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
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.
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.
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.
johnpetroff:
You claimed that warming is accelerating and I replied by pointing out
At September 17, 2012 at 11:43 am you have responded to that saying
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
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
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/
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….
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
dallas says:
September 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Great stuff. Your graph has set me off on another line of inquiry. With thanks.
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.
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.
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.
“””””…..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.
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.
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.
From johnpetroff on September 17, 2012 at 8:03 pm: (bold added)
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.
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!
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.
@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…….
.
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.
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.
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
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
****
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.