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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Details, details, details…
Let’s get to the main point.
WE’RE DOOMED!
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.
“””””…..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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 🙂
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.
From johnpetroff on September 16, 2012 at 9:37 pm:
You have an interesting and highly exaggerated view of the importance of humanity on this planet.
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.
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.
Says here:
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
****
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.
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. 🙂
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.
johnpetroff:
At September 17, 2012 at 4:30 am 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.
Stasis is NOT acceleration.
Richard
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.
Google “Operation Plowshare”. 😉
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.
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.