
Reader “Markx” writes in Tips and Notes on a paper I hadn’t noticed before (because it was published before WUWT was born). Of course it only works if CO2 has a long residence time and/or our elevated emission levels continue. We need at least 3x more CO2 to pull off the delay.
A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation. David Archer and Andrey Ganopolski
Published in G3 Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems Research Letter Volume 6, Number5 5 May 2005
Abstract:
The initiation of northern hemisphere ice sheets in the last 800 kyr appears to be closely controlled by minima in summer insolation forcing at 65N. Beginning from an initial typical interglacial pCO2 of 280 ppm, the CLIMBER-2 model initiates an ice sheet in the Northern Hemisphere when insolation drops 0.7 s (standard deviation) or 15 W/m2 below the mean. This same value is required to explain the history of climate using an orbitally driven conceptual model based on insolation and ice volume thresholds (Paillard, 1998). When the initial baseline pCO2 is raised in CLIMBER-2, a deeper minimum in summertime insolation is required to nucleate an ice sheet. Carbon cycle models indicate that 25% of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, and 7% will remain beyond one hundred thousand years (Archer, 2005). We predict that a carbon release from fossil fuels or methane hydrate deposits of 5000 Gton C could prevent glaciation for the next 500,000 years, until after not one but two 400 kyr cycle eccentricity minima. The duration and intensity of the projected interglacial period are longer than have been seen in the last 2.6 million years.
Some excerpts:
“Models require some amplifying feedback, from sea ice … or the terrestrial biosphere ….to nucleate on the basis of insolation forcing, but insolation is always the primary driver.”
and
An anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C (as we have already done) has a relatively small impact on future climate evolution, postponing the next glacial termination 140 kyr from now by one precession cycle.
Release of 1000 Gton C … is enough to decisively prevent glaciation in the next few thousand years, and given the long atmospheric lifetime of CO2, to prevent glaciation until 130 kyr from now.
If the anthropogenic carbon release is 5000 Gton or more….[…]… The model predicts the end of the glacial cycles, with stability of the interglacial for at least the next half million years…
Figure 3. Effect of fossil fuel CO2 on the future evolution of climate. Green represents natural evolution, blue represents the results of anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C, orange is 1000 Gton C, and red is 5000 Gton C. (a) Past and future pCO2 of the atmosphere. Past history is from the Vostok ice core [Petit et al., 1999], and future anthropogenic perturbations are from a carbon cycle model [Archer, 2005]. (b) June insolation at 65N latitude, normalized and expressed in s units. 1 s equals about 20 W m2. Green, blue, orange, and red lines are values of the critical insolation i0 that triggers glacial inception. The i0 values are capped at 3 s to avoid extrapolating beyond model results in Figure 3; in practice, this affects only the 5000 Gton C scenario for about 15 kyr. (c) Interglacial periods of the model. (d) Global mean temperature estimates.
Not having mile thick ice sheets crush northern hemisphere cities is a good thing, don’t you think?
Full PDF here: http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.trigger.pdf

When the next ice age finally hits, I’m sure somehow CO2 will be blamed for the cooling and taxing it will fix everything.
Milankovitch cycle Theory Problems:
The last interglacial the Eemian ended abruptly. There is no physical explanation as to why the Eemian interglacial ended abruptly. A paper that tells us this current interglacial will last 400,000 years needs to explain why the last interglacial ended abruptly and to provide an answer to the following paradoxes (observations which can be explained by the theory and appear to contradict theory) which support the assertion that insolation at 65N does not cause the glacial/interglacial cycle.
1) How does one explain the observation that the glacial/interglacial cycles started with a cycle periodicity of 41,000 years in duration and then 1.6 millions ago the cycle time changed to a cycle of 100,000 years (90,000 years glacial and 10,000 years interglacial.)
2) Orbital eccentricity is the weakest of the orbital cycle modulation on insolation. Why does it dominate for the last 1.6 million years?
3) The stage 5 glacial was terminated 10,000 years before the insolation change. There is no cause for that change. There is no back up forcing mechanism to terminate glacial periods.
4) There is evidence in the paleo climate data of cyclic abrupt climate change. (Heinrich events, such as the 12,900 years BP Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event.) There is no forcing mechanism that explains the cyclic abrupt climate changes.
5) The majority of the glacial and interglacial periods have ended abruptly. The paleo record supports the assertion that there is a mysterious cyclic abrupt climate forcing function that terminates both the glacial and interglacial period. (Heinrich event)
6) The cycle abrupt climate change cools both the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern hemisphere synchronously. This does not make sense as the Southern Hemisphere was at maximum insolation in the summer when the Northern Hemisphere has at minimum insolation in the summer and vice verse.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary
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.
Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases or haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain these sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate. Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a ‘glacial’ world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea ice cover. However, a major sudden cold event did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial, around 122,000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age at about 1650 AD) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All the evidence indicates that most long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes. …. …..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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/wunsch_2004.pdf
Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change by Carl Wunsch
A number of records commonly described as showing control of climate change by Milankovitch insolation forcing are reexamined. The fraction of the record variance attributable to orbital changes never exceeds 20%. In no case, including a tuned core, do these forcing bands explain the overall behavior of the records. At zero order, all records are consistent with stochastic models of varying complexity with a small superimposed Milankovitch response, mainly in the obliquity band. Evidence cited to support the hypothesis that the 100 Ka glacial/interglacial cycles are controlled by the quasi-periodic insolation forcing is likely indistinguishable from chance, given the small sample size and near-integer ratios of 100 Ka to the precessional periods. At the least, the stochastic background‘‘noise’’ is likely to be of importance.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/cr/2002PA000791/2002PA000791.pdf
The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery
Milankovitch cycle Theory Problems:
1) 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. The greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, while the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. …
2) 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 that would be unexpected, if the 400,000-year cycle has an impact on climate. ….
3) Stage 5 problem
The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) that appears to have begun ten thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have caused it (the causality problem).
4) Effect exceeds cause
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).
5) The unsplit peak problem
The unsplit peak problem refers to the fact that eccentricity has cleanly resolved variations at both the 95 and 125ka periods. A sufficiently long, well-dated record of climate change should be able to resolve both frequencies,[15] but some researchers interpret climate records of the last million years as showing only a single spectral peak at 100ka periodicity. It is debatable whether the quality of existing data ought to be sufficient to resolve both frequencies over the last million years.
6) The transition problem
Variations of Cycle Times, curves determined from ocean sediments
The transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.
7) Identifying dominant factor
Milankovitch believed that decreased summer insolation in northern high latitudes was the dominant factor leading to glaciation, which led him to (incorrectly) deduce an approximate 41ka period for ice ages.[16] Subsequent research has shown that the 100ka eccentricity cycle is more important, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last million years.
If they made the model interfaces easier to use, then they wouldn’t have to write all these papers. Simple blog posts of input settings and screenshots of cool results wold suffice.
Bill Illis says:
April 27, 2013 at 5:27 pm
phlogiston says:
April 27, 2013 at 4:01 pm
—————
I’m not sure how they were calculating a bi-polar see-saw, but they did use Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) to come up with this. The authors improved on the dating from their 2005 paper with (LR 2009) for the north Atlantic and north Pacific.
This might be the first time this is shown but the correlation between Antarctica and the north Atlantic over the last 800,000 years is scary close. They are both moving almost exactly the same.
http://s14.postimg.org/gqap88co1/Last_800_K_NAtl_Antarctica_Temps.png
That graph looks like a pretty damn good mutual validation of both the N Atlantic dO18 and the Antarctic Epica Dome C core temperature reconstructions.
I am a lukewarmer on the CO2 issue. Whether the temp effect of a CO2 doubling is +1 or +3 degrees C, it is a move in the right direction. Humanity WILL BE devastated by the eventual cooling trend as we slip into the next glacial epoch.
So, if the the CAWGers succeed politically and atmospheric CO2 is reduced significantly, what is the outcome? It is the Fallen Angel scenario, the next ice age is upon us.
So rising CO2 levels will postpone/prevent the (overdue) onset of a cyclical Pleistocene Ice Age? Cher ami, mi amigo– are you plain nuts, or just plain schtoopid?
What climate sensitivity do they assume?
William Astley said
Stage 5 is which one ?
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/annoying-lead-time-graph/
William Astley says:
April 28, 2013 at 6:18 am
Milankovitch cycle Theory Problems:
The last interglacial the Eemian ended abruptly. There is no physical explanation as to why the Eemian interglacial ended abruptly.
————
Summer solar insolation at 65N fell from 540 W/m2 at 127Kya to 430 W/m2 by 114Kya.
That is really just about the maximum swing that there can be in such a short period of time (its the Max).
By the low point at 114 Kya, temps had already dropped by 6.0C in Antarctica and up to 11.0C in Greenland.
The last ice age had already begun and the Ice-Albedo feedback more than offset the bounce-back in summer solar insolation which occurred after 114Kya. More Sun had no effect because the ice reflects between 50% to 80% of it back to space versus interglacial conditions which are 15% to 65% in the summer at this location.
A few more downswings and few more upswings and the glaciers are in Chicago (where they have no business being because the Sun is 1.75 times strong enough to melt all the ice and snow – even in the low points of Milankovitch). It is the sunlight reflecting nature of the glaciers and the snow on the glaciers which is the big make-or-break factor.
One good downswing (or especially the maximum one) is enough to kick off the feedback loop (and it can end just as suddenly when the feedback loop goes the other way because the Sun in Chicago in the Summer and even at 65N is more than strong enough to melt all the ice and snow. Its the Albedo which makes the difference.