From a press release by: National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS)
Understanding past and future climate
The notion that scientists understand how changes in Earth’s orbit affect climate well enough for estimating long-term natural climate trends that underlie any anthropogenic climate change is challenged by findings published this week. The new research was conducted by a team led by Professor Eelco Rohling of the University of Southampton’s School of Ocean and Earth Science hosted at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton.
“Understanding how climate has responded to past change should help reveal how human activities may have affected, or will affect, Earth’s climate. One approach for this is to study past interglacials, the warm periods between glacial periods within an ice age,” said Rohling.
He continued: “Note that we have here focused on the long-term natural climate trends that are related to changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Our study is therefore relevant to the long-term climate future, and not so much for the next decades or century.”
The team, which included scientists from the Universities of Tuebingen (Germany) and Bristol, compared the current warm interglacial period with one 400,000 years ago (marine isotope stage 11, or MIS-11).
Many aspects of the Earth-Sun orbital configuration during MIS-11 were similar to those of the current interglacial. For this reason, MIS-11 is often considered as a potential analogue for future climate development in the absence of human influence.
Previous studies had used the analogy to suggest that the current interglacial should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago. So why has it remained so warm?
According to the‘anthropogenic hypothesis’, long-term climate impacts of man’s deforestation activities and early methane and carbon dioxide emissions have artificially held us in warm interglacial conditions, which have persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11 400 years ago.
To address this issue, the researchers used a new high-resolution record of sea levels, which reflect ice volume. This record, which is continuous through both interglacials, is based on the ‘Red Sea method’ developed by Rohling.
Water passes between the Red Sea and the open ocean only through the shallow Strait of Bab-el-Mandab, which narrows as sea levels drop, reducing water exchange. Evaporation within the Red Sea increases its salinity, or saltiness, and changes the relative abundance of stable oxygen isotopes.
By analysing oxygen isotope ratios in tiny marine creatures called foraminiferans preserved in sediments that were deposited at the bottom of the Red Sea, the scientists reconstructed past sea levels, which were corroborated by comparison with the fossilised remains of coral reefs.
The researchers found that the current interglacial has indeed lasted some 2.0–2.5 millennia longer than predicted by the currently dominant theory for the way in which orbital changes control the ice-age cycles. This theory is based on the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth at latitude 65 degrees North on 21 June, the northern hemisphere Summer solstice.
But the anomaly vanished when the researchers considered a rival theory, which looks at the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth the same latitude during the summer months. Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.
“Future research should more precisely narrow down the influence of orbital changes on climate,” said Rohling: “This is crucial for a better understanding of underlying natural climate trends over long, millennial timescales. And that is essential for a better understanding of any potential long-term impacts on climate due to man’s activities.”
The study was funded by the United Kingdom’s Natural Environment Council and the German Science Foundation.
Publication:
Rohling, E.J., et al., Comparison between Holocene and Marine Isotope Stage-11 sea-level histories. Earth and Planetary Science Letters (2010). doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.054
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leif Svalgaard,
In addition to the issue of the energy level of the GCR’s Svensmaark claims as necessary, here is an interesting presentation, with links to papers, that would also disagree with your claims:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/07/forbush-events-confirm-cosmoclimatology.html
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/26/noaa-climate-change-irreversible-1000-years-drought-dust-bowls/
The carbon cycle is quite slow at
taking out the carbon in the climate system
Ack (10:45:51) :
“According to the‘anthropogenic hypothesis’, long-term climate impacts of man’s deforestation activities and early methane and carbon dioxide emissions have artificially held us in warm interglacial conditions, which have persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11 400 years ago.”
Why is this bad?
Why do the eco-wackos want the earth covered in ice?
Chris F (12:18:58) :
Possibly being 2,000 yrs overdue for an ice age beginning is very scary stuff indeed.
From the referenced article, “Under this theory, sea levels could remain high for another two thousand years or so, even without greenhouse warming.”
Translation: You have another 2,000 years before the next ice age.
Mike Ramsey
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/arctic2k.jsp
Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling 2009-09-03 12:00:00.0
BOULDER—Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.
This is another hockey stick but up in the icey artic. Like Mann’s 2000 year work so is this one.
The article below was based on work from David Archer from the University of Chicago.
To take this one step further we have an increasing population in the world predicted to be 9billion by 2050 and decreasing land space due to rising sea levels in the next several centuries. Do we do business as usual or make the changes required to avoid the highest extremes of climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/upcoming-ice-age-postponed-indefinitely.html
So we can rest assured, there is no ice age around the corner. To those with lingering doubts that an ice age might be imminent, turn your eyes towards the northern ice sheets. If they’re growing, then yes, the 10,000 year process of glaciation may have begun. However, currently the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.
Regarding cosmic radiation and its influence on climate, I highly recommend this presentation held at CERN:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Clearly, climate change is far more complex than the climatologists have portrayed (simple dose-response relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature).
I’m very glad that other disciplines including astrophysicists, geologists and others are starting to become active participants in the conversation!
tty (12:51:56) :
Unfortunately the “Rohling metod” that this study is based on is a can of worms. What it measures is not the sea-level as such, but rather the height of the sea level above the threshold in the Bab el Mandeb strait.
Unfortunately this area is one of the most tectonically active areas on Earth (it is a “Triple Junction”, i e a place where three continental plates are separating from each other). It is incidentally also right next to the “Afar triangle”, the only place on Earth where a sizable piece of oceanic crust is above sealevel.
In this environment the chances of the level of the sill and the profile of the strait remaining unchanged for 400,000 years are very low.
Its an interesting question. How much change in the underlying plates would invalidate his work?
Ian L. McQueen (11:28:08)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/oneplanet/
It runs close to 30 minutes.
I couldn’t believe my ears!”
What’s amusing is Van Yperle’s [sp?] insistence that the IPCC is “non prescriptive”. One wonders how he would describe the headlines of the two IPCC generated press releases on the “Copenhagen Diagnosis”
[Nov 14/09:]
“Climate change accelerating beyond expectations, urgent emissions reductions required, say leading scientists”
[Dec 15/09:]
“Emissions cut of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 needed for industrial countries for 2 degree C limit”
Nothing “prescriptive” about these, eh?!
Invariant (13:25:18) :
Svalgaard: what is the energy in the cosmic ray flux compared to simple day light?
0.03 W/m2 compared to 1361 W/m2. About the same as that of starlight on a clear night.
In both cases only a fraction of the energies actually reach the lower atmosphere.
Folks, remember that this ‘periodic’ dropping in and out of deep glaciations started less than 2 million years ago. Before then the global temperature seems to have been much higher, like around 9-10C higher, and previous glaciations did not occur for the same reasons. (One occurred during the end of the Ordovician and another crossed the carboniferous/permian boundary, neither of which are totally understood.)
So it’s not like the milankovich cycles, or whatever method is used to calculate insolation because of the earth’s orbit, have been the main drivers for climate throughout the last billion years—they’ve only been evident for the past 1.6 million or so. I think part of the reason (if not the main reason) is position of the continents–land over the South Pole as well as the rise of Panama and central America which stopped the flow between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans–which affected the oceanic circulation patterns around the globe and thus atmospheric patterns as well.
I’ve been looking for newish papers on the orbital fluctuations to see exactly where we are and have found nothing except one paper behind a paywall from 2009. Even the summary available to the public gave little solid info, just a lot of uncertainty and maybe the next glaciation is 10-20000 years away (but doesn’t say if that’s the bottom or the beginning). However, Andy revkin did a piece about the Arctic paper by kaufmann. He quoted Overpeck as saying we may be averting the next Ice Age and that for the next 4000 years the north pole will be farther and farther away from the sun in northern hemisphere summer.
Repeat: For the next 4000 years the north pole will be farther and farther away from the sun in northern hemisphere summer.
we’re already on our way, folks!
Brian G Valentine (14:04:52) :
That’s the open secret in all of this, isn’t it… the western eco-elite will survive while the rest of mankind pays the price.
I expect that many understand and share your burning anger. A lot of my CAGW skepticism is energized by the fact that I am a true believer in the inherent equality of people – I am no better or worse than a child in the Sudan, merely more fortunate. This draconian shift promoted by the eco-left to massively reduce CO2 emissions will ensure that that Sudanese child will never have a better life.
Another 2000 years to go. Well, that’s comforting.
Fusion power should be just around the corner by then.
Jeff (15:27:09) :
“… the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.”
That IS good news.
Richard Lawson (12:36:06) :
Call me a simple Mechanical Engineer if you wish, but I fail to see how the Earth’s orbit can change hugely without a massive increase or reduction of kinetic energy. …
I accept that gravitational forces of other bodies can change the shape of the orbital ellipse, but this would not produce a global Ice Age . …
I saw a presentation online recently but I am damned if I can find it again.
Try this one –
http://www.sciencecourseware.org/eec/GlobalWarming/Tutorials/Milankovitch/
kuhnkat (14:38:24) :
with links to papers, that would also disagree with your claims
First it is not my claim. Second, dueling papers is silly unless you compare them in detail: where do they disagree? why is one better than the other? [e.g. more data, better analysis, newer, etc]
Enough of the scare think.
Any of you old enough to remember the song that says … ‘Whatever will be, will be …. the future’s not ours to see “… ?
Good science, good planning, good skepticism.
Good answers.
Leif Svalgaard (16:08:11) :
Invariant (13:25:18) :
Svalgaard: what is the energy in the cosmic ray flux compared to simple day light?
0.03 W/m2 compared to 1361 W/m2. About the same as that of starlight on a clear night.
In both cases only a fraction of the energies actually reach the lower atmosphere.
It’s good to hear GCR’s aren’t going to fry me, but Svensmark’s theory doesn’t rely on large amounts of energy but the particles being the instigators of a chain of reactions which nucleate clouds as I understand it.
Have you read “The Chilling Stars” Leif?
tallbloke (17:01:37) :
Have you read “The Chilling Stars” Leif?
The first word on page 100 is ‘nether’
But better: I have read all his peer-reviewed papers on this subject, have you? As proof, tell me how many there are.
[oakgeo (16:18:46) :
Jeff (15:27:09) :
“… the Arctic permafrost is degrading, Arctic sea ice is melting and the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass at an accelerating rate. These are hardly good conditions for an imminent ice age.”
That IS good news.]
If you believe climate comes with no consequences, you might want to check out some information on that.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf
Chapter 1: The Global Warming Price Tag Under Business-as-Usual Emissions 1
Chapter 2: More Intense Hurricanes Cause Financial Damage 5
Chapter 3: Real Estate Losses as a Result of Sea Level Rise 7
Chapter 4: Costly Changes to the Energy Sector 9
Chapter 5: Water and Agriculture Hit Hard by Global Warming 15
Chapter 6: Modeling U.S. Climate Impacts: Beyond the Stern Review 19
How many people expect the President of the United States to get up and say,
“I’ve really got to stop talking about the “climate-change” sh*t just to pander to the left-wing of the Democrat party and start talking about deregulation so that people can get back to work”
I swear: If he had the guts enough to do that, I would shout his name from the rooftops, I would write essays about how Obama was the Greatest President in US History
[.Brian G Valentine (17:41:37) :
How many people expect the President of the United States to get up and say,
“I’ve really got to stop talking about the “climate-change” sh*t just to pander to the left-wing of the Democrat party and start talking about deregulation so that people can get back to work”
I swear: If he had the guts enough to do that, I would shout his name from the rooftops, I would write essays about how Obama was the Greatest President in US History]
Not following regulations is what put us in the dumpers. There is enough resources on earth for everyone’s needs but there isn’t enough for everyone’s greed.
The next world wide economic boom is the decarbonization of energy. China will clean our clocks if we delay much longer
http://www.celsias.com/article/green-giant-beijings-crash-program-clean-energy/
Thanks to Anthony & moderators for once again pointing out something that leads to a very interesting trail of other things…
Jeff (18:04:02) :
The next world wide economic boom is the decarbonization of energy. China will clean our clocks if we delay much longer
Is that why China just signed a record deal for coal imports from Australia?
How anyone can think that inefficient technologies are going to be a “boom” is way beyond me.
[Richard M (18:54:51) :
Jeff (18:04:02) :
The next world wide economic boom is the decarbonization of energy. China will clean our clocks if we delay much longer
Is that why China just signed a record deal for coal imports from Australia?
How anyone can think that inefficient technologies are going to be a “boom” is way beyond me.]
I can’t really if China will ever choose to eventually slow down and reverse their coal usage. I hope so. The CEO of Petrobras has given a talk that peak oil will be in 2010. That also means that oil prices will spike. Those of us that practice efficeincy with our automobiles won’t be hit as hard. Some renewables are easily competitve with Nuclear now and have 7 hours storage built in now with 16 hours in development later.
If you believe climate comes with no consequences, you might want to check out some information on that.
You might want to cite somewhat better references than the ones you have listed. The Hurricane one is thoroughly debunked, for example. Half the rest are only consequences of futilely trying to cut back CO2 (or from unrelated causes, like the oil running out). Many politicians are choosing to stuff the energy sector, but that is a choice.
In any case, the warmistas can list any amount of negative consequences of climate warming and still be wrong. It is quite possible that the positive consequences will be better.
If the world warms, then prima facie it will have more inhabitable areas (more than compensating for sea rise, in fact) and more productive agriculture. Perhaps we will have wilder storms to pay for that, but it might be a price worth paying.
milankovich cycles coincide “only” for the last 1.6 million years? Having dumped on alarmists for using a few decades to predict processes that should clearly be measured in centuries, I guess I can’t argue the point too much if the previous billion years or so doesn’t match.
that said, 1.6 million years that does match still seems significant given that it ocurrs in the time span of most relevance to us (as in right now). It seems to me that we can compare the milankovich cycles to the geologic record, but interference from our solar system passing through a dust cloud (for example) for a few million years might be harder to correlate since something like that would seriously impare energy transfer from the sun to earth, but would be pretty difficult to spot with a telescope ten million years after the fact.