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:
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.
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
Looks like the Landscheidt Grand Minimum will dominate earth’s climate for the balance of this century. Time will tell.
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.
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
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?
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.
agfosterjr:
At September 18, 2012 at 2:53 pm I made a post that says in total
At September 18, 2012 at 3:41 pm you have replied saying in total
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
.
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
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
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.
****
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?
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
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
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.
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.
The Troll:
At September 19, 2012 at 8:54 am you say
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
“””””…..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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
****
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.