 while average beetle grubs provide 5,964 kcal/Kg -1 humans can survive as they “bug-out”. Sure it might be too cold outside to fish; but mealy worms are 20% protein which can thrive in a box.

  160. Mike McMillan says:

    A few points on the Panama Canal.

    The Pacific Ocean is higher than the Atlantic/Caribbean, less than a foot, not enough to generate any power, but enough to establish a salt water flow from the Pacific and introduce a lot of Pacific species to the Caribbean. Don’t know exactly how that would work out, but probably not well.

    Gatun Lake in Panama drains both directions to the oceans, This fresh water barrier halts a lot of species introduction.

    We’d still need locks in a sea level canal, due not so much to the elevation difference, but due to the tides. Pacific tides are vastly greater than what the Caribbean can muster.

    The best non-Panama route for a canal is through Nicaragua, following the river that forms the border with Costa Rica, then across Lake Nicaragua, then down to the Pacific. This still needs locks, because Lake Nicaragua is around a hundred feet above sea level, and the 10 mile stretch to the Pacific drops a steep 10 ft per mile.

    If it warms up enough, maybe we’ll be able to keep the Northwest Passage open so we won’t need the canal so much.

  161. TomRude says:

    Kukla said: “The last glacial was accompanied by the increase of areally averaged global mean surface temperature, alias global warming. … But also increasing was the temperature difference between the oceans and the poles, the basic condition of polar ice growth. Believe it or not, the last glacial started with “global warming”!

    Indeed known and the mechanism is well explained by Marcel Leroux -Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate, Praxis-Springer 2010-, whose work was respected by Kukla.

  162. dallas says:

    Leif, I clicked on the link in the post but for some reason the only parts I could read were links to your site.

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/westerncaribbeanwithTanganyika.png

    While I am here, working back from the southern hemisphere I am finding internal oscillations that appear to respond at different rates to solar forcing depending on their thermal inertia. A.M. Selvam is one of those chaos kinda ladies which started me down this self organizing criticality road. With solar nudging instead of completely driving, the differences in the ice ages make sense, if you follow the energy through the system. 45S to 65S has the most stability, so it is the easiest starting point to explain were Milankivic appears to be off, when actually he pretty much nailed it.

  163. mike g says:

    @kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    “Cover the moon in foil.” I’m not sure this would raise the brightness of the moon as seen from Earth. The current situation is that light away, from the center of the disk, as seen from Earth, can be reflected towards Earth by objects that cause the moon’s surface to depart from a perfect spherical geometry–from mountains down to the level of microscopic dust particles. Cover it with foil, and much of the light reflected to our line of sight from the vast majority of the surface, off the axis along our line of sight, will be reflected out into space.

  164. agfosterjr says:

    I hope everyone understands there is no gainsaying TOA insolation history and future as described by Milankovitch cycles–this is basic physics working with zero unknowns. And what took Milankovitch a lifetime to estimate can be done with digital precision in seconds. Nor is there any gainsaying the delayed correlation between 18O and insolation. You may argue its interpretation but for my money typical reconstructions of T, ice mass, and ice surface explain the data adequately. And nobody is claiming M cycles caused the LIA or MWP; you add solar irradiance to orbital parameters to approach the whole picture.

    The fact that M cycles are the obvious primary cause of ice ages is what conclusively took CO2 out of the picture even before its lag was determined, and it is dismaying to see skeptics deny their role in long term climate behavior. –AGF

  165. nevket240 says:

    We need a real good top shelf glaciation to save the reefs. No BS. The reefs are on their last legs according to large amounts of public funding.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/time-running-out-to-save-coral-reefs-scientists-say-20120917-260yg.html
    Thank goodness the SMH is always on the ball with quality scientific articles like this one.
    regards

  166. nevket240 says:

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/staggering-arctic-ice-loss-smashes-melt-records-20120917-260zu.html
    anyone lese spot the hubris.
    The Arctic icecap alone regulates the earths temperature. I thought it was Big Als contrails.
    regards

  167. sunsettommy says:

    Leif Svalgaard writes,
    “This is not Archibald’s assertion, but that of Milankovitch, Koeppen, and Wegner back in the 1940s. And most of Archibald’s article is borderline wrong. E.g. if you look at his first Figure it should be evident that temperatures the next 30,000 years are heading up, not down.”

    If you look at that first chart again you can see that it is ALWAYS below the 510 watts/sq metre threshold therefore no true warming is occurring for the next thirty thousand years.Thus it is ALWAYS on the cooling side of the line that make the snow and ice fields to grow.

  168. dallas says:
    September 16, 2012 at 5:52 pm
    Leif, I clicked on the link in the post but for some reason the only parts I could read were links to your site. http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/
    I don’t recognize that plot and don’t know what you clicked on and what you got, sorry.

    sunsettommy says:
    September 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm
    Thus it is ALWAYS on the cooling side of the line that make the snow and ice fields to grow.
    Yet today is also below that line and it is warming [AKA Global Warming]

  169. sunsettommy says:

    Dr. Svalgaard writes,

    “Yet today is also below that line and it is warming [AKA Global Warming]”

    Your reply indicate that you are willing to ignore the fact that LONG TERM cooling is in the chart for the next 50,000 years.Since I used the same chart YOU brought up you will have to accept the 510 line as I pointed out that show cooling is the trend BECAUSE it is already below the 510 line from now one for a long long long time.

    The last 1,000 years is a cooling trend too but who is paying attention to that? You or ……?

    Since the Minoan Warming time the warming epochs have been around 350 years long and the Modern Warming is already about 340 years long since the bottom of the LIA that was in the 1670’s.

  170. sunsettommy says:

    To continue along this line of thinking is that the last 4 main warming epochs in the Holocene have been about 1,000 years apart and last around 350 years.There is a decline from the days of the Minoan warming to now and still on line today.

    The Minoan then the Roman then the Medieval and now the Modern warming are actually part of a long term cooling trend as shown by this Chart:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01287656565a970c-800wi

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/are-modern-temperatures-unprecedented-us-govt-greenland-ice-core-research-finds-theyre-not-even-clos.html

    John Kehr posted some nice charts too:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_65-550×450.png

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-10/

  171. Bill H says:

    tallbloke says:
    September 16, 2012 at 6:57 am

    I’ll just add that it’s worth noting that 65N insolation didn’t drop as far as at the end of the last half dozen or so interglacials, we’re already past the low point, and the Holocene is already longer than several past interglacials. Also, 65N insolation is not the only important factor. Eccentricity times well with the periodicity of glacial interglacial cycles.

    We might be in luck. I hope so, even if it means we just keep getting warmer and the AGW theorists carry on holding sway with their mumbo jumbo. I’d rather put up with bad science than the onset of a glacial.

    Hopefully, the shorter term multidecadal drop in T both David and I (and many others) expect from around 2014 onwards will put paid to the AGW meme forever anyway, once nature has performed the crucial experiment for us.

    ———————————————————————————-

    as a layman in looking at things, this has the appearance of an egg sitting a top a pointy wall and just the slightest breeze will send it crashing… now if a moderate to large volcano goes off it could be just enough breeze to send it over…. with the warming factors gone and cooling already started in the oceans it will be a rather rapid fall into cold…

    everyone is such a bearer of good news… man does not far well in cold…viruses and other things grow well in cool and wet climates… just a bad recipe for man in general..

  172. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    @ mike g on September 16, 2012 at 6:00 pm:

    Among other things, if we’re approaching that as a serious proposal, the foil doesn’t have to match the existing contours. Flat sections can be placed on supports oriented towards the Earth. Imagine the Moon covered in millions of reflectors. It can be a focusing array directed at the Earth in general.

    That’ll make for a cyclical signal, nothing but reflected Earth-shine for new moon, and rather bright nights for full moon, about nine times as bright.

    Hey, if a few extra watts per square meter in retained longwave infrared is enough for global warming, leading to predicted catastrophic global warming, the contribution from a shiny Moon directed at Earth should be good for something, right?

  173. Gunga Din says:

    For those of you that googled “ploughshares” and got a bunch of anti-nuke hits, try “Operation Ploughshare”.
    I first heard of the plan to make a sealevel canal using nukes when I was in elementary school. I think it was a feature in Scholastic Magazine. I think Scholastic Magazine is also where I first heard about the threat of a “nuclear winter”. Go figure.

  174. Paul Marko says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says:

    September 16, 2012 at 12:20 pm
    CONSIDER THAT THERE ARE ROCKS ON THE BEACHES OF SCOTLAND THAT GOT BLOWN OVER THE ICE FROM NORWAY ACROSS A FROZEN NORTH SEA
    True! Want proof? Never heard of the SLIDING ROCKS OF DEATH VALLEY did you!
    “These rocks can be found on the floor of the playa with long trails behind them. Somehow these rocks slide across the playa cutting a furrow in the sediment as they move. Some of these rocks weight several hundred pounds.”

    The sediment the rocks are furrowing in is a mud cracked shallow playa lake basin that contained water when temperatures fell below freezing. The shallow surface water froze encapsulating the rocks. Wind moved the ice sheets transporting the rocks leaving their scour path in the muddy bottom. The scour paths are mud cracked, indicating the rocks moved while the playa lake contained water.

  175. sunsettommy says:
    September 16, 2012 at 7:47 pm
    Your reply indicate that you are willing to ignore the fact that LONG TERM cooling is in the chart for the next 50,000 years.
    That is a red herring. There will be long-term warming the next 30,000 years, and only then will it cool. And that glaciation will be mild. There is a 400,000 year cycle due to changes in the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. The next 100,000 years the orbit will be nearly circular so no modulation due to eccentricity. The remaining modulator is the tilt of the axis [the obliquity], but its effect in smaller so the glaciation will be milder. You see the various cycles here http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png. The blue dot is where we are now.

  176. johnp says:

    There’s no chance of glaciation with modern man dominating the planet. Methane production from man and natural methane release from current warming will preclude the next ice age. What could have been the next ice age will probably not make a dent in the warming. If by some chance the natural cycle overtook man’s warming, mankind will already have technology developed to avert an ice age. Global warming remains the problem of the day and the problem for generations to come.

  177. RoHa says:

    Details, details, details…

    Let’s get to the main point.

    WE’RE DOOMED!

  178. johnpetroff says:

    There will be no “next glaciation” as long as modern man dominates the Earth. While we can debate the onset of the next cooling cycle, the planet is current warming and warming rapidly. Methane production from man and natural methane release will likely accelerate it still further. If the next cyclical glaciation can actually take hold, mankind will prevent it from occurring. We’re great at warming the planet. Everything we do warms the planet. A few hundred years from now (let alone thousands of years from now) we’ll be technologically advanced enough to prevent cooling altogether. Global warming and not cooling remains the issue for this and immediate future generation.

  179. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Onset of interglacials is driven by insolation at 65°N. That is where the landmass is that is either snow-covered all year round or not. It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period……”””””

    So I read this statement, without attribution, and thereby ascribed it to the author of the Guest Post; DA; who did not refute it’s validity.

    I do that myself; no way I can remember the original author of everything I have learned (by reading) over the last half century. But if I use it, I tend to mean I agree with it.

    So I used imprecise English, when I referred to: “””””…..So Dr Svalgaard, before I read your reference (which I will), it occurs to me, that Dr Archibald’s assertion (that 65N insolation drives interglacial onsets), is not at all inconsistent, with your suggestion that orbital changes are the key……”””””

    So forget I said anything. maybe next time I will write in Maori, since my pidgen English never got my original question answered.

  180. Lightrain says:

    I’m very skeptical, but the AGW proponents seem to have enough forward movement that even in the Oil Sands province they’re proposing various ways to reduce CO2 or they’ll limit oil production. By the time the hard evidence is in showing no correlation between CO2 and temperature the damage will have already been done. You think they’re going to reverse everything and hang the greenies out to dry? I don’t think so, the last hope is for the Republicans to get elected and take immediate and severe action ASAP. If we ever get a carbon tax and the temperatures start to fall, as they will for the next 50,000 years guess who will say he saved us, no not JC but JH.

  181. Allan MacRae says:

    Eugene WR Gallun says: September 16, 2012 at 10:57 am
    “This idea of widening the Panama Canal to prevent the next ice age just shows you the absolute silly ignorance of the people who post here on WUWT. THE PANAMA CANAL HAS LOCKS!!!!!!! Any fool knows you would need to dig a SEA LEVEL canal through Nicaragua!”

    So Eugene, are you extrapolating from ONE post to the entire population of posters at wattsup?

    You might want to check your sample size versus your population.

  182. BezorgdeBurger says:

    What the heck, just bought the Super Gore CAGW Disaster-kit (shark-harpoon included) and what now? Should I get the new Ultra Gore Coolheaded Relief- or Reversal-kit, but it has to come with an free Ice-hockey stick what should I else do on the ice-plain?

  183. Allan MacRae says:

    johnpetroff says: September 16, 2012 at 9:37 pm
    “There will be no “next glaciation” as long as modern man dominates the Earth. While we can debate the onset of the next cooling cycle, the planet is current warming and warming rapidly.”

    I disagree John. The satellite record, which is the only reliable scientific record of current global temperature, shows no net warming for 10-15 years.

    To be clear, I think Earth is at the end of a natural cyclical warming period and is about to enter a cooling period, which could be moderate or severe. This cooling will be apparent by 2020-2030 (or sooner) and could be as severe as the Dalton Minimum circa 1800 or the Maunder Minimum circa 1700. I’d rather be wrong about this prediction.

    Since there is no evidence that atmospheric CO2 has any significant impact on global warming, I do not see that mankind’s current fossil fuel burning activities have any significant impact on climate, either for better or worse. The only apparent impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is to make little flowers happy.

    I’m not convinced that whatever we do regarding methane will make any difference either. If running around shoving corks up the backsides of bovines is someone’s cup of tea, then let them proceed, but at their sole risk. Just do not expect it to have any impact on climate, and don’t send me the bill. :-)

  184. vukcevic says:

    Allan MacRae says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    To be clear, I think Earth is at the end of a natural cyclical warming period and is about to enter a cooling period, which could be moderate or severe. This cooling will be apparent by 2020-2030 (or sooner) and could be as severe as the Dalton Minimum circa 1800 or the Maunder Minimum circa 1700. I’d rather be wrong about this prediction.

    That appear what the available data shows too.
    I tend to ignore all the hype, make use of available data, extrapolate and observe.
    Here are two examples of the extrapolation I’ve done: solar magnetic activity (Stanford WSO) and the 350 year CET record (UK Met office)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
    One might say, we do agree.

  185. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From johnpetroff on September 16, 2012 at 9:37 pm:

    There will be no “next glaciation” as long as modern man dominates the Earth.

    You have an interesting and highly exaggerated view of the importance of humanity on this planet.

    While we can debate the onset of the next cooling cycle, the planet is current warming and warming rapidly.

    Not really.

    HADCRUT3 variance-adjusted global mean:
    (click on “Raw data”)
    start of record (1850) to 2000: slope = 0.00369995 per year
    from 2000 to now: slope = -0.000162412 per year

    GISTEMP LOTI (land-ocean temperature index) global mean:
    start (1880) to 2000: slope = 0.00541299 per year
    2000 to now: slope = 0.0062104 per year

    RSS MSU lower troposphere global mean:
    start (1979) to 2000: slope = 0.0145225 per year
    2000 to now: slope = 0.000495936 per year

    UAH NSSTC lower trop. global mean:
    start (Nov 1978) to 2000: slope = 0.0104104 per year
    2000 to now: slope = 0.012143 per year

    And by the WoodForTrees temperature index, which is the mean of those indexes:
    start (1979) to 2000: slope = 0.0134049 per year
    2000 to now: slope = 0.00459503 per year

    Thus the warming has dramatically slowed, and the Earth is not warming rapidly.

    Methane production from man and natural methane release will likely accelerate it still further.

    Let’s look at the alarming sources of methane from an alarming source, GISS. See Figure 2-1, Global sources of methane.

    29% is labeled Natural.

    19% is Coal and Oil Mining and Natural Gas extraction, releasing trapped methane from underground, labeled Anthropogenic.

    16% is Enteric Fermentation, which is actually the burps and farts of livestock like cattle. Since those animals would not exist without humans raising them for food, just like if humans never existed then there would never have been massive herds of buffalo covering the American plains, that’s labeled Anthropogenic.

    Rice cultivation is 12%, Anthropogenic. Biomass burning 8%, Anthropogenic. Sewage treatment and Animal waste are both 5%, and since humans, their livestock, and their pets all poop that’s Anthropogenic. Landfills 5%, from decomposing banana peels and dirty diapers, Anthropogenic.

    So if you’re worried about methane production causing global warming and even accelerating it, simply stop humans from growing food, from raising livestock for food, from burning fuels, and stop humans from eating food, and the problem goes away.

    A few hundred years from now (let alone thousands of years from now) we’ll be technologically advanced enough to prevent cooling altogether.

    Says here:

    The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[7] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[12][13] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[9] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined.[14]

    When the energy from the Sun becomes insufficient and the planet is ready to tip back into glaciation, how can we mere humans generate enough energy to make up the difference and keep that from happening? Zero-point energy devices? Dilithium crystals?

    Global warming and not cooling remains the issue for this and immediate future generation.

    But if we worry about global warming so much that we dramatically reduce our GHG emissions, and take the rate of warming to nothing and perhaps induce planetary cooling,

    Then when it’s time to stop planetary cooling and prevent glaciation, we’d have lost the warming effect of those greenhouse gasses, making for an even larger energy deficit to make up.

    So what do we do then? Suddenly start burning all the fossil fuels remaining we can get at, until the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations get up to 600 parts per million, 1000ppm, whatever it takes to get a sufficient countering amount of anthropogenic global warming effect?

    Or can the technologically-advanced humans of that time just dramatically increase the number of in-orbit zero-point energy devices radiating warmth down to the surface?

  186. motherofdragons says:

    This is a very interesting article, Anthony. Most scientific researches and predictions that the public are not very much receptive to end up to be true. We just have to know now when will the next glaciation will happen and how we can prepare for it.

  187. johnpetroff says:

    To Allan and other skeptics, yes we are currently warming, and we’re warming in what should be a cooling period:

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/global-temperature-report-august-2012-from-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/

    For August, Watts said the .34 degrees Celsius warming is not substantial. I believe it is substantial. It is well above the average warming for the last decade.

    To kadaka: ALL your graphs are measuring warming. Several show the warming plateauing. But that’s not temperatures plateauing, that’s INCREASES in temperature plateauing, while temperatures continue to rise. Plus, one can easily find measurements showing warming accelerating:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

    We are currently at a record low Arctic Ice Extent and the positive Antarctic Ice Extent anomaly still leaves a deficit over a million square kilometers.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    I’d love for cooling to occur. I’d love for man’s activities to have little impact on the planet. But we have overwhelmed the planet. For a period of rising temperatures when temps should be cooling, one can easily correlate that to the activities of man: higher carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere.

    How do we add greenhouse gases and NOT have temperatures go up?

    I’ll keep hoping for cooling, but after all the spin is done, even the cooling arguments are showing warming.

  188. Ian W says:

    Justthinkin says:
    September 16, 2012 at 11:41 am
    ExWarmist says:

    September 16, 2012 at 5:25 am.

    Note that humans were bottle-necked down to approx 3000 individuals in the last glaciation and almost died out.
    Interesting.Got a link for that ,please.

    And as for glaciation,no need to panic.We Canucks get it every year,but glorious AGW fights it off for us. :):)
    And of course,any scientist worth more than a plugged nickel knows warm is good,cold is bad.

    There is a brief description here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

    with some links. There are other papers too if you take a brief look.

  189. johnpetroff says:

    One more thing, I’ve located a good place for the next glaciation to begin should it actually occur. While the Greenland Ice Sheet is huge, it probably has nothing to do with ice in North America. There is a small remnant to the Laurentide Ice Sheet that covered North America during the last glaciation. The Barnes Ice Cap is a small glacier on Baffin Island that seems NOT to be associated with mountains. It contains some of the oldest ice in Canada.

    The Penny Ice Cap is also on Baffin Island, but it seems somewhat associated with mountains. Barnes sits out in the open by itself. If a new glaciation were to occur, it very well COULD start at the Barnes Ice Cap. The last remnant of the last glaciation would be a practical starting point for the ice sheet of the next glaciation.

    However, if the Barnes Ice Cap continues melting or disappears entirely, it proves warming is continuing even at what may be the starting point or even the heart of the next glaciation.

    Regardless of its significance to the next glaciation, I’ll be very sad if the Barnes Ice Cap disappears in my lifetime.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386j/baffinisland/baffin-lores.pdf

  190. beng says:

    ****
    Bill Illis says:
    September 16, 2012 at 4:42 pm

    Here is a Zoom-in of 65N June solar insolation for the next 5,000 years. It declines by a tiny amount over the next 1,000 years before going back up (for anywhere between 50,000 years and 170,000 years.)

    http://s14.postimage.org/stpo0vf5d/65_N_June_Solar_insolation_10k.jpg
    ****

    Thanks, I was looking for a zoom-in on that. If we could just squeeze by the next couple thousand yrs, we might avoid a new glaciation. Hopefully we’re at a natural cusp (the present, relatively small variation in Milankovitch cycling) where the previous pattern of glaciation is (prb’ly temporarily) interrupted — not that it’ll affect any of us. :)

    Despite some predictable nonsense, this is an interesting post.

  191. Allan MacRae says:

    Allan MacRae says: September 16, 2012 at 11:21 pm
    To be clear, I think Earth is at the end of a natural cyclical warming period and is about to enter a cooling period, which could be moderate or severe. This cooling will be apparent by 2020-2030 (or sooner) and could be as severe as the Dalton Minimum circa 1800 or the Maunder Minimum circa 1700. I’d rather be wrong about this prediction.

    vukcevic says: September 17, 2012 at 2:14 am
    One might say, we do agree.

    Thank you for the interesting graphs vukcevic. So we agree that global cooling will commence in the next few years.

    I presume we also agree that humanity and the environment do better with modest global warming versus cooling.

    If so, then let’s hope we are both wrong in our predictions, or that the imminent global cooling will be moderate and not severe..

    I am in the odd position of wishing that the warmists were correct, but seeing NO evidence that they are. The warmists predictive record has been 100% wrong to date, so why should they change now – they seem to have found their discomfort zone. :-)

  192. sunsettommy says:

    Dr. Svalgaard writes:

    “That is a red herring. There will be long-term warming the next 30,000 years, and only then will it cool. And that glaciation will be mild. There is a 400,000 year cycle due to changes in the
    eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. The next 100,000 years the orbit will be nearly circular so no modulation due to eccentricity. The remaining modulator is the tilt of the axis [the obliquity], but its effect in smaller so the glaciation will be milder. You see the various cycles here http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png. The blue dot is where we are now.”

    Thank your for your link.

    I am only talking about the chart YOU brought up all along and it shows that the next 50,000 years will be below the 510 level David talked about:

    “It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period.”

    Since we are BELOW that level NOW and the chart he posted shows that it stay below that level for next 50,000 years and that he labeled it as “The next glacial period” surely that is no red herring sir?

    David also pointed out:

    “For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat.”

    Long term cooling is evident and now that insolation has fallen below the threshold line into the negative territory the glaciers that did not exist in the north 2,500 years ago are now advancing today and new glaciers have appeared more recently in the United States and even in South America too all mentioned by photos and captions in John Kehr’s link.The glacial evidence is growing as we go deeper into the climate Autumn.

    Now I refer to a different chart by John Kehr who show that even while it WAS still above the insolation threshold it was cooling anyway because it was on the downward slope that went negative around 3,000 years ago:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_71-550×380.png

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-10/

    There are a number of places where large glaciers exist that were NOT even there during the Roman and MWP and easily surviving this Modern Warm Period.He mentioned a few of them in the above link with photo’s.

    It appears that you say that this upcoming climate winter (glacial period) will be milder than the previous one because of a less favorable orbital positions and I will not argue with it because that was never my contention on whether it was going to a mild one or a severe one.It was about whether it was on the cooler side of the 510 level David pointed out in the chart.

    I see that the next 50,000 years being below the 510 line therefore it is a cooling one and a glacial period.That is what the Chart shows and what David says about it.The severity of the upcoming glacial period is another topic of discussion.

  193. richardscourtney says:

    johnpetroff:

    At September 17, 2012 at 4:30 am you say

    one can easily find measurements showing warming accelerating:

    All global temperature data sets show temperature has had no statistically significant trend for the last 10 years and some show no trend for the most recent 15 years.

    Stasis is NOT acceleration.

    Richard

  194. Jean Parisot says:

    Is there a baseline glacial rebound rate one can glean from the Little Ice Age? Might as well start with something that was measured directly.

  195. D. J. Hawkins says:

    davidq says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:18 am
    Perhaps we need to widen and deepen the Panama canal. Didn’t the current onset of glaciation start occurring after the Atlantic and Pacific was cut off?
    20 Miles wide, 300 feet deep. doable?

    Google “Operation Plowshare”. ;-)

  196. Billy Liar says:

    johnpetroff says:
    September 17, 2012 at 5:29 am

    However, if the Barnes Ice Cap continues melting or disappears entirely, it proves warming is continuing even at what may be the starting point or even the heart of the next glaciation.

    Regardless of its significance to the next glaciation, I’ll be very sad if the Barnes Ice Cap disappears in my lifetime.

    Having looked at your link, I’d say:

    It’s dead, Jim.

    BTW It’s very unlikely that things will ever stay the same. Your favorite ice cap is either going to melt or start growing. If it starts growing – the next glaciation will have started.

  197. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    Don’t throw out the wild cards of volcanic activity or cosmic strikes as they may have contributed to past more rapid glaciations. Like a booster shot for the Milankovitch cycles. The Earth is, after all, about 70% covered by water making finding of such past evidence difficult to say the least.

  198. johnpetroff says:

    To Richard, you say:

    “All global temperature data sets show temperature has had no statistically significant trend for the last 10 years and some show no trend for the most recent 15 years.”

    Here’s a page from a very “global cooling” or “stasis” website:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/nasas-research-substantiates-trend-towards-global-cooling-human-global-warming-from-co2-has-disappea.html

    It appears to show cooling or stasis for the past 12 years or so. An article accompanies the graphs saying as much. Upon further inspection however, ALL values for the past 15 years are ABOVE ZERO, which means perceived graphical cooling is actually SLOWER WARMING. The graph does show a runaway CO2 arrow which is interesting.

    Here’s a master graph page:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=giss+global+temperature+graph&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TGdXULq1LevuiQLV-IGABA&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1200&bih=1829

    There are many graphs here to choose from. I’m going to look and see if I can find any that actually say “cooling” or “stasis” for the last 15 years. My point is, when you look closely at graphs that people say show “cooling” or “stasis,” they actually show decreased warming.

    This summer was the second warmest on record for the Northern Hemisphere and third warmest on record for the USA according to NOAA. Here’s a post with associated links. Note the record low ice extent. Would we really have summer arctic ice extent at a record low and values cut in half from 10 years ago if we had stasis or cooling?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

    I’ll hold out hope for genuine cooling statistics, but as I said, when I explore “cooling” graphs and websites, they’re actually selling slower warming. If I find genuine stasis or cooling numbers I’ll post them and you do likewise.

  199. Dan B says:

    davidq says:
    September 16, 2012 at 12:18 am
    Panama might object ;>
    And before I forget. This article stated the Boomers had enjoyed 50 years of relative peace. I’ll give you 40, Viet Nam was not even relative peace for those in the states at 18.

  200. Manfred says:

    I don’t get this. The first graph shows us currently at a minimum, the second at a maximum and both graphs are said to correlate with temperature.

  201. richardscourtney says:

    johnpetroff:

    You claimed that warming is accelerating and I replied by pointing out

    All global temperature data sets show temperature has had no statistically significant trend for the last 10 years and some show no trend for the most recent 15 years.

    Stasis is NOT acceleration.

    At September 17, 2012 at 11:43 am you have responded to that saying

    Here’s a page from a very “global cooling” or “stasis” website:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/nasas-research-substantiates-trend-towards-global-cooling-human-global-warming-from-co2-has-disappea.html

    It appears to show cooling or stasis for the past 12 years or so. An article accompanies the graphs saying as much. Upon further inspection however, ALL values for the past 15 years are ABOVE ZERO, which means perceived graphical cooling is actually SLOWER WARMING.

    POINT 1
    Stasis is NOT acceleration.

    POINT 2
    Stasis is NOT “slower warming”: it is a cessation of warming.

    POINT 3
    You are fooling nobody except possibly yourself.

    Richard

  202. J Martin says:

    johnpetroff.

    You like to trot out links and graphs from discredited organisations and individuals such as GISS, NOAA. But you may not be aware of the extent to which past temperature data has been massaged.

    There have been other articles on WUWT demonstrating similar inappropriate behaviour with data thus falsely allowing them to claim record temperatures in recent times when in fact the record temperatures were in the past.

    One example is this link below;

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html

  203. J Martin says:

    johnpetroff.

    And here’s another link for you. There are more on WUWT, but takes time to find.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/unprecedented-climate-cheating-going-on-at-noaa-in-2012/

  204. Kev-in-Uk says:

    johnpetroff says:
    September 17, 2012 at 11:43 am

    Sir, your interpretation of your linked graphs seems somewhat obtuse (I am being polite !) – but in reality, there is absolutely no merit in trying to defend the indefensible. In the last 10+ years CO2 has risen, whilst temps have not – that’s it, and THAT is with MASSAGED data!
    Now, for the sake of completeness, I would concede that the recent lowering of temps may well be part of the natural climate variation. However, if it is part of natural variation then the direct logical derivation of that presumption, is that when it rises, it is also natural variation. I do not discount the possibility that increased CO2 may contribute to some warming, (but that doesn’t make me a lukewarmer) but if it is a significant contribution, the evidence would surely be readily visible – which it isn’t……..end of….

  205. TRM says:

    Pro-Anti-Milan and just about every other point of view. I think the responses to this one article will keep me in reading material for a few weeks. This is why I come here. Now if only the whole climate debate could be so organized, scientific and civilized. Ah dare to dream :)

    Thanks everyone

  206. dallas says:

    Leif,
    Okay, I got the spread sheet open so here ya go.

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/milankovicandTropicalSST.png

    Without any lags, that plot is the Herbert 2010 tropical Atlantic sea surface temperature anomaly compared to the Milankovic 65 N solar forcing from the spread sheet in the post. The thermal capacity of the oceans is sufficiently large to smooth out the solar fluctuations and the internal oscillations where ice mass is not always deposited in the same region. I only did 450K years to show the more recent glacial cycles which are not created equally.

    Like I said, 65N insulation provides the best match to an unreliable indicator of past climate. If you use the oceans, you would have a more reliable picture of the changes in thermal capacity.

  207. mike g says:

    @ kadaka (KD Knoebel)

    Well, covering with foil would have been a reasonably affordable prospect. Covering it with mirrors pointing at earth might get a little cost-prohibitive. Remember, earth stays fixed in the moon’s sky. But, the sun goes around the moon’s sky once each sideral period.

  208. David Archibald says:

    dallas says:
    September 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Great stuff. Your graph has set me off on another line of inquiry. With thanks.

  209. george e. smith says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:18 pm
    So I used imprecise English, when I referred to: “””””…..So Dr Svalgaard, before I read your reference (which I will), it occurs to me, that Dr Archibald’s assertion (that 65N insolation drives interglacial onsets), is not at all inconsistent, with your suggestion that orbital changes are the key……”””””
    So forget I said anything. maybe next time I will write in Maori, since my pidgen English never got my original question answered.

    As I read it, Archibald and I say the same thing, because solar insolation at 65N [or any other latitude] is determined by orbital changes, so I fail to see a question here.

    Lightrain says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:38 pm
    temperatures start to fall, as they will for the next 50,000 years guess
    They will actually rise the next 35,000 years before falling to minimum at 60,000 years.

    Allan MacRae says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm
    I disagree John. The satellite record, which is the only reliable scientific record of current global temperature, shows no net warming for 10-15 years.
    Which is meaningless on the scale of 50,000 years.

    motherofdragons says:
    September 17, 2012 at 3:30 am
    We just have to know now when will the next glaciation will happen and how we can prepare for it.
    From now until 35,000 years there will be warming [on time scales of thousands of years]. From 35,000 until 60,000 we’ll slowly slide into the next [mild] glaciation, so no need to worry right now.

    sunsettommy says:
    September 17, 2012 at 6:34 am
    David talked about: “It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period.”
    Most of what David says does not make much sense.
    E.g.:
    Since we are BELOW that level NOW and the chart he posted shows that it stay below that level for next 50,000 years and that he labeled it as “The next glacial period” surely that is no red herring sir?
    Perhaps I should have said “just plain wrong”, as clearly we at the present are not in a ‘glacial period’

    dallas says:
    September 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm
    65N insulation provides the best match to an unreliable indicator of past climate.
    This is the general consensus, so no quibble with that.

  210. dallas says:

    David Archibald, You might want to read this, even though it is a work in progress.
    http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-best-place-to-start-is-at-beginning.html

    And this plot shows a little of the differing ranges of temperature fluctuation. Notice how stable the August Western Caribbean temperatures are relative to February.
    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/climate%20stuff/whatssolargottodowithit.png

    Since the Drake passage opened up enough, the Circumpolar current has been the main regulator of the deep ocean temperature. That is where most of that missing heat wandered off.

    It seems that -1.9C to 0C is a pretty tight control range for the oceans. Salt water freezing and fresh ice melting temperatures doncha know. Starting with a 45S to 65S SST reference, you can come pretty close to developing a reasonable theory of the not as warm ages.

  211. johnpetroff says:

    It’s fair to believe that NOAA or GISS are fudging numbers, but it’s not likely that they are. In one of the links one of you pointed out for me, Watts says this is the 7th warmest year by “raw maximum temperatures.” That’s believable. But “raw maximum temperatures” only tell part of the story. The formula NOAA uses for temperature determination, which I would believe would include low temps and mean temps, needs to remain consistent with past measurements. There are always adjustments with further data but that’s true with all science.

    The whole story can easily be and very likely is what NOAA says: “third warmest summer.” Also, keep in mind NOAA and GISS are non-profit. Watts and this blog are for profit. Who’s data is likely to be more whole, complete, and true?

    Let me quickly add I’m not pointing a finger. Both arguments may be true in their parameters. Whether this year is 7th warmest in “maximum temperatures,” “third warmest summer,” or one of the warmest years on record as I’ve heard somewhere else, all point to the same thing: INCREASING TEMPERATURES RATHER THAN STABILITY OR COOLING.

    All the measurements, even from Watts and that other “cooling” website say warming is occurring. The best thing they can argue is that it’s slowing. Is it? I don’t think so but I truly don’t know.

    Let me come to my point:
    1. Increasing greenhouse gases caused by man will either now or in the future mean warmer temperatures. There’s no math that changes that. How do we add greenhouse gasses to the planet and NOT HAVE TEMPERATURES GO UP? I hear the argument for the coming cyclical cooling, but there will be no glaciation. The US of A will not allow an invasion of ice from the north. Trust me on that.
    2. Record low Arctic Ice Extent means things are not “status quo.” All the lowest minimums in regards to Arctic ice extent are in the last several years. Even as recently as ten years ago, Arctic Ice Minimums were double what they are now. The ice has recovered in winter, but the recoveries are lower highs and with thinner ice. Ice volume in this year’s low has dwindled to 25% of what it was 30 years ago.

    The one interesting point in warming is that the highest elevations on Greenland and Antarctica are increasing mass. They rarely see temperatures above freezing and with the warmth the precipitation increases, so that’s nice. And larger Antarctic storms seem to move that floating ice around more covering a larger area, meaning a large Antarctic Ice Extent and greater reflectivity for the approaching Southern Hemisphere’s summer. Plus, that notorious Antarctic “ozone hole” actually allows heat to escape more easily, further lowering temperatures.

    For me the bottom line is respect for the planet vs. disrespect for the planet. Respect for the planet is doing as little harm as possible and allowing the natural cycles. Disrespect is ignoring or denying the harm we do and justifying our destruction of normal cycles. That pains me. I believe it also pains the planet.

  212. george e smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    September 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    george e. smith says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:18 pm
    So I used imprecise English, when I referred to: “””””…..So Dr Svalgaard, before I read your reference (which I will), it occurs to me, that Dr Archibald’s assertion (that 65N insolation drives interglacial onsets), is not at all inconsistent, with your suggestion that orbital changes are the key……”””””
    So forget I said anything. maybe next time I will write in Maori, since my pidgen English never got my original question answered.
    As I read it, Archibald and I say the same thing, because solar insolation at 65N [or any other latitude] is determined by orbital changes, so I fail to see a question here……”””””

    “”””””…..So then that begs the question: How much of this modelling exercise is based on, and calculated from real Physics (and maybe other science disciplines), rather than simply a brazen mathematical exercise on some data stream…….”””””

    Well I can see how this would NOT be considered a question; I did say my grasp of English isn’t that good. In any case it failed to elicit an answer.

  213. davidq says:

    Thanks for all the nuclear suggestions. I thought of it too, but not as bombs, but as electric power source to run a huge amount of digging and moving it.
    Nuclear explosion(s) would be spectacular but unfortunately not very good for excavating a canal of any size.

  214. bushbunny says:

    One can still have cold periods. In the 1940-1960s grapes were not grown in UK, they were not long after this. We didn’t have central heating in most houses, and froze by open fires and hot water bottles with Jack Frost patterns on the inside of the windows. I don’t think you have to worry in our life times or even our children’s and grand children’s. Humans will adapt, they will have grow frost intolerant fruits and veggies under cover. It’s those seas that are frozen over like the English channel and North sea, Bering straits, and Bass strait that joined Tasmania to mainland Australia, volcanic eruptions were worst in the ice ages than now. Creed of the third millenium by Colleen McColloch read it and although predictable, I turned my electric blanket on in Summer in Oz would you believe.

  215. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From johnpetroff on September 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm: (bold added)

    Also, keep in mind NOAA and GISS are non-profit. Watts and this blog are for profit. Who’s data is likely to be more whole, complete, and true?

    WUWT is NOT a for-profit site. Anthony Watts is NOT a paid blogger.

    For you to come here and make such slanderous accusations, well, those are FIGHTING WORDS.

    Either you are SEVERELY MISTAKEN, and should apologize for speaking such nonsense out of ignorance,

    Or you are a TROLL, possibly a PAID TROLL, deliberately spreading your poisonous lies.

    So which is it? Are you completely mistaken, or lower than pond scum, such a lowly depraved wretch that pond scum itself would rebel against the comparison?

    Come on, speak up! What are you?

    Also, NOAA and GISS are technically not non-profit, they are government bureaucratic organizations, who have a vested interest in justifying their existence, their staffing, and their paychecks, for which claiming they are needed to monitor the “climate change crisis” goes right into their justifications.

  216. Kev-in-Uk says:

    johnpetroff says:
    September 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    you are still ignoring the obvious though – in that in a naturally warming world, recovering from an ice age, or the LIA (if you prefer), you would expect temps to rise?
    If said temperature recovery is ongoing (of course with inherent other natural up/down variation) and you sample a ten year period in the start of that temp rise, follwed by a sample of a later 10 year period, what are you MOST LIKELY gonna see? Let’s see now, the later ten year sample are statistically more likely to be warmer than the earlier ten year sample. Agreed? (I hope so, or else this is a waste of my time (- fighting religious beliefs is not my bag!)
    Next, let us remember the actual temporal limits of the measured temperature record – what?, say 150 years of temp data (we will ignore the accuracy issues!) – and an interglacial is at least 10 to 15kya long, yes? So, we have what amounts to around 1% of REAL temperature data (of which probably only 1/3 is useful or accurate!) – then consider that land surface temps are only 1/3 of the earths atmospheric temps – and the data seems rather sparse in real terms! – and the ‘team’ want to say exactly where we are on the interglacial/glacial thermal rollercoaster and that temps ‘should’ be ‘stable’? I’m afraid anyone who believes that is somewhat deluded!
    The whole purpose of proxy temp reconstructions is to get a ‘feel’ for the past – but accuracy is not in any way guaranteed! Even using proxies – all as approved and rubber stamped by the IPCC, we are still not outside natural variations of an interglacial period.
    mountains are being made out of molehills and the proof simply isn’t there – just loads and loads of psuedo-science speculation (and of course, some pure bulldust too!).
    Clearly, as a warmist, you are convinced – but as a scientist, I am NOT!

  217. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm
    “From now until 35,000 years there will be warming [on time scales of thousands of years]. From 35,000 until 60,000 we’ll slowly slide into the next [mild] glaciation, so no need to worry right now.”

    An interglacial of 45kyrs total is a fairy tale, typically they are 10-20kyrs duration. Note between -400kyr and -390kyr ice volume increases while insolation is also increasing (Fig 1):
    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf So the two are not always lock-step.
    Due to the lack of proportionality of the changes of ice volume with insolation variation, it would seem that the c.100kyr “sawtooth” glaciation cycle is being impacted by insolation changes but not caused by them.

  218. Kev-in-Uk says:

    @johnpetroff
    one other thing – I’d entirely agree with your last paragraph sentiment – but you, like many others are conflating green issues all together under the banner of global warming to draw attention. This is wrong and futile, indeed, turning folk like myself away from any ‘green’ support because of the clear disrespect for real science. You simply cannot fool all the people all the time. I will never support greenpeace because they have a complete no-no on nuclear power which is an absolutely stupid policy (but I bet when they are all freezing their butts off burning all the forest growth to keep warm, they might have a rethink!). Taking an emotive issue and using it for false pretence is a definate mistake made by the vast majority of ‘green’ or indeed many political movements. I pay much much less attention to ‘green’ now, than I did 10 years ago – all because of the ‘global warming’ this and ‘global warming’ that bulldust. For my money, those that jumped on the bandwagon have demonstrated a clear lack of moral or scientific integrity and deserve NO support whatsoever! So in truth, I think AGW/CAGW has really hurt the genuine environmental movement…….

    .

  219. Allan MacRae says:

    Thanks Leif.

    This thread suggests humanity may be totally devastated due to global cooling in the next many millennia.

    I’m saying humanity may be significantly devastated due to global cooling in the next few decades.

    Congratulations, you get the prize for being on-topic.

    I am focusing on what matters most to humanity at this time.

  220. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 18, 2012 at 3:10 am
    An interglacial of 45kyrs total is a fairy tale, typically they are 10-20kyrs duration.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287
    “Today’s comparatively warm climate has been the exception more than the rule during the last 500,000 years or more. If recent warm periods (or interglacials) are a guide, then we may soon slip into another glacial period. But Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun.”

    Allan MacRae says:
    September 18, 2012 at 5:08 am
    I am focusing on what matters most to humanity at this time.
    Another alarmist [with opposite sign]. Climate will warm the next 35,000 years.

  221. richardscourtney says:

    johnpetroff:

    Having been shown to be wrong about “accelerated warming” and “slower warming” you come back at September 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm to post a ‘straw man’ argument by asking

    How do we add greenhouse gasses to the planet and NOT HAVE TEMPERATURES GO UP?

    The real question is how much would temperature rise as a result of increased CO2 in the air?

    Idso first reported empirical derivations of climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. He used 8 different methods and reported his results in 1998. His paper can be read at
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
    Idso’s “8 natural experiments” provide a “best estimate” of climate 0.37 deg.C for a doubling of CO2.

    Much more recently, Lindzen&Choi analysed ERBE data from the tropics. Their paper can be read at
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    Its conclusions include

    “For sensitivities less than 2 deg.C, the data readily distinguish different sensitivities, and ERBE data appear to demonstrate a climate sensitivity of about 0.5 deg.C which is easily distinguished from sensitivities given by models.”
    And
    “Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.”

    So, Lindzen& Choi find a climate sensitivity of about 0.4 deg.C which agrees with Idso’s finding of 0.37 deg. C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    In other words, the answer to the question “How much?” is
    The rise in global temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would be about 0.4 deg.C which is so small and insignificant that it would not be discernible.

    Furthermore, this is proven. The logarithmic effect of increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration on global temperature means the globe has been warmed ~80-% of its warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration from the preindustrial level of 280 ppmv of CO2. Over the last century the globe warmed by about 0.8 deg.C. This observed rise is within the range of previous warmings of the globe and the contribution to it from additional atmospheric CO2 is not detectable.

    A further doubling of atmospheric CO2 would only increase global temperature by another 0.4 deg.C.

    The reasons for the trivial effect of a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration are
    (a) the logarithmic effect of increasing the CO2 concentration on global temperature
    and
    (b) the net effect of feedbacks on temperature is negative.

    Something too small to be detected only has an abstract existence. It does not have a real existence which has effects (discernment of its effects would be its detection). .

    Richard

  222. beng says:

    ****
    Ulric Lyons says:
    September 18, 2012 at 3:10 am

    An interglacial of 45kyrs total is a fairy tale, typically they are 10-20kyrs duration.
    ****

    The interglacial at ~420kya lasted over 30k yrs. And the Milankovitch pattern now is similar to then. Leif S, me, or anyone can’t be sure how long this interglacial will last — they’re just giving (hopefully) informed opinions. Some here have suggested in this current cycle we may stay barely above the min 65N summer insolation needed to start glaciation for the next ~60 kyrs. The fact that we’re roughly at minimum summer insolation now & we’ve recovered from the LIA (that very well might have brushed the point of initiation of glacial conditions) is encouraging.

  223. dallas says:

    David and Leif,

    http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o252/captdallas2/150kyeareventsignatureinthetropicaloceans.png

    I cleaned that up a bit so now it should be a fairly good reconstruction of past tropical ocean sea surface temperature. Comparing climate to the Antarctic Ice cores is misleading at best. The CO2 temperature correlation in the ice cores is more likely related to Antarctic sea ice extent than global climate. The Milankovic Theory should have been a global climate theory not a theory of the ice ages, right church, wrong pew so to speak.

  224. Tom in South Jersey says:

    I think the issue isn’t when the next Ice Age will begin, as the point most people are missing is that despite all the hype about Anthropological Global Warming, we are indeed in an Ice Age right now. Humans have thrived because we have been blessed over the past 10,000 years to have retreating glaciers, though some still stubbornly cling to existence at the far reaches of our world. The real question is when will the ice resume it’s forward advance and start to wipe out all the apparent progress civilization has made over the years of warmer temperatures. There will come a time when we our descendants will laugh with sad irony that we feared a warming planet.

    Winter is coming!! But we have to wait until April. ;)

  225. agfosterjr says:

    Milankovitch cycles in themselves pose little threat to the current climate, but of course they had nothing to do with the LIttle Ice Age–that was the Maunder Minimum–which if repeated would freeze much of Eurasia and North America. Obviously it wasn’t severe enough to prevent recuperation with current insolation. A longer minimum might do it sometime, and there’s not much we could do to reverse it–not enough carbon in the ground. Anyway, the ice cores show no secular (or millennial) CO2/T forcing–burning carbon won’t help. Soot? That only helps when it stops snowing.

    George Smith: I guess I don’t understand your question–I don’t know what modeling you’re talking about. Newton’s gravitational modeling of the solar system was pretty good, I thought.
    –AGF

  226. Tom in Florida says:

    O H Dahlsveen says:
    September 16, 2012 at 10:16 am
    “…Come to think of it; why do sunrays still shine through orifices in stonewalls etc. (Stonehenge is one example – and there are many others) the same way as they did when they were first built in ancient times if the axial tilt of the Earth fluctuates back and forth between 22 and 24.5 degrees every 41000 years – and the globe also does a “Gyroscopic wobble” or a complete circle around it’s axis every 23000 years – which should mean that since it is, presently, mid-summer in the Northern Hemisphere in June when that hemisphere tilts towards the Sun – 11500 years (half a wobble) ago it would have been mid winter in June. – Any evidence for that in ice cores etc.?”

    I believe your are referring to “precession of the equinoxes”. The term summer and winter are fixed to the time of the year when the axis is tilting towards (summer) or away (winter) from the Sun. Northern hemisphere summer solstice always happens in June and NH winter solstice always happens in December (according to our current calendar). However, precession changes the place in the orbit that these solstices occur. Currently NH winter solstice is at perihelion, when Earth is closest to the Sun. 11,500 years ago NH summer solstice was at perihelion. As an aside, obliquity at that time was about maximum (24.5 degrees) so is it any wonder why the NH ice sheets started melting as Earth approached that condition?

  227. johnpetroff says:

    To kadaka:

    According to the blog, Watts Up is “…the world’s most viewed climate website.” I’m presuming Watts is the sole owner if the site. All that advertising you see, he gets paid for. My guess, and this is a pure guess, is he earns 7 figures. Isn’t that what “the most viewed climate website” would pull in?

    That is paid. Watts doesn’t publish his salary. Rush Limbaugh does. Rush earns $50 million per year being a paid propagandist. The truth is free by the way. “Spin” or “propaganda” needs to be paid for.

    For Anthony Watts, the more “no global warming” sentiment he stirs up, the more he gets paid in advertising. That’s the simple reality of our world. I’m not being critical. I’m just saying be knowledgeable and understand that.

    As for me, I am an unpaid observer. And I look at the data you posted, that data Anthony posts, the information the government agencies post and they don’t post theirs “for profit” or for “advertising dollars,” they simply post the numbers they see, and everybody’s numbers say the same thing: we are in a warm period that does fluctuate and is at present getting warmer.

    I hear the argument “it’s natural.” I hear the argument “man’s effects are zero to inconsequential.” I’m just asking “Are they?”

    And I’m asking you skeptics, do you ever listen to the other side? Are you observers or blind little sheep?

    I am rooting for cooling. I was ecstatic when the Bering Sea set a record Ice Extent this last spring. I was happy the Arctic as a whole approached what could be called “normal” or “average” Ice Extent last spring. I’m happy Antarctica is very near it’s record now and am hoping it manages a new one.

    BUT.. we’ve just set a record low summer Minimum Ice Extent in the Northern Hemisphere by blowing out the old record. And that’s by any organization’s standards of measurement.

    How come you skeptics don’t talk about that and say “If we’re cooling, why did we just set a record low Arctic Ice Extent?” “If we’re cooling or stable, why are temperatures still climbing?” “If temperatures are climbing, can we genuinely say they are static or cooling?”

    And I hear the argument “Cooling is just around the corner.” Is it? We’ll find out won’t we.

    I do agree with the post “it’s nice to be warm.” It is. It just MAY NOT

  228. johnpetroff says:

    To finish my thought.. It just may not be nice to deal with the consequences of warmth. Of which we don’t fully understand. And conversely if cooling begins, we’re not completely understanding of those consequences. But there’s time to explore that if it occurs.

    I’m such an unprofessional at this I sent my last message before I completed it. I didn’t hit Post Comment so I have no idea how I did it.

    I’m thankful for the forum and thankful for the debate. I am skeptical however that minds will be influenced, but it’s fun to try.

  229. D Boehm says:

    johnpetroff,

    Anthony has mentioned that he earns a few hundred dolars a month from ads. That’s not much money for all the work he puts in. Most of the revenue goes to WordPress, which selects and posts the ads.

    You write: “I’m asking you skeptics, do you ever listen to the other side? Are you observers or blind little sheep?” That is psychological projection. You sound as silly there as you do assuming that WUWT makes millions of dollars. Your connection with the real world is very tenuous.

    The real problem is that the alarmist crowd refuses to listen to scientific skeptics. Alarmist minds are already made up, and closed tight.

    For example: I have asked for years for someone to post verifiable, testable, measurable scientific evidence of AGW. But no one has ever posted any measurable evidence. The conclusion is that there is no such evidence for AGW [or for the even more preposterous CAGW].

    That does not mean AGW does not exist. But without evidence, AGW is only a conjecture. It is not a hypothesis, and it is certainly not a theory. It is an opinion based on radiative physics — which is not the same thing as AGW.

    The AGW conjecture is based primarily on rising CO2. But global warming has been stalled for fifteen years, so your claim that the planet is still warming is false. Temperatures are not “still climbing”. And your fright over Arctic ice is based on the misconception that what is being observed now has never happened before. But it has, and during times when CO2 was much lower.

    I suggest you re-think your entire comment. It is illogical, and your supposed ‘facts’ are plain wrong. All scientific skeptics are saying is: “Show me”. But the alarmist crowd has no evidence of AGW. Doesn’t that make you wonder if you’re swallowing the AGW claim hook, line and sinker?

    Demand evidence! Because without scientific evidence, all you’ve got is opinion. Belief. That is not convincing enough. We need empirical, testable, verifiable, measurement-based evidence confirming AGW. But there is none.

  230. DavidG says:

    Leif objected to my saying that neither he nor Axelrod ‘knows’ when the next ice age will be and I stand by that, neither of you do *know*, you are making educated guesses which don’t meet the bar of fact at this point.

  231. richardscourtney says:

    johnpetroff:

    You say your two posts at September 18, 2012 at 10:40 am and September 18, 2012 at 10:25 am should be considered together. You conclude the latter saying

    I’m thankful for the forum and thankful for the debate. I am skeptical however that minds will be influenced, but it’s fun to try.

    I don’t believe you!

    Your provided a sequence of posts which made a series of blatantly untrue assertions about warming. As each of your falsehoods was refuted you retreated back from “acceleration” to “slower warming” to “How much warming?” to nothing.

    Then you started attempting to defame our host, Anthony Watts.

    Importantly, your posts have presented nothing except lies and smears which do not pertain to the subject of this thread in any way.

    Clearly, you are a troll attempting to disrupt this thread by posting lies and defamations: you have done nothing else

    Discuss the subject of the thread or go away.

    Richard

  232. Jim G says:

    johnpetroff:

    “The truth is free by the way. “Spin” or “propaganda” needs to be paid for.”

    And where, pray tell, does one find this “free truth”? CBS, NBC, PBS, newspapers, Church (pick your religion), The Web, politicians, the government? What a ridiculous statement! That “truth” was plucked from your anal orifice. No information is free, other than possibly word of mouth, and as they say, you get what you pay for, or sometimes what someone else has payed for. Very little in this world does not have a cost attached in one way or another. That cost may be acting upon bad information.

  233. Jim G says:

    DavidG says:
    September 18, 2012 at 11:00 am
    “Leif objected to my saying that neither he nor Axelrod ‘knows’ when the next ice age will be and I stand by that, neither of you do *know*, you are making educated guesses which don’t meet the bar of fact at this point.”

    You are 100% correct. Leif is very knowledgeable in his field and mostly logical though tends to accept theory as fact and state probables as fact. In both cases they may be well substantiated by data, but are not fact. I have argued this with him on occasion. Such discussions with him can take on marathon proportions, though tend to be interesting. Sorry but I don’t know Axelrod.

    We, as skeptics, need to stay away from being overly accepting of theories as fact,or fall into the same box as the warmist crowd. I continue to believe that true scientists think out of the box even when consensus is against them.

  234. agfosterjr says:

    johnpetroff says:
    September 18, 2012 at 10:40 am
    I’m thankful for the forum and thankful for the debate. I am skeptical however that minds will be influenced, but it’s fun to try.
    =======================================================================
    Patience now, John is a child. He thinks he has taught us something. He confesses to ignorance, yet attempts to teach us, thinking we are even more ignorant than he.

    John, you have been taught by morons, the most intelligent of which is dumber than the dumbest posters on this thread. Do you think we don’t know Arctic ice is shrinking? WUWT has a site monitoriing it. You probably think polar bears are in trouble. All 50,000 of them. The bears of North America are the safest big predators on the planet, including Ursus maritimus. You wanna know a species that’s in trouble? The Siberian tiger is one, maybe a thousand of them left. Panda’s are in short supply too. Everywhere people go, the predators disappear. Polar bears don’t have much competition with humans.

    Humans now, their population continues to grow; not danger there. Especially not from Global Warming. Maybe you think rising sea level is a problem (since you obviously believe every scary fairy tale you’ve been told). How fast do you think it is rising? A foot a year? Three feet per year? An inch a year? How fast? How dangerous is it. Try and inch in ten years–that’s the truth. Do you think that’s dangerous? The quacks you trust in would have you believe it is, and that it’s growing and bound to grow more (which it isn’t).

    These Milankovitch cycles discussed here involve variation in insolation (at the top of the atmosphere) of 100W/m^2. Do you have any idea how much energy is attributed to GHG’s? About 1.6W/m. Do you know what an order of magnitude is? Do you understand that taking clouds into account, M cycles cause radiation variability of an order and a half of magnitude more than GHG’s? That is to say, it takes about 30 times as much energy to melt the ice as is attributed to green house warming. And you want us to share in your scary Global Warming superstition!

    If you want to learn a little about climate history as learned from ice cores, go here:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

    You’ll see that we are currently in the longest interstadial of the last 400,000 years, and we could very well be in for a new ice age.

    Now you seem to think that warming is bad, and cooling is good. Would you tell us why you think so? Have you ever heard of the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period? Which do you think brought us the most plagues? Or famine? Or drought? What makes you think that current Arctic melting is something new? How do you think medieval explorers mapped out the Arctic coast of Siberia? How long do you think satellites have been monitoring the ice? How do you think polar bears survived the MWP? How well do you think they fared during the LIA? Through what thickness of ice do you think a seal can maintain a breathing hole? Do you think polar bears can live on thick ice?

    So I hope you get an inkling of an idea how you have been duped by the worst excuse for science that the modern world has seen. It makes the American Association of Petroleum Geologists look enlightened by comparison, even when they officially pooh-poohed Continental Drift for decades. You have suckered for the most outrageous propaganda that was ever spouted in the name of science. You need to forget everything you have learned and start over again. You need to learn how to think critically. That’s why we are gathered here at WUWT. –AGF

  235. johnpetroff says:

    D Boehm.. does Anthony Watts have a separate full time job that also allows him to blog full-time here? Because i need a job like that. If no, then he makes a lot more than a couple of hundred dollars a month. You’re saying he’s earning a minimal income, I’m guessing he’s making a very good income. That’s a very good guess. One way or another he’s earning a living from skepticism.

    Everyone doing studies on global temperatures are saying temperatures are rising… including the “skeptic” websites, and you say “no one has posted measurable evidence?” I posted a whole page full of graphs and websites, both main stream science and skeptics. Were you unable to click on any of them? Any of them will have mountains of data.

    Speaking of open minds.. I did come here. I looked at data representing “cooling” and “stability”. The data still showed increasing temperatures but were misread by “skeptics.” I pointed that out for several of you. And even after my pointing it out you’re still misreading it and arguing about it. How should that be perceived by an impartial observer? As intelligent or sane?

    Speaking of open mindedness, are your minds so open that you can’t review ANY scientific evidence for warming? Is that how open my mind should be in regards to skeptics?

    Then you resort to hate speech and insults. Do you honestly have no comprehension of why the scientific community doesn’t take you seriously?

  236. Allan MacRae says:

    Leif, I really hope you are correct. especially about warming in the next few decades.

    Let’s discuss in another few years, by 2020 at the latest.

  237. D Boehm says:

    johnpetoff,

    What “hate speech and insults”? You called us “blind little sheep”, remember? If you can’t take the heat…

    And may I remind you that you wrote: “I’m presuming Watts is the sole owner if the site. All that advertising you see, he gets paid for. My guess, and this is a pure guess, is he earns 7 figures.”

    See, you specifically referred to advertising, not to a paying job. Anthony can speak for himself, but if you had read the most recent PBS articles you would have found out that Anthony runs a successful technology company. Anyway, it is really none of your business, is it? I suppose your green-eyed envy is intended to distract from the plain fact that you have no credible AGW arguments.

    Next, all honest scientists are scientific skeptics. That leaves out the alarmist scientists, no? They are in it for the money, for the travel, for the status, for the perks, for the notoriety, and for other motivations that have nothing to do with scientific truth.

    You referred to some graphs and websites, after I explained to you that those are not scientific evidence. Evidence consists of testable, falsifiable data and empirical scientific observations. You only cut and pasted opinions.

    When/if you can directly connect global temperature with human CO2 emissions, we will all sit up straight and pay attention. But so far, no one has been able to do that. That’s why the debate over the climate sensitivity number is never settled. There is no measurable evidence showing that X amount of CO2 causes Y temperature rise. There are no such measurements. There are only measurements showing that changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature. You have cause and effect reversed, so you reach the wrong conclusions.

    There may be AGW. But the evidence is lacking. And the fact that global warming stalls for decades at a time, while CO2 rises steadily, puts the onus on the alarmist cult to show that CO2=AGW. Just showing an intermittent correlation is not enough. Because when the scientific method is employed, AGW becomes nothing more than an evidence-free conjecture.

  238. richardscourtney says:

    Friends:

    Please stop feeding the troll.

    Richard

  239. agfosterjr says:

    richardscourtney says:
    September 18, 2012 at 2:53 pm
    Friends:

    Please stop feeding the troll.

    Richard
    ========================================================================
    That’s what the others said the last time I posted on a believers’ website. –AGF

  240. DavidG says:
    September 18, 2012 at 11:00 am
    he nor Axelrod [sic] ‘knows’ when the next ice age will be and I stand by that, neither of you do *know*, you are making educated guesses which don’t meet the bar of fact at this point.
    The ‘educated guesses’ have correctly matched every glaciation the past 750,000 years. This is a high bar to meet and is good enough for me. The ‘know’-word is too big. We don’t ‘know’ if we are going to be hit by an asteroid tomorrow that will destroy civilization or at least the big city it hits, but it is a good ‘educated guess’ that we will not.

  241. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 18, 2012 at 5:30 am
    “But Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.”

    But then again as it has been declining since the Holocene maximum for several thousand years, past patterns suggest it should continue falling, and the decline *may* accelerate as soon as within the next 2,000yrs.

  242. johnpetroff says:

    Upon reflection, I do agree it’s unfair to speculate what Watts earns. So I do agree with D on one thing. I was speculating and projecting my view of propagandists onto Watts. He may or may not be profiteering from this website or your community. I honestly have no idea.

    As followers or believers, I do think you should be wary and understand his motives may not be entirely for the good of your community. There MAY be a profit motive. That’s for each reader to determine how they feel about that.

    As far as science and AGW, here’s an old chart (2004) showing methane and CO2 from a Vostok ice core sample.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xMethane.htm

    And D, if you say CO2 trails temperatures, then I’m presuming you agree there’s a link. I believe Methane may be a greater greenhouse gas than CO2. The above chart shows historical values. The present day values for both gasses is off the chart. That means both gasses are at unprecedented levels in the last 400,000 years. The only large planetary difference in the last 400,000 years is man.

    If CO2 and CH4 lead temperatures, we have more warming coming. If temperatures lead CO2 and CH4 production, we have more CO2 and CH4 coming. Your scenario may be the worst lose/lose scenario as far as warming as it creates a self sustaining feedback loop.

    I’m not an expert, but for me this shows AGW. I’ll look for more examples as time and desire allow.
    — The Troll

  243. D Boehm says:

    johnpetroff,

    First, the Hansen graph you linked to says, “There is good reason to expect a temperature rise must follow promptly.”

    “Promptly”? That was in 2004, so there is yet another Hansen prediction that is flat wrong. At what point do you admit that Hansen has not got anything right, and should therefore be ignored?

    Next, enough with the psychological projection. Skeptics have nothing to prove, therefore we are not “believers”. That term only applies to those pushing the evidence-free CAGW conjecture.

    Next, you can see very clearly here that ΔCO2 always follows ΔT. That, my friend, is solid scientific evidence. But there is no such evidence showing that changes in CO2 cause temperature changes. You have cause and effect backward, which leads you to believe that CO2 is the cause of rising temperatures. But where is your evidence? In fact, there is none. It is just a conjecture.

    Finally, your Hansen chart has a problem with the x-axis. The scale changes radically at zero. And despite the increase in (harmless, beneficial) CO2, his predicted skyrocketing of temperatures never happened. An honest scientist would look at that discrepancy and admit there is a major problem with his conjecture. But James “Coal Trains of Death” Hansen has never let facts get in the way of his climate alarmism.

  244. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 18, 2012 at 6:26 pm
    But then again as it has been declining since the Holocene maximum for several thousand years, past patterns suggest it should continue falling,
    We are not just matching and extrapolating past patterns. We can calculate precisely what the solar insolation will be at any time past or future [for several millions of years at least], so no mere ‘suggestions’ carry any weight. You can argue against good data that the solar insolation has little to do with climate, but that is not a tenable position [on the other hand, lots of people hold untenable positions, so you will be in good company]

  245. george e smith says:

    “””””…..agfosterjr says:

    September 18, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Milankovitch cycles in themselves pose little threat to the current climate, but of course they had nothing to do with the LIttle Ice Age–that was the Maunder Minimum–which if repeated would freeze much of Eurasia and North America. Obviously it wasn’t severe enough to prevent recuperation with current insolation. A longer minimum might do it sometime, and there’s not much we could do to reverse it–not enough carbon in the ground. Anyway, the ice cores show no secular (or millennial) CO2/T forcing–burning carbon won’t help. Soot? That only helps when it stops snowing.

    George Smith: I guess I don’t understand your question–I don’t know what modeling you’re talking about. Newton’s gravitational modeling of the solar system was pretty good, I thought.
    –AGF…..””””

    What on earth could possibly be difficult to understand about my question; ESL readers are granted a special dispensation.

    David presented some data, and some history, including mentioning Milankovitch, and also some data including 18O data, and then plotted two data sets, and one model prediction on the same graph.
    OK, so far so good, no problem.

    So I commented that I thought the fit of the model to the data was remarkably good… That is simply A PERSONAL OPINION. Sometimes we like models to agree with experimental data to within part in 10^8. Clearly not in climate “science”.

    So given what I felt was a very nice fit, and as an aside I mentioned that it is always possible to construct a model function to agree with any finite length continuous data stream. Purely mathematical prestidigitation; I then asked a very simple question: CAUTION: QUESTION AHEAD !!

    “””””…..So then that begs the question: How much of this modelling exercise is based on, and calculated from real Physics (and maybe other science disciplines), rather than simply a brazen mathematical exercise on some data stream……”””””

    CAUTION: QUESTION BEHIND !!

    No I challenged nothing in David’s story; challenged nothing in Dr Svalgaard’s response to me either, simply wanted to learn how much of the model that matched the data was based on fundamental Physics.

    OK, I get that Milankovitch descriptions of solar system orbital changes, effect earth climate as Leif expanded on… No I don’t have to understand the fine points; I get the concept so it satisfies me to know that folks like Dr Svalgaard, can do the actual calculations, when somebody needs to know the fine details; I just accept that he knows how to do that; just as I know how to do what I do, that people pay me for.

    It was the significance of the +65 deg insolation that puzzled me. Nearness to the arctic circle?? Zone of lots of land mass that can retain snow ?? Lack of South Pacific Islands ?? Whatever ?? Why +65 Insolation ??

    Yeah I get that earth orbital changes over eons will change the +65 insolation. So would a sudden doubling of the sun’s output; for a reason, that not even Dr Svalgaard understands (why the sun doubled, not why that would affect +65 insolation)

    Yes I can follow Leif when he describes what orbital change such as ellipse eccentricity, and axis tilt will do in the future as to affecting earth climate.

    It is way cool to have somebody like Leif trot out those simple geometry things and explain why that is going to change things and for fairly well predictable lengths of geologic time.

    You know we can answer virtually ANY question anyone wants to know, about the cause of physical things that happen that we can observe. Furthermore, we can answer ALL such questions with precisely the same simple answer.

    Ice ages, and other climate changes are ALL caused by The Big Bang !!

    Now Milankovitch cycles and the effect of Jupiter are a bit more informative, than is the big bang answer; but frankly, neither of those answers explains very well, why +65 deg Insolation matters to ice age onset.

  246. george e smith says:
    September 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm
    neither of those answers explains very well, why +65 deg Insolation matters to ice age onset.
    There are two answers to that:
    1) There is a lot of land mass at that latitude for the ice to collect on.
    2) This is where the calculated insolation matches best the inferred temperature

  247. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From D Boehm on September 18, 2012 at 10:55 am:

    Anthony has mentioned that he earns a few hundred dolars a month from ads. That’s not much money for all the work he puts in. Most of the revenue goes to WordPress, which selects and posts the ads.

    I must have missed hearing about that.

    It has to date from less than a year ago. In October 2011 Federated Media partnered with WordPress.com which laid the groundwork. From that came WordAds. For advertising on WordPress.com, with a free account like WUWT has the only choice for ad revenue is WordAds.

    Going by the WordAds FAQ, it sure wouldn’t be much even for the most trafficked blogs. Nowhere near seven figures, not even if two of those figures are to the right of the decimal point. Figuring in the time involved in writing and moderating and generally running the site that could be used for other work, a part time job at McDonalds is more profitable.

    Don’t forget those are extra ads, WordPress will run ads to pay for WordPress whose revenue only goes to WordPress.

    So after many years of toiling away in the wilderness for free, Anthony finally gets some small financial recognition. Very small, but at least it’s there. Good for him!

    From johnpetroff on September 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm:

    As followers or believers, I do think you should be wary and understand his motives may not be entirely for the good of your community. There MAY be a profit motive. That’s for each reader to determine how they feel about that.

    For many years Anthony has been contributing his time and effort without expectation of compensation, with the notable “reward” of massive heaps of personal insults and disparagement heaped on his head, with damage done to his business which is his real job. He has demonstrated himself to be a man of integrity and honesty. Also, WUWT is known for allowing dissenting opinions, even dissenting guest posts, which is overwhelmingly not found on “opposition” sites.

    Anthony Watts has earned our trust.

  248. John says:

    Looks like the Landscheidt Grand Minimum will dominate earth’s climate for the balance of this century. Time will tell.

  249. Bec Abbott says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    September 18, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    Regardless of whether a blog or speeches provide an income, there is no denying that putting oneself out there opens up possibilities. For example, David Archibald, the author of this (hijacked) article, is able to promote his oil company, Yeeda Oil, with Ian Pilmer.

  250. nevket240 says:

    johnpetroff says:
    September 18, 2012 at 6:36 pm
    If CO2 and CH4 lead temperatures, we have more warming coming.
    This Sir, is pure rubbish. Try mixing gasses in a lab experiment and then tell the participants they will have to wait several years for a reaction. The solar energy will not wait. Psuedo religious whackery.
    regards

  251. johnpetroff says:

    D Boehm

    Here are two graphs that are easier to understand. I understand that the Wood for Trees graph is graphing temperature and Mauna Loa CO2, I just don’t understand how it’s graphing it. Since I don’t understand it, I can’t comment on it. Plus, CO2 is clearly increasing steadily. If the Wood for Trees graph is showing it, I don’t see how it is.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    http://www.google.com/imgres?q=noaa+temperature+graph&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1269&bih=586&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=QqyHMwWbBM_FyM:&imgrefurl=http://blogs.redding.com/dcraig/archives/2012/02/another-image-o.html&docid=JircdmFitV4vYM&imgurl=http://blogs.redding.com/redding/dcraig/NOAA%252520Temperature%252520Chart.jpg&w=545&h=411&ei=5XxZUIPbCcmsiQL-5YHICA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=416&vpy=275&dur=1739&hovh=195&hovw=259&tx=153&ty=99&sig=118360824756347716006&page=1&tbnh=120&tbnw=170&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:0,i:100

    I’m not convinced CO2 always follows temperature. Temperature and CO2 are intertwined but temperature seems much more volatile than CO2 levels. Plus, I question why the Wood for Trees graph is so confusing. It makes me suspect they’re hiding something… like the fact that CO2 is increasing steadily? Or that global temperatures are currently rising?

  252. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 18, 2012 at 7:26 pm
    “We are not just matching and extrapolating past patterns. We can calculate precisely what the solar insolation will be at any time past or future [for several millions of years at least], so no mere ‘suggestions’ carry any weight. You can argue against good data that the solar insolation has little to do with climate, but that is not a tenable position [on the other hand, lots of people hold untenable positions, so you will be in good company]”

    As is clear in Fig1 of the Roe paper, changes in insolation do have an impact, but the response is highly variable. It can be seen to be directly proportional or even amplified at de-glaciation times, while there are many examples of an increase in insolation having little or no effect whatsoever on the slide into glaciation, including the one I mentioned earlier (-400kyr to -390kyr). So there is no guarantee at all that the minor increases in insolation calculated for the next 30kyr:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png
    will be able to reverse the cooling trend of the last 8kyr.

  253. richardscourtney says:

    agfosterjr:

    At September 18, 2012 at 2:53 pm I made a post that says in total

    Please stop feeding the troll.

    At September 18, 2012 at 3:41 pm you have replied saying in total

    That’s what the others said the last time I posted on a believers’ website. –AGF

    Whatever you were called in another place at another time has no relevance to the present situation here.

    Subsequent to my call for people to “stop feeding the troll”, johnpetroff has signed as “The Troll” so it is clear that johnpetroff knows to whom I was referring.

    And The Troll is a troll attempting to disrupt the thread.
    Nothing posted by The Troll relates to the subject of the thread. The Troll made a series of posts disputing the cessation of global warming and I refuted each of those posts in turn in my replies at
    September 17, 2012 at 6:52 am
    September 17, 2012 at 12:41 pm
    September 18, 2012 at 5:30 am
    The Troll then abandoned that and started smearing our host, Anthony Watts. Several people have refuted those smears so The Troll has resorted to innuendoes about our host and – at September 19, 2012 at 3:12 am – again reverts to suggesting

    global temperatures are currently rising

    .

    Do you suggest a reprise of the refutations of that suggestion? It is clearly the disruption wanted by The Troll.

    Please stop feeding the troll.

    Richard

  254. richardscourtney says:

    Bec Abbott:

    re your post at September 19, 2012 at 1:55 am.

    “Possibilities” are conjectures which in the case of your post amount to smears.

    Address the subject of the thread or clear off.

    Richard

  255. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 19, 2012 at 4:04 am
    So there is no guarantee at all that the minor increases in insolation calculated for the next 30kyr: http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png will be able to reverse the cooling trend of the last 8kyr.
    The ‘cooling trend’ is not something that happens independent of the insolation. It is caused by the decrease of insolation, and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow.

  256. beng says:

    ****
    Bec Abbott says:
    September 19, 2012 at 1:55 am

    Regardless of whether a blog or speeches provide an income, there is no denying that putting oneself out there opens up possibilities. For example, David Archibald, the author of this (hijacked) article, is able to promote his oil company, Yeeda Oil, with Ian Pilmer.
    ****

    LOL! As long as it’s private money & not our public taxpayer money, who gives a flying crap? Unless you’re a stockholder in said companies, the public is concerned about public money, not private.

    Do warmunists even know the difference?

  257. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 19, 2012 at 5:20 am
    “The ‘cooling trend’ is not something that happens independent of the insolation. It is caused by the decrease of insolation,”

    Agreed.

    “and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow.”

    That is certainly true for the larger positive peaks in insolation, but not so for some of the smaller rises, and the insolation rise for the next 15-20kyr is particularly tiny:
    http://www.leif.org/research/Solar-Insulation-Cycles.png

  258. johnpetroff says:

    D Boehm and others:

    I went to the Raw Data of the WoodforTrees graph you linked me to. The data points are untagged – there’s no explanation of where they come from. HOWEVER.. they do have the websites they pull the information from. You can copy them and place them in your website… As can any skeptics or anyone else seriously studying global warming. They are more interesting than the WoodforTrees graphs. Again, these are the raw graphs YOU SENT ME, NOT I SENT YOU…

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

    The raw data sources clearly show CO2 rising and temperatures rising. The WoodforTrees graph, using no explanation of it’s data points, takes these two sources and plots temperature following CO2. Where’s the scientific value of that? THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC value in that. There is “spin” value. There is “deception” value. There is the “blind leading the blind” value.

    My point is twofold:

    1. Skeptics’ information and graphs show global warming. Main stream science shows global warming. Everybody’s information shows global warming.

    2. My reason for coming to this thread is an interest in the next glaciation. I believe it would occur were it not for the effects of man. However, I see no way to extrapolate the next glaciation WITH the effects of man. It is ALL conjecture.

    That’s as clear and concise as I can be. Consider me being the State of Hawaii showing Obama’s birth certificate to the world and to the “Birthers.” They did nothing with the truth – they denied it. Now what will you do with it?

    The Troll

  259. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 18, 2012 at 6:00 pm
    DavidG says:
    September 18, 2012 at 11:00 am
    he nor Axelrod [sic] ‘knows’ when the next ice age will be and I stand by that, neither of you do *know*, you are making educated guesses which don’t meet the bar of fact at this point.

    ” We don’t ‘know’ if we are going to be hit by an asteroid tomorrow that will destroy civilization or at least the big city it hits, but it is a good ‘educated guess’ that we will not.”

    To the contrary, past data indicates we will be hit again and that we are over due for a big one. Granted that the time frames attached to “when” are not as good as those for the Milankovich cycles. But it is just as certain an astronomical “tomorrow” event as those cycles, possibly more.

  260. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans which smooths out noise and the problems with the land data ( UHI, station quality etc) the best metric for global temperature trends are the SST data.
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat.
    and check also noaa monthly data and the Hadley SST 2gl data.
    The noaa data with 2012 averaged through Aug show about .032 cooling since 1997. 15 years with CO2 up 8.5% with no net warming. Warming peaked in 2003 with a decline of about .06 since then.
    The Hadley data are very similar with temperatures in a declining trend since 2003.
    Check my earlier post on this thread for references to the complexity of the phase relationships between the various orbital cycles and solar activity changes.
    Looking at the PDO phase and the Livingston and Penn solar data we can project 20 -30 years of cooling with fair confidence. Even the IPCC more or less acknowledge this in their SREX report of last year where they say that natural variation might mask the CO2 signal for that period.
    Beyond that ,we dont know enough to make actionable predictions.

  261. richardscourtney says:

    The Troll:

    At September 19, 2012 at 8:54 am you say

    1. Skeptics’ information and graphs show global warming. Main stream science shows global warming. Everybody’s information shows global warming.

    That is a lie. As several replies to you in this thread have shown with links, all the data sets show no warming for the last 10 to 15 years depending on which data set is considered.

    And you say

    2. My reason for coming to this thread is an interest in the next glaciation. I believe it would occur were it not for the effects of man. However, I see no way to extrapolate the next glaciation WITH the effects of man. It is ALL conjecture.

    That is another lie. The “effects of man” are trivial and completely irrelevant in the context of opposing natural climate changes for the reasons I explained to you at September 18, 2012 at 5:30 am.

    Stop repeating refuted lies and address the subject or clear off.

    Richard

  262. Ulric Lyons says:

    beng says:
    September 18, 2012 at 6:16 am
    “The interglacial at ~420kya lasted over 30k yrs. And the Milankovitch pattern now is similar to then.”

    No it’s not, there were two peaks in insolation, at c.-425kyr and 410kyr, that it why it lasted longer:
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S0pLtx15sGI/AAAAAAAAAls/mKqQK1yOFQw/s1600-h/insolation+1+m.jpg
    And as I have been trying to explain to Leif, the next rise in insolation from -400kyr to -390kyr did not see temperatures also rise, it looks like it just slightly reduced the rate of decline. It is not until the next much larger rise in insolation at around -370kyr that there is a rise in temperature.

  263. D Boehm says:

    johnpetroff,

    Everyone uses Wood For Trees. Both sides of the debate accept WFT data and graphs as scientific evidence. If you do not accept WFT, that is because you do not like what the data is telling you. WFT has a good tutorial. You should read it.

    Next, the NOAA chart you linked to is fraudulent, in that it uses a zero baseline chart for temperature trends. They know that a zero baseline chart fabricates artificial acceleration in the warming trend. But there is no such temperature acceleration in the real world.

    Regarding your two points:

    1. Skeptics do not argue that there is no global warming. The alarmist crowd always tries to frame the debate that way, but they are simply being devious. Skeptics know that the planet has been warming — naturally — for close to four centuries, since the Little Ice Age. But there is no evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it.

    2. Your belief in the effects of man on glaciation is just that: a belief. There is no evidence to support that belief. The great stadials in the geologic past happened without any human cause, and the next one will be the same. Learn about the null hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Everything being observed now has happened repeatedly in the past. There is no scientific evidence that human emissions are the cause. None. And without evidence, all you are left with is belief. That is witch doctor territory.

  264. lgl says:

    Strange that Leif (and everyone else) seems to have missed the main point of the paper he linked to. “the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself.”
    The next ice age is thousands of years overdue
    http://virakkraft.com/Milankovitch.png

  265. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 19, 2012 at 8:40 am
    “and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow.”
    That is certainly true for the larger positive peaks in insolation, but not so for some of the smaller rises

    Based on what do you say that? I’ll say that it simply follows insolation no matter what as the paper shows.

    Jim G says:
    September 19, 2012 at 9:19 am
    To the contrary, past data indicates we will be hit again and that we are over due for a big one.
    The issue was whether we would be hit TOMORROW and an educated guess says not.

    lgl says:
    September 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm
    The next ice age is thousands of years overdue
    Not at all. The next glaciation [not ice age] is not expected for 60,000 years as the paper shows. Because the earth’s orbit will be nearly circular the next 100,000 years.

  266. george e. smith says:

    “””””…..Leif Svalgaard says:

    September 18, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    george e smith says:
    September 18, 2012 at 8:06 pm
    neither of those answers explains very well, why +65 deg Insolation matters to ice age onset.
    There are two answers to that:…..”””””

    Thank you Dr Svalgaard; That even makes sense to me; that lots of land for ice to fall on and survive the summer melts, would be an advantage (for making ice ages) And presumably fairly copious evaporation from more tropical areas, a la monsson conditions, would keep supplying the snow build up.

    As to the Physics behind the excellent model fit, I’ll just assume it’s not that important.
    1) There is a lot of land mass at that latitude for the ice to collect on.
    2) This is where the calculated insolation matches best the inferred temperature

  267. johnpetroff says:

    D Boehm,

    Thank you for admitting warming is occurring. Was that so hard?

    I’m OK with the NOAA graphs. I’m not understanding why you’re saying they’re fraudulent. It seems to me if you understand what it’s graphing you can factor in or out appropriate proportions.

    My problem with the WFT graph is two fold:
    1. The scale is different for one of the lines and both lines may not be measuring to 1958, only one side claims to be; hence, data could be measuring entirely different time periods, nullifying the graph.
    2. The graph specifically states below zero measurements for CO2 at Mauna Loa periodically from the beginning. There have been no decreases in CO2 at Mauna Loa since the beginning year of the NOAA data set. All years since 1959 have shown annual increases in CO2.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

    To me that is deceptive. Further, the graph doesn’t show temperature increases, which again I find deceptive at best. Skeptics will say “See! Temperatures haven’t gone up in 40 years!” To me that is much further from the truth than perceived exaggeration by NOAA and does nothing to educate.

    I’m actually OK with your premise: temperatures always lead CO2. I may not agree with it but I’m OK with it.

    Rising CO2 = Rising Temps
    Rising Temps = Rising CO2

    The equation is a mirror image. IF you’re correct and rising temps = rising CO2, that can also explain both temperature increases and CO2 increases, though temperatures haven’t gone straight up in the last 50 years like CO2 has.

    Plus, in your analysis, one must look at the effect: rising CO2, and extrapolate the cause: rising temps. One doesn’t even need a temperature graph to prove warming.

    I will respect the glaciation thread and move on to other posts. I do agree we’ve moved away from glaciation.

  268. agfosterjr says:

    G Smith: You may have missed Nigel Calder’s post (Calderup) and his references. He has long since preferred to emphasize 50N latitude. The northern ice melts from south to north, but does not necessarily freeze in that order. –AGF

  269. agfosterjr says:

    Troll: I hope you have sorted out by now the fact that CO2 lags T is not skeptic propaganda but is accepted by all. Strangely not all accept that M cycles drive T, so irrationally predisposed are they to blame CO2. See, T correlates with both M cycles and CO2, but we know that neither T nor CO2 can control the earth’s orbit. Therefore: M cycles control T and CO2 in tandem, and of course the only link between M cycles and CO2 is T. It’s that simple. With or without the lag, we know that T forces CO2. –AGF

  270. agfosterjr says:

    I might add that many insist that CO2 amplifies the effect of M cycles on T, but this predicted amplification is necessarily miniscule–about 2%, and cannot be detected in the record on a secular scale (where CO2 and T don’t fluctuate in tandem). Again, M cycle variability is between one and two orders of magnitude greater than GHG energy. –AGF

  271. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm
    “I’ll say that it simply follows insolation no matter what as the paper shows.”

    If it simply followed insolation, the ice volume series would look like this:
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S0pLtx15sGI/AAAAAAAAAls/mKqQK1yOFQw/s1600-h/insolation+1+m.jpg
    instead of the familiar sawtooth signal we see in glaciation cycles. Something else is varying the response to insolation on a ~100kyr cycle. Look at the peak in insolation around -470kyr, that had a minor impact on reducing ice volume, but the smaller peak at -425kyr triggered a major melt. And then a similar rise in insolation from -400kyr does absolutely nothing to the then increasing ice volume. Fig1 http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf

  272. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 20, 2012 at 3:04 am
    And then a similar rise in insolation from -400kyr does absolutely nothing to the then increasing ice volume.
    Read the paper. Figure 3 is what you should look at.

  273. beng says:

    ****
    lgl says:
    September 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Strange that Leif (and everyone else) seems to have missed the main point of the paper he linked to. “the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself.”
    The next ice age is thousands of years overdue
    http://virakkraft.com/Milankovitch.png

    ****

    Can you explain more? I think most of the repliers here are aware of that (the Roe paper deals with this very fact). We get that the ice-volume itself is not well correlated & can vary greatly for a given 65N summer insolation.

  274. beng says:
    September 20, 2012 at 6:57 am
    We get that the ice-volume itself is not well correlated
    Yes, the ice volume includes all the accumulated old ice from previous forcings, so their Figure 3 is what one should look at to see the forcing

  275. agfosterjr says:

    Way back somebody said 18O reflects Antarctic T rather than global. If this were the case we would see a continual decline for the last half million years, since the average surface elevation has gradually risen to two miles. What T largely approximates is global albedo = ice sheet extent, which lags insolation considerably. –AGF

  276. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 20, 2012 at 6:00 am
    ” Figure 3 is what you should look at.”

    Fig3 is just a wiggle matching exercise that avoids addressing the points I have made about Fig1.

  277. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    I’ve just ordered warm woolen socks.

  278. Ulric Lyons says:
    September 20, 2012 at 8:21 am
    avoids addressing the points I have made about Fig1.
    Well, suit yourself.

  279. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:

    “The issue was whether we would be hit TOMORROW and an educated guess says not.”

    The issue about tomorrow is well defined by the sign in the bar that says “Free Beer Tomorrow”. It says that every day, but since every day is today, not tomorrow, there is no free beer. And I did note that the “when” on a strike was less well defined than the Milankovich “when”, but in that sense, could be a sooner tomorrow than the orbital causes would indicate that their tomorrow will arrive.

    Did you get that?

  280. Jim G says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm
    Did you get that?
    too deep for little me.

  281. sunsettommy says:

    I wrote,

    “Since we are BELOW that level NOW and the chart he posted shows that it stay below that level for next 50,000 years and that he labeled it as “The next glacial period” surely that is no red herring sir?”

    Dr. Svalgaard writes:
    “Perhaps I should have said “just plain wrong”, as clearly we at the present are not in a ‘glacial period’”

    Sigh,

    I never said we are in a glacial period.The whole argument I have been advancing is that the chart in figure 1 shows the indication that it will ALWAYS be below the 510 level for the next 50,000 years.That means that it favors cooling and ice advancement.

    I have given YOU links to John Kehr’s charts showing some evidence that we are indeed sliding towards the next glacial period.Glaciers that did not exist 3,000 years ago are now here and growing.The each successive warm periods peak is below the previous one all an indication of a cooling trend.

    David A. states which you have not once disputed:

    “Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset. For the last 8,000 years, the Earth has been cooling at 0.25°C per thousand years, so the oceans are losing heat.”

    There have been science papers showing evidence of a cooling ocean for a long time as this CHART shows for the Atlantic:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_10_Illustration_93-550×382.png

    Comparisons of past few interglacials in the climate autumn phase of the cycle:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_9_Illustration_81-550×464.png

    The decline’s are quite similar.

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-10/

  282. lgl says:

    Beng

    Not sure what more to explain. Things like “and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow” is demonstrates the lack of understanding “the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself Temperature will follow thousands of years after the insolation goes up again, because something correlating with ice volume, guessing albedo, is driving temperature. It’s not temperature driving ice volume. So forget about 65N insolation, temperature is not supposed to correlate with that. Focus on the integral and you will see the next ice age is thousands of years over due. The integral has been dropping for millennia and the planet has “never survived” a drop like that before. The onset is NOW (if we have not managed to offset it a few hundred years by GHG).

  283. Jim G says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 20, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    Jim G says:
    September 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm
    Did you get that?
    “too deep for little me.”

    But was there a little smile from little you?

  284. sunsettommy says:
    September 21, 2012 at 6:44 am
    David A. states which you have not once disputed:
    “Insolation is already low enough to trigger glacial onset.

    I could spend all my time disputing Archibald’s dubious claims, but, frankly, I don’t have the time for that. The fact is that the insolation the next 35,000 years is going up, so I do not believe any ‘glacial onset’ will be ‘triggered’. And ‘lgl’ we are not ‘overdue’ for a new glaciation.

  285. lgl says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:47 am
    the planet has “never survived” a drop like that before. The onset is NOW
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287
    “the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun”

  286. beng says:

    ****
    lgl says:
    September 21, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Beng

    Not sure what more to explain. Things like “and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow” is demonstrates the lack of understanding “the critical physical importance of focusing on the rate of change of ice volume, as opposed to the ice volume itself Temperature will follow thousands of years after the insolation goes up again, because something correlating with ice volume, guessing albedo, is driving temperature. It’s not temperature driving ice volume. So forget about 65N insolation, temperature is not supposed to correlate with that. Focus on the integral and you will see the next ice age is thousands of years over due. The integral has been dropping for millennia and the planet has “never survived” a drop like that before. The onset is NOW (if we have not managed to offset it a few hundred years by GHG).
    ****

    Thanks for responding.

    Temperature will follow thousands of yrs after? Almost all of 65N land now isn’t glaciated — it’s low-albedo land, after the seasonal snow melts. So insolation changes (gradual as they are) will have an immediate energy impact (thru temp & evaporation to some extent). Hardly any time-lag for bare land.

    And the onset is now?!? Ummm, okaaaaay….but I thought nature followed physics pretty closely. :)
    IOW, if the physics decreed that the climate should’ve fallen into a new glacial period, it would have. If you’re saying the climate is close to a glacial stage, I agree from the ice-core patterns that this is likely (the LIA made the first subtropical & tropical mountain glaciers since the early Holocene). But w/the present climate’s lack of glaciers in sensitive lower-latitude areas & the resulting low positive-feedback from albedo changes, natural cyclic excursions may be limited enough to get thru the present insolation minimum. JMHO.

  287. lgl says:

    Minimum in eccentricity means ice age, Leif
    http://virakkraft.com/Milankovitch2.png
    Eccentricity was low 400 kyr and 750 kyr ago too. It didn’t help ‘us’ then and it will not this time. The planet does not even survive a minimum in obliquity. Not one single time last 800 kyr without ice buildup.
    There is only one logical conclusion, down, soon.

  288. sunsettommy says:

    Dr. Svalgaard writes,

    “I could spend all my time disputing Archibald’s dubious claims, but, frankly, I don’t have the time for that. The fact is that the insolation the next 35,000 years is going up, so I do not believe any ‘glacial onset’ will be ‘triggered’. And ‘lgl’ we are not ‘overdue’ for a new glaciation.”

    Ok,then that mean you do not agree with David’s first chart information which you should have stated earlier since it does make clear that it stays BELOW the 510 mark for the next 50,000 years.

    Even YOU say this in the very first comment:

    “Luckily, the slide into a glaciation is long and slow, tens of thousands of years, and, of course, the sun has nothing to do with it [Jupiter has].”

    Yes even YOU admit that the future is a cooling one that will become Glacial winter.

    I also showed you links several times about the declining insolation rate that you have not once acknowledged here it is one last time:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-8-10/

    I am a little confused by your seemingly contradictory statements.

    Thank you for your patient replies.

  289. Allan MacRae says:

    Following is a recent short summary of the progress of climate science, written by Albert Jacobs.

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/fosQ3Extr-Terr.pdf

  290. sunsettommy says:
    September 22, 2012 at 10:21 am
    Ok,then that mean you do not agree with David’s first chart information
    I almost never agree with what Archibald claims.

    Yes even YOU admit that the future is a cooling one that will become Glacial winter.
    Absolutely, but it will take a ling time [60,000 years] and there is first a warming until 35,000 years.

    lgl says:
    September 22, 2012 at 9:14 am
    Minimum in eccentricity means ice age
    No, it means that things are ‘normal’. You get an ice age glaciation when the eccentricity is high and we are farthest away from the sun in January. In the next 100,000 years the Earth’s orbit will be nearly circular, so the ‘eccentricity mechanism’ will not work, so no glaciation on account of that, but then the tilt of the axis will determine the insolation and that will cause a small glaciation maxing in 63,000 years.

  291. Allan MacRae says:
    September 23, 2012 at 5:40 am
    Following is a recent short summary of the progress of climate science
    http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png

  292. Allan MacRae says:

    Leif Svalgaard says: September 23, 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Too cryptic Leif – I left my Enigma machine in the submarine.

    Care to provide a legend and source for the red lines, etc.?

  293. Allan MacRae says:
    September 23, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    Care to provide a legend and source for the red lines, etc.?
    The heavy black curve is Soon’s version of Total Solar Irradiance form an earlier WUWT post. The red lines [there are three of them on top of one another] are modern reconstructions of TSI by myself, Dora Preminger, and Karel Schrijver using different methods. It is clear that they do not match the black curve. The detailed references and calculations I have provided many times elsewhere and I could do that again, but it often turns out that people don’t really want to look at them because they are inconvenient truths. If you have interest we could start on that educational journey.

  294. lgl says:

    Leif

    You get an ice age glaciation when the eccentricity is high

    No you don’t. There are glaciations at every eccentricity minimum last 800 kyr.

  295. lgl says:
    September 24, 2012 at 8:05 am
    “You get an ice age glaciation when the eccentricity is high”
    No you don’t.

    So, you claim that there are no glaciations when eccentricity is high…

  296. Ulric Lyons says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 23, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    “You get an ice age glaciation when the eccentricity is high and we are farthest away from the sun in January.”

    You get glaciation even when eccentricity is low, and we were farthest away from the sun in January 11kyr ago when de-glaciation was happening. Currently obliquity is decreasing:
    http://stratus.astr.ucl.ac.be/textbook/chapter5_node12.xml#climatic_precession

  297. lgl says:

    Leif

    No, I claim there are glaciations at every eccentricity minimum last 800 kyr. There are also glaciations when eccentricity is high if obliquity is at minimum.

  298. lgl says:
    September 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm
    No, I claim there are glaciations at every eccentricity minimum last 800 kyr. There are also glaciations when eccentricity is high if obliquity is at minimum.
    Just the other way around. The big glaciations are with high eccentricity, the tilt is a smaller effect, but still enough to cause glaciations when none result from a circular orbit.

  299. agfosterjr says:

    Leif Svalgaard seems to work under the assumption that the default case (low eccentricity/minimal oscillation) is no ice and that extremes are required to bring in on, whereas the record indicates that the default case is an ice age and extremes are required to melt it. –AGF

  300. agfosterjr says:

    Well excuse me, when I posted this the previous post was nine something, and I had not seen Svalgaard’s last post, which renders mine off the mark. –AGF (1422 PDT)

  301. agfosterjr says:
    September 24, 2012 at 2:09 pm
    i.Leif Svalgaard seems to work under the assumption that the default case (low eccentricity/minimal oscillation) is no ice
    The default through the ages is no ice. Glaciations are exceptions.

  302. Allan MacRae says:

    Thank you for your clarification Leif.

    In truth, I need more time than I currently have to adequately follow this subject.

    I really hope you are correct, because I am beginning to hate the cold but I love living here.

    I would much prefer that the warmth come to me that having to travel south to find it.

    Best regards, Allan

  303. lgl says:

    Leif

    Ok, so the green curve here, e, is not eccentricity like the text says?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
    What is it then? Show us your ‘version’ of the eccentricity.

  304. lgl says:
    September 25, 2012 at 7:07 am
    Ok, so the green curve here, e, is not eccentricity like the text says?
    The important curve is the red one [fourth] from the top.

  305. agfosterjr says:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    September 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    If our definition is by ice volume, I would agree. If by ice area, we might have to specify a latitude for North America which could pass for an average. Current ice extent/albedo is exceptionally low, roughly 5% of the last 400ky. Current ice volume is also anomalously low. –AGF

  306. agfosterjr says:

    Poorly stated, I mean only about 5% of the last 400ky have T (as governed by albedo or ice extent) as low as at present. And if ice volume is linearly related to surface area rather than related to its square, as might be expected if it freezes from south to north, then even by volume the average situation is an ice age, else you must explain the typically low average T some other way. –AGF

  307. lgl says:

    Leif

    So suddenly eccentricity is not the important paramenter, now it’s the precession. Just as silly, the glaciations started ‘now’ 400 kyr and 775 kyr ago with the same precession pattern.
    http://virakkraft.com/Milankovitch4.png
    Bet your next jump will be back to the 65N insolation, also wrong because it’s the integral that matters.

  308. lgl says:
    September 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    So suddenly eccentricity is not the important paramenter, now it’s the precession.
    It should have been clear to even the dimmest among us that it is the combination of eccentricity and the precession that is important [you need to be farthest from the Sun in January] that is important. But, apparently, I was wrong on that assumption.

  309. sunsettommy says:
    September 25, 2012 at 5:25 pm
    We are ALREADY in negative insolation territory and still going down.
    getting ready for the rapid warming the next 35,000 years before the next mild glaciation 63,000 years from now.

  310. Allan MacRae says:

    Hi Leif,

    So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?

    Do you have an opinion as to the cause of the observed cooling during the Little Ice Age?

  311. Allan MacRae says:
    September 26, 2012 at 3:32 am
    So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?
    Essentially, yes. As the Sun does not vary enough

    Do you have an opinion as to the cause of the observed cooling during the Little Ice Age?
    No, as they could be many causes, and any complex system has natural variations on its own.

  312. The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.Check Livingston and Penn and check the Oulu NM count – plot from 2/15/1998 to today to see whats going on.and where we are headed.

  313. lgl says:

    Leif

    “the combination of eccentricity and the precession” is nonsense because the precession is a ‘combination’ of eccentricity and the longitude of perihelion.

    If you had said what’s important is the combination of precession and obliquity, you would have been close but still wrong because of the integral.

  314. lgl says:
    September 26, 2012 at 9:14 am
    “the combination of eccentricity and the precession” is nonsense because the
    Yes, indeed I added my nonsense to your nonsense. It is clear that one has to do it right by combining all of the factors involved. I have in the meantime forgotten what your point is, perhaps you are saying that the next ice age will happen in our lifetime, while I think it is still 63,000 years in the future. At any rate that is the topic of this thread.

  315. Allan MacRae says:

    Allan MacRae says: September 26, 2012 at 3:32 am
    So are you saying that the global cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum (circa 1645 to 1715) had nothing to do with reduced solar activity?

    Leif Svalgaard says: September 26, 2012 at 5:09 am
    Essentially, yes. As the Sun does not vary enough.

    Dr Norman Page says: September 26, 2012 at 7:32 am
    The Maunder minimum is almost certainly the result of reduced solar activity – specifically reduced solar magnetic field strength which leads to an increase in incoming GCRs and the resulting increase in cloudiness and albedo.

    Allan says:
    OK…… Glad we cleared that up.
    Could possibly resolve this question through a scintillating game of rock, paper, scissors?
    :-)

  316. sunsettommy says:

    Here you go Allan,

    New paper shows dimming of sunshine during the 1970’s ice age scare, and brightening since the 1980’s

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/new-paper-shows-dimming-of-sunshine.html

  317. gymnosperm says:

    Leif,

    If we are farthest from the sun in January in the northern hemisphere, winter ice will increase, but in July the ice will melt faster because we will be unusually close to the sun. We can also be closest in March and furthest in September. It’s pretty much academic in our lifetimes because we are in a phase of minimum eccentricity where earth’s orbit is nearly circular.

    Milankovitch is a zero sum game.

    The about 40,000 year obliquity cycle SHOULD be a player because it amounts to a several degree poleward shift in the solstices, but both the 40,000year obliquity and the longest and most stable 400,000 year eccentricity cycle have no statistical power in the Pleistocene.

  318. sunsettommy says:

    Gymnospern it was discovered that there is a 41,000 year pulse in the 100,000 year cycle way back in the 1970’s when Dr. Imbrie et al pointed it out in a paper.He also explained in the book he wrote for the public about 1978.

    Here is a nice chart showing the obvious 100,000 year cycle in it:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_4-Illustration_24-550×261.png

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-4-5/

    Here is the 41,000 glacial cycle and then the 100,000 year glacial cycle:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_3-Illustration_20-550×344.png

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/chapters-1-3/

  319. Allan MacRae says:

    Thank you Tommy – an interesting paper – full paper at
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/8635/2012/acp-12-8635-2012.pdf

    See also earlier work by Svensmark and Friis-Christensen and others.

    This hypothesis, as described above by Dr. Page, has been around for quite a while.

    We referred to it in our 2002 paper (see Fig.2) at
    http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm

    This factor and paleoclimatological data led me (us) to predict global cooling, commencing by about 2020-2030, in another article written in 2002.

    Leif obviously disagrees with this prediction based on his own work, and Leif has been more correct in his prediction of SC24 solar activity (low) than his colleague Hathaway (high).

    My predictive track record is good enough – see the Rebuttal of Point in our APEGGA paper above. I sincerely hope I am wrong about imminent global cooling. Severe global cooling could be catastrophic for humanity and the environment.

    For clarity, especially for global warming alarmists, who have exhibited clear evidence of intellectual dimming:
    “Warm=good; Cold=bad’.

  320. sunsettommy says:

    Allan,

    I find this last paragraph very amusing because the last ten years after they wrote it has shown them to be massively incorrect:

    “In our opening article, we did not spend much time on the science of climate change because the IPCC picture of the subject is almost universally accepted, not just among professional
    climate scientists but among the broader community engaged in the climate change issue, including most of the largest GHG-emitting corporations. The climate change debate has now moved on to economic and political issues. In this area, the authors did make one important point, with which we agree: Kyoto is only a small first step and many further ones will be needed. Let’s get on with the job.”

    The IPCC since then has lost a lot of credibility and the Kyoto treaty is dying even in the eyes of its many former supporters.

    Ouch!

    The near future cooling WILL commence because the past 150 years indicate that it will happen and my my would that smash the CAGW hypothesis for good.

    I really do not understand Lief’s inconsistency because David says this “The next glaciation is fully developed between 55,000 and 60,000 AD, with the next interglacial 20,000 years after that.” and Lief says this “getting ready for the rapid warming the next 35,000 years before the next mild glaciation 63,000 years from now.”

    When the Insolation is always below 0 the entire time.I fail to see how there can be rapid warming for the next 35,000 years while the insolation is always below the 0 point and still declining.Not only that each of the past 1,000 years has been cooler than the previous and that has been going on around 5,000 years now.Glaciers have been showing up that did not exist 4,000 years and some are quite big now.

    I also posted a number of charts and they are based on the published data and yet completely ignored and that to me indicate that he is pursuing a rather narrowminded path on this topic.

    I for one believe that we are in climate Autumn and slowly heading to a full blown climate winter that will be obvious in a few thousand years.The cooling will continue in all that time to just before the next huge warming pule that signifies the ending of the climate winter phase.

  321. sunsettommy says:
    September 27, 2012 at 6:42 am
    When the Insolation is always below 0 the entire time.I fail to see how there can be rapid warming for the next 35,000 years while the insolation is always below the 0 point and still declining
    The insolation is, obviously, NEVER below zero [the sun is shining every day, isn't it?]and is calculated to increase from its current level the next 35,000 years before decreasing again causing the next glaciation ~60,000 years from now.

  322. lgl says:

    The insolation is, obviously, NEVER below zero
    Jeez Leif
    Slide 20 and 25.
    http://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Climate/L6-Temperature.ppt

  323. Allan MacRae says:

    Too True Tommy.

    The Pembina Institute could not have been more wrong – one should NEVER quote the IPCC as an authoritative source – it’s just one more example of (drumroll…..)

    “The Law of Warmist BS”

    “You can save yourselves a lot of time, and generally be correct, by simply assuming that EVERY SCARY PREDICTION the global warming alarmists express is FALSE.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/the-gleick-tragedy/#more-57881

  324. sunsettommy says:

    Oh please Lief why are you mangling what I bring up?

    Again to point out what David wrote:

    “It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period.”

    When I refer to Below Zero insolation (no warming) I meant that it is never on the warming side of 510 watts/sq metere.That is why I keep bringing up what the chart shows that it is NEVER above the 510 level for the next 50,000 years thus it is always on the NEGATIVE (cooling) side of the 510 line.

    This means that it will cool more than it warm for the next 50,000 years if the chart is correct as it probably is because there are several papers supporting this.

    This Holocene is a long cooling slope since the peak warmth 8,000 or so years ago.I showed you the link to charts which are based on published science paper data that show the undeniable declining temperature trend for thousands of years and been in the NEGATIVE insolation Territory for about 4,000 years yet it had already been cooling for around 1,000 years after the Minoan warm period ended thus it has been a one way cooling slope for 5,000 years now.

    Here is a chart comparing the last two interglacial’s:

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_63-550×524.png

    The interglacial we are in is running longer than the previous one because of the slower insolation changes.

    This one shows the ZERO insolation line for the two interglacial’s

    http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Chap_8-Illustration_64-550×393.png

    We ARE sliding into a new climate winter,it may not be as cold and icy as the last one but will last around 90,000 years.

  325. lgl says:
    September 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    “The insolation is, obviously, NEVER below zero”
    Slide 20 and 25.

    Shows that the average insolation is always above 50. At night the insolation is zero. Never is it below zero.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation
    “Insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area and recorded during a given time”

    sunsettommy says:
    September 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm
    Again to point out what David wrote:
    “It seems that insolation above 510 watts/sq metre will end a glacial period.”

    Since when is what David writes valid?

    We ARE sliding into a new climate winter,it may not be as cold and icy as the last one but will last around 90,000 years.
    Of course we are as I’ve been saying. The next glaciation will be about 63,000 years from now. So the ‘slide’ is VERY slow, and will in the beginning [until 35,000 years] actually be a warming. I.e. the current interglacial will be longer than usual. The topic of this post is whether we are entering a glaciation [mile thick ice above, say New York] in our lifetime. And we are not.

  326. lgl says:

    Leif

    In a system with an oscillating forcing and large heat capacity the temperature will continue to drop even after the forcing has started to climb again, a little less than 1/4 cycle lag. I have given you numerous examples of this from diurnal to now glacial time frames (last from your own link) but still you are desperately trying not to understand this very basic physics, why?

  327. lgl says:
    September 28, 2012 at 7:39 am
    In a system with an oscillating forcing and large heat capacity the temperature will continue to drop even after the forcing has started to climb again, a little less than 1/4 cycle lag.
    There is no 25,000 year lag on the 100,000 year cycle.

  328. lgl says:

    That’s because there is no 100 kyr cycle. There is a n*40 kyr cycle. It used to be 1*40, then a few 2*40 and the last two 3*40 kyr. Remember the forcing is a combination of the ~40 kyr obliquity and the ~20 kyr precession, and Roe found the lag to be 6-8 kyr, right on spot.

  329. lgl says:
    September 29, 2012 at 7:25 am
    That’s because there is no 100 kyr cycle.
    Looking back at the comments of this thread, one is struck with the diversity of pseudo-facts peddled by various people. Roe found “that the available records support a direct, zero-lag, antiphased relationship between the rate of change of global ice volume and summertime insolation in the northern high latitudes.”
    The 100 kyr cycle is demonstrated by spectral analysis: http://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html#anchor354569
    The clear conclusion is that we are not entering a new glaciation any time soon as the insolation is going up the next 35.000 years. The integrated ice volume is thus going down.

  330. lgl says:

    Leif is struck with the pseudo-facts peddled by various people.
    Who was peddling the importance of eccentricity? The same person who now links to a webpage named “eccentricity is ruled out”.

    Who claimed “and as soon as the insolation goes up again, the temperature will follow.”?
    The same person who finally descovers that “the available records support a direct, zero-lag, antiphased relationship between the rate of change of global ice volume and summertime insolation” which implies a relationship between ice volume (and thereby temperature) and the integral of summertime insolation. And the lag between insolation and temperature will according to Roe be 6-8 kyr because “the maximum correlation occurs when the ice volume lags the June 65N insolation curve.The lag is 6 kyr in the SPECMAP record and 8 kyr in the HW04 record”

    And who said “There is no 25,000 year lag on the 100,000 year cycle”?
    The same person who now links to “The best fit was obtained with a lag of 33 +/-3 kyr. This is a plausible result; for example, if low inclination causes cooling, it might affect the rate of ice buildup, and glaciation would lag 1/4 cycle ~ 25 kyr. Additional delay of 10 to 20 kyr could result from mechanisms discussed by Weertman24″
    Right, there is no 25,000 year lag, it’s 33,000 years.

    Leif, stop digging.

  331. lgl says:
    September 30, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    it might affect…could result
    The next 35,000 insolation is going up, so no glaciation in the near future, is all. I think you have lost the overall picture.

Comments are closed.