International study raises questions about cause of global ice ages
HANOVER, N.H. – A new international study casts doubt on the leading theory of what causes ice ages around the world — changes in the way the Earth orbits the sun.
The researchers found that glacier movement in the Southern Hemisphere is influenced primarily by sea surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide rather than changes in the Earth’s orbit, which are thought to drive the advance and retreat of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere.
The findings appear in the journal Geology. A PDF is available on request.
The study raises questions about the Milankovitch theory of climate, which says the expansion and contraction of Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets are influenced by cyclic fluctuations in solar radiation intensity due to wobbles in the Earth’s orbit; those orbital fluctuations should have an opposite effect on Southern Hemisphere glaciers.
“Records of past climatic changes are the only reason scientists are able to predict how the world will change in the future due to warming. The more we understand about the cause of large climatic changes and how the cooling or warming signals travel around the world, the better we can predict and adapt to future changes,” says lead author Alice Doughty, a glacial geologist at Dartmouth College who studies New Zealand mountain glaciers to understand what causes large-scale global climatic change such as ice ages. “Our results point to the importance of feedbacks — a reaction within the climate system that can amplify the initial climate change, such as cool temperatures leading to larger ice sheets, which reflect more sunlight, which cools the planet further. The more we know about the magnitude and rates of these changes and the better we can explain these connections, the more robust climate models can be in predicting future change.”
The researchers used detailed mapping and beryllium-10 surface exposure dating of ice-age moraines – or rocks deposited when glaciers move — in New Zealand’s Southern Alps, where the glaciers were much bigger in the past. The dating method measures beryllium-10, a nuclide produced in rocks when they are struck by cosmic rays. The researchers identified at least seven episodes of maximum glacier expansion during the last ice age, and they also dated the ages of four sequential moraine ridges. The results showed that New Zealand glaciers were large at the same time that large ice sheets covered Scandinavia and Canada during the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. This makes sense in that the whole world was cold at the same time, but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and thus cannot explain the synchronous advance of glaciers around the globe. Previous studies have shown that Chilean glaciers in the southern Andes also have been large at the same time as Northern Hemisphere ice sheets.
The ages of the four New Zealand ridges – about 35,500; 27,170; 20,270; and 18,290 years old — instead align with times of cooler sea surface temperatures off the coast of New Zealand based on offshore marine sediment cores. The timing of the Northern Hemisphere’s ice ages and large ice sheets is still paced by how Earth orbits the Sun, but how the cooling and warming signals are transferred around the world has not been fully explained, although ocean currents (flow direction, speed and temperature) play a significant role.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
surely these rampant warmists must get weary of trying to jam their square pegs in round holes?
Try this experiment. Tell one of you respected professional colleagues that people with qualifications are needed for a psychological experiment. The experiment consists of pounding a square peg into a round hole. Progress reports will have to be generated. Papers will have to be written. Tell them the pay will be $500.00 per hour, or an amount that will impress.
You will be disappointed at the results.
Do they address the ~800 yr. lag in CO2?
its predicted by AGW theory. In fact the lag was predicted before it was discovered.
Addressing evidence tat shows your theory is correct would be funny.
You truly are blinded by ideology. How can CO2 be the the cause of temp change when it lags the change in temp. Your position is illogical, and the lag was not predicted by the AGW hypothesis.
AGW theory predicts everything. Which means that it predicts nothing.
It wasn’t anthropogenic when the lag was occurring. That CO2 came out of the warming oceans.
Mosh
Please gicve reference citings to papers published before the ice core samples were analysed that predicted that there would be a substantial (circa 800 year0 lag between atmospheric concemntrations of CO2 and temperature changes.
I would like to see evidence of your assertion that AGW theory predicted this.
If AGW theory does predict that there will be such a lag, then it surely suggests that present day warming is not due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 since the late 19th century, and the effect of those emissions is something to be felt in the future circa 2650 onwards.
So AGW says today’s CO2 concentration is caused by temperature increases during the Medieval Warm Period. Correct? That’s news to me! So why exactly did Mann et al think it so important to get rid of the MWP? And the LIA? And why does the IPCC use 1950 as the start of AGW? Just curious. Something doesn’t compute.
I think Steven omitted a (/sarc) tag people. No need to get knickers knotted.
Predicted? Not so much. Assume you refer to Lorius et al.
“changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/#sthash.ojGoOvlO.dpuf”
Ah, of course, they amplify the weak orbital forcings in retrospect. Kind of like copying in advance.
Further gems:
“For example, whether temperature changes lead or lag changes in CO2 or CH4 is not relevant to the study of fast feedbacks”
Budofcourrrse! The feedback was so fast it got there ahead of time.
Pretty much like the fast feedback we have seen the last eighteen years.
No it wasn’t predicted by “AGW theory.” It was “predicted” by the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fact that solubility is positively correlated with the temperature of a liquid.
It was explained away as not being inconsistent with the AGW hypothesis. And it resulted in the logically fallacious corollaries that the lag didn’t prevent the CO2 from contributing to the warming and the assumption that the additional CO2 forcing was required because they couldn’t ascribe enough forcing to the Milankovitch cycles.
the effects of CO2 travel back in time, two birds killed with one paper!
Applause . . applause . . Thanks for that . . put a smile on my sceptical face this dull morning . .
Sure. Sea ice is an early version of the precog (fr. Minority Report). The ice gets high on minute fluctuatuons in CO2 and gets visions into the future. It’s actually much better at predicting climate than todays climate scientist.
pdf costs $25 per day to look at.
Also, at the beginning they had to say that CO2 has an effect but it doesn’t seem to be mentioned anywhere else. Gotta mention it to increase the grant allocation.
I get the feeling that mentioning CO2 is a requisite within the editing process. If the authors object, no publication.
Proper obeisance the God Co2 is required before publishing.
I remember reading a physics book from the old Soviet days. In the introduction, the poor author had to weave in something about “dialectical materialism” and “the class struggle of the proletariat”.
The current CO2 mantra is not all that different, except these days it’s done in order to get published and get more grant money; in the old Soviet Union they did it to avoid the Gulag.
It’s complex. The science isn’t quite settled. Send money.
They have NO data to support their claims. I should have said the data if anything runs counter to their claims.
Actually, every study into causes and timing of ice ages struggles with the contradictory data.
SR
But Stevan – IF you select your data carefully, close your eyes tightly, wish VERY HARD and click your heels together three times you can always find what you seek.
AGW never struggles with contradictory data, just like every other religion: ‘Inshallah’
It makes one think that Earth’s climatic reactions to subtle changes in insolation might just be more complicated than can be explained with computer simulatons.
@ur momisugly David Middleton
If it cannot be explained by computer simulations it cannot be explained .
My central interest in all of this ( beyond crushing Hansen’s Venus “runaway” absurdity ) is in fostering a succinct , well factored , quantitative model of the planet starting from the basics — which is understanding the temperature of a radiantly heated naked ball . That is the only way these 4th and 5th decimal point global variations can be quantitatively understood .
I would agree that this is impossible in traditional mass market computing languages which end up being literally a million lines of inscrutable code .
But , as a Canadian friend , Randy MacDonald says ,
Good APL is generally more succinct and more general that traditional textbook notation and will execute efficiently on any scale computers . The only way these issues will be understood is with such powerful executable notations where adding some parameter over entire maps of the sphere may require just the addition of a single brief expression .
Comment at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/how-us-temperatures-trends-have-been-artificially-increased-since-2007-and-its-not-tobs/#comments
“
Jason Calley says:
March 20, 2015 at 6:56 pm
The science is settled!!
(It is only the data that we are still busy falsifying…)”
People are still looking for a “magic bullet” to explain climate, which is a vastly complex and interconnected system that to date has shown to be “bulletproof.
In their Abstract, the authors state that “…the behavior of southern mid-latitude glaciers was not tied to local summer insolation intensity. Instead, glacier extent … was aligned with Southern Ocean surface temperature and with atmospheric carbon dioxide.”
Of course “aligned” euphemises correlation and implied causation (here’s that magic bullet again!), and I’ll have to wait to get beyond the paywall to find out how CO2 gets into the firing chamber.
This science is nowhere near dull!!!
If only Einstein knew about CO2, and he would have figured out his Unified Field Theorem. Everything goes back to CO2. I bet the constant pi, if one was to figure the final 3 digits, would discover that it ends in CO2.
JP
I understand the (Sarc/)
Appreciated.
Auto
I’ve seen arguments that the Planck thermal radiation function is an artifact of the black carbon spectrum .
Right, now I get it. Einstein was wrong E≠MC2 actually CO2=Mc2.
E=CO2 would be Einstein’s new finding
So, basically another argument from ignorance, to wit, if the climate isn’t changing in the way we thought it was, then the only alternative is the only other way we can think of.
Recent research has revealed that hemispheric symmetry is subject to homeostatic albedo response. I would suspect that is the most likely solution to the puzzle.
Great point, Bart, about the homeostatic albedo response. I hadn’t heard of that before, so thanks for the link with the explanation! Another thought: if the northern hemisphere is receiving significantly less solar radiation than the southern hemisphere, the ice sheets would be expected to expand in the northern hemisphere and shrink (at least to begin with) in the southern hemisphere. However, the northern hemisphere has A LOT more land mass than the southern hemisphere: land mass that is much more easily covered with thick ice (which has a higher albedo than thin ice.) So, the net cooling of the northern hemisphere might easily overwhelm the increased solar irradiance on the southern hemisphere.
Besides the fact that there will be sea and land ice at 65 to 75 degrees S even with a little more sunshine, there is also the fact that not all Milankovitch Cycles produce the bihemispheric differential. Axial tilt obviously does, but eccentricity doesn’t. And it is that orbital parameter which appears now to be most important, as indicated by the switch from 40,000 year-long glacial cycles to 100,000 years, ie the eccentricity signal.
What affect will lower sea levels have on Antarctic sea ice conditions in the long term? The sea ice may not melt as far back in the southern summer. Circulation flows would likely be altered in the ACC, and also at least through the southern oceans. Perhaps, the intense antarctic cold ends up spreading out to hold greater influence closer to lower latitudes. Plus, lower sea levels will mean additional land mass in the SH. Who can say what the affects would be on the global balance.
Great point, Bart, about the argument from ignorance.
If they are correct then even the CO2 rising and falling is natural variation.
The last sentence in the abstract does indeed invoke CO2, although it is not otherwise mentioned there. Is there someone in the WUWT community who can get past the paywall and summarize how the glacial advances correlate to CO2? I am guessing it is just wiggle-matching.
Exactly – where is the connection?
“where is the connection?”
In their minds, on the grant application and now in the minds of the CO2-is-evil people.
“Here we address a long-standing puzzle of ice-age climate called the “fly in the ointment of the Milankovitch theory.”
pretty simple: The Milankovitch theory had a problem. problem fixed. Note the theory has note been rejected for years despite the “fly in the ointment”, note that nobody screamed “falisified”. Nope, there was a “fly in the ointment”. Now dead fly.
I don’t see how this fixes anything. The insulation of Antarctica, closing of the Panama Isthmus and their respective affects on ocean circulation seem much more relevant than Puff, the magic sky dragon.
http://www.catholica.com.au/misc/images2013/AJB-Global-Temp-Atmospheric-CO2-over-Geologic-Time_640x513.gif
440 million years ago, CO2 was over 4,000 ppm and the world was in an ice age. Popper would say you only need one contradicting observation to falsify a theory.
An inconvenient truth… one of many.
Still no explanation, just off the cuff (being polite) comments.
It only kills the “fly” if CO2 forcing yields about 4.5°C of warming, inclusive of feedbacks, and other unknown factors, like cloud albedo effects, are insignificant.
If the ECS is consistent with instrumental observations (0.5-2.5°C), it doesn’t kill the fly.
David Middleton
March 21, 2015 at 3:48 am
Without M. cycles in Climatology,,,,,,,, is like back to the black board, where at that point your ECS makes not even sense, regardless of what value you try to consider for it.
Agw will be put on ice probably for ever..:-)
cheers
The fly was never there. A non-existent problem solved!
1. The effects of insolation changes differ between the hemispheres. The SH getting more while the NH gets less doesn’t make the SH melt while the NH gains ice.
2. Not all Milankovitch Cycles affect the hemispheres differently.
CO2 concentration changes are an effect, not a cause of temperature changes, although they might offer a slight feedback effect.
THEY SAY FROM THE ARTICLE
This makes sense in that the whole world was cold at the same time, but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and thus cannot explain the synchronous advance of glaciers around the globe.
MY REPLY TO THEIR ASSERTIONS WHICH HOLD NO WATER
The point is the SH. and N.H. are not created equally when it comes to their response to Milankovitch Cycles.
The S.H. is set up as in such a way that it does not really matter if summer time insolation increases or decreases because the area of land that is entrenched in snow/ice is going to remain the same regardless of summer time insolation changes , in contrast to the N.H. where a difference in summer time insolation can cause a significant difference in the land area covered by snow/ice, thus effecting the albedo of the entire planet.
S.H. albedo remaining steady while N.H. albedo increasing due to favorable Milankovich Cycles.
In other words it is the N.H. which is subject to changes due to Milankovitch Cycles /albedo changes which influences the entire globe while the S.H is not subject to those changes nearly as much due to geographical considerations.
I just realized that this same idea that I pointed out in a reply above is exactly what you mentioned here mere minutes before me. It’s good to know that I am not alone with my hypothesis. 🙂
The Northern Hemisphere has a land/sea ratio of 1:1.5 approx. The Southern Hemisphere has 1:4. The oceans control the SH.
The Milankovic Cycles footprint is too widespread and deeply impressed in the geological record to be dismissed. Besides, precessional wobble of the planet’s axis of rotation is not the only MC, there are all the orbital variations as well. At present, the MC have brought things together in a very benign assembly with the planet’s orbit very close to circular, with an eccentricity of the about 0.0167 which means the orbit is nearly circular. the Earth’s orbit is nearly circular.
The eccentricity varies from about 0.0034 (even more circular than now) to almost 0.058 over hundreds of thousands of years as a result of gravitational interactions among the planets.
And elevation differences probably as well.
…and the “continental drip theory” – where the continental land masses drip down from the north pole – so that there is more land mass in high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, whereas in the southern hemisphere the preponderance of continental land mass is at the equator – excepting Antarctica itself.
Yes!
This:
“This makes sense in that the whole world was cold at the same time, but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and thus cannot explain the synchronous advance of glaciers around the globe. ”
Is where they have gone idiotically wrong. You, Salvatore, and Data Soong, have got it right.
“They” have made the typical “noob” idiot mistake of simplification and leap to conclusion. Had they actually read about the Milankovitch cycle hypothesis they would have enough clue to know they were being idiotic.
The “thumbnail” is that first Milankovitch thought something similar, but found the data conflicted. Then he tried another approach that also failed as it was “exactly backwards”. Then he had the “Ah Ha!” moment and got it right. It is all neatly described in a history of his work that I’ll recommend below. But first:
The basic cause of the asymmetry is the land. The South Pole is all land all the time surrounded by water. The North Pole is all water all the time surrounded by land. Due to this, the South Pole is ALWAYS frozen. Always. Full stop. No melting. Done deal. (Anyone talking about the South Pole “melting” is full of it. No other option applies.) Only the North Pole can melt.
And melt it does, but ONLY when things are just EXACTLY right. We are, fundamentally, an Ice Age Planet that pops out of it just for a tiny little while and only when things are just right to melt the north pole ice. Anyone who is all worked up that the North Pole is melting is like the dog trying to sink his teeth into a car tire doing 30 MPH. If he gets what he wants he will be seriously injured and absolutely mortified. WHEN the North Pole freezes over next and stays frozen we are headed head first into that long night of deep freeze frozen ice age “pronto” with no recourse. Again: Period, full stop.
What Milankovitch figured out was that when ALL the parameters of the Earth Orbit line up just so, we barely cross the threshold for North Pole melting and poke our little frozen noses out for just a little while. Then when any of them gets far enough away from that magic alignment, it’s all ice ice baby all the time again. We are presently on the cusp of that W/m^2 rate and can be stable in either frozen or melted states depending on albedo of snow on the ground…
One other point, the key bit is NOT distance from the sun. In fact, we melt when furthest from the sun. Solar energy is not diminished worth note by distance, BUT when the Earth is at it furthest from the sun, it takes longer to make the season change happen. So when it is summer at furthest from the sun we have a few more days of summer. It is that few more days, not the simple W/m^2, that melt things and let the interglacial happen.
So, when summer in the Northern Hemisphere happens with the Earth furthest from the sun, and the tilt is maximized so polar heat is maximized, and the orbital eccentricity is maximum so we get the most added days of N.H. summer, then, and only then, can ONE pole melt, that being the N.H. pole, and allow an interglacial. At all other configurations we freeze.
(Sidebar per the 41K / 100K year problem: IMHO it is pretty easy to explain. In the past we were warmer. We could melt the north pole on lesser changes, like the 41 ky changes alone. Now we are, overall, much colder. It takes ALL the parameters being neatly aligned and that only happens on the 100 Kish year cycle. Really about 120 ky including the interglacial part… Look at the temp record and you can still see spikes up at the 41 ky cycle points, just not enough to melt the North Pole…)
FWIW, if you would understand the actual Milankovitch theory (which is unlike what most folks think it is and post about and complain about and…) there is a very nice small and readable book that explains it all nicely. It is the story of the history of Milankovitch and his work with paper and pen while in a German prison, only incidentally going into the theory and how it works, via relating what he tried and failed and tried again until he got it right. That book is highly recommended:
“Ice Age: The Theory That Came In From The Cold!” by John and Mary Gribbin.
http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Age-Theory-That-Came/dp/0760734062
Please, buy it and read it. It’s a wonderful tale and full of useful information for the small size and only 105 pages. You will never look at Milankovitch the same way again once you know about his life and how carefully he worked all this out. Spending, literally, years in a prison cell with plenty of time to think and nothing but pen and paper to do the work. (The Germans in that WW were not fond of his nationality…) At the end you will understand just how interglacials form, and why they are the key bit, not “why ice ages happen”… we are default ice…
If the warmistas had a clue about this they would be actively praying for “global warming”. In no more than 2000 years and potentially as short as 300 years you can kiss Canada good-by as the ice returns. New York City goes too, but a bit later as the ice takes a while to build up… And there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it.
Now, back at this “paper”…
As they have already got it entirely wrong by saying that the hemispheres ought to be counter cyclical to each other (and completely do not have a clue that Milankovitch took that approach, found it wrong – provably – and discarded it) and are clueless about what Milankovitch actually SAID causes interglacials, the rest of their work is disposed of in the same trash barrel. If you can’t even check your references and read your citations, the rest is going to be garbage…
Like your description
But please don’t think this contradicts what I stated as being the fundamental most accurately known data . What you are saying is that it’s the very non-linear interaction between the asymmetry of the hemispheres and 3% change in our distance over ( peri- ; ap- ) -helion cycle , and the 273.15K tipping point which dominate effect .
The gray body temperature in our orbit is only about 3.1 degrees above that freezing point at aphelion so the fact that the planet is livable at all is a close call .
E.M.Smith
Milankovitch Book is ordered, thank you.
“Ice Age: The Theory That Came In From The Cold!” by John and Mary Gribbin.
http://www.amazon.com/Ice-Age-Theory-That-Came/dp/0760734062
We have only been an ice planet since the Oligocene, when Antarctica was separated from the other Gondwanan continents by deep oceanic channels. Then, as a reult of the closure of the Inter-American Seaway about three million years ago, the NH joined the SH in being icy.
Ice Houses occur at about 150 million year intervals, but the extent of ice depends upon the configuration of the continents. The Mesozoic Ice House interval didn’t produce major ice sheets, but the two during the Paleozoic Era did (the first with CO2 levels in the thousands of ppm). Before that, under a weaker sun, the Precambrian Ice Houses led to Snowball or Slushball Earth episodes.
Nir Shaviv, et al, have argued that Ice Houses result from earth’s passage through spiral arms of the galaxy.
E.M.Smith March 20, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Tx, great summary.
E.M.Smith
A very good overview.
What the mid-Pleistocene revolution (change from approximate 41 kyr to 100 kyr interglacial spacing) is indeed that in the long term glaciation is deepening and it is getting harder to pop out of glacial to interglacial.
We may just be in a transition phase going into deep global glaciation, as the earth does every 150 million years or so. Snowball earth could lie ahead.
The norm for planet Earth is not an ice age. It has had over a 1.5 billion years of no ice. We are in an ice age at present, and have been in the Quaternary Ice Age for about the last 2.4 MY. The Ice Age alternates between stadials (cold periods or glaciations) and interstadials (momentary warm periods.)
At first, the stadials, or glaciations, lasted about 41,000 years but the later ones (including the last one) have lasted 100,000 years. Lifetime of the interstadials has been anything from about 10,000 years to the current one’s 12,000+ years. Another glaciation may not be far away.
For the cause of Ice Ages, we have to look to the Solar System’s orbit about the centre of the galaxy. Each time a spiral arm is crossed, there appears to have been an Ice Age. See Dr. Nir Shaviv’s research published on his website.
Thanks EM & others.
And then there’s Roe’s analysis correlating rate-of-ice-growth/decline w/the Milankovitch cycles quite closely. So there’s little doubt MCs are the underlying cause. Of course, regional positive feedbacks (prb’ly a combination of albedo, ice-sheet dynamics and N Atlantic circulation changes) are present amplifying the MCs.
The less Arctic ice/snow there is, the more buffer we have from the next glacial temperature plunge.
E.M.Smith, …. great explanation, …. i thoroughly enjoyed reading it …. and learned a few new things in the process.
Ouch, no Kindle edition!
@E.M. Smith
Thanks for your interesting opinion, but your following quote is rather wrong.
QUOTE: “Spending, literally, years in a prison cell with plenty of time to think and nothing but pen and paper to do the work. (The Germans in that WW were not fond of his nationality…)”
In reality he spent only a short time in a real prison cell but was then allowed to work for 4 years freely and with all normal comforts in the very well equipped library of Budapest University until the end of WW 1. This was in fact a really ideal place for his work, where he was treated with all respect and dignity. (BTW: It were not Germans but Austrian who did detain him as an enemy state citizen during WW1. This was a quite common practice of all belligerent nations in the world wars and German citizens living in France, UK, Australia, Canada (and later in the US) had to endure the same treatment as well, but the most of them under less comfortable conditions.)
In WW2 he was not bothered by the Germans at all. On the contrary, in Wikipedia one can read for instance:
“After the successful occupation of Serbia on 15 May 1941, two German officers and geology students came to Milanković in his house and brought greetings from Professor Wolfgang Soergel of Freiburg. Milanković gave them the only complete printed copy of the “Canon” to send to Soergel, to make certain that his work would be preserved. Milanković did not take part in the work of the university during the occupation, and after the war he was reinstated as professor.
The “Canon” was issued by the Royal Serbian Academy, 626 pages in quarto, and was printed in German as “Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem”. The titles of the six parts of the book are:
– The planets’ motion around the Sun and their mutual perturbations
– The rotation of the Earth
– Secular wanderings of the rotational poles of the Earth
– The Earth’s insolation and its secular changes
– The connection between insolation and the temperature of the Earth and its atmosphere. The mathematical climate of the Earth
– The ice age, its mechanism, structure and chronology.
During the German occupation of Serbia from 1941 to 1944, Milanković withdrew from public life and decided to write a “history of his life and work” going beyond scientific matters, including his personal life and the love of his father who died in his youth. His autobiography would be published after the war, entitled “Recollection, Experiences and Vision” in Belgrade in 1952″
For more information of his life and work see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milanković
EM Smith, thanks for a very insightful explanation re. Milankovitch’s work, and also for recommending the Gribbins’ book. I read about ten books of John Gribbin’s books between 20 or 30 years ago on astronomy and cosmology-related subjects and I enjoyed them all. But I didn’t know John and Mary had written on Milankovich. So now I’m looking forward to reading that.
As for the “switch” from 41K to 100K cycles, just as you say, the first assumption must be that the earth has gotten colder so now takes more than maximum inclination to accomplish the melt. But why has it gotten colder? Is there a cosmic connection? Or could the root cause be that the annual pulse of Antarctic meltwater that has been going on for 20 million years or more has been steadily making the deep oceans colder, and thereby indirectly cooling the surface from below?
Evaporation from the ocean surface is how the ocean and atmosphere cool at the surface.
This whole CO2 meme will set back several scientific disciplines by a generation as the CAGW crowd sucks up finite funding and leads everyone on a wild goose chase.
Somewhere Comrade Lysenko is smiling….
Wrong tense .
So the oceans cool, which lowers atmospheric co2, and warm, raising atmoshpheric co2
But it is the co2, not the warming and cooling oceans which control the temperature??
Correct, according to The Church of CO2, the flea controls the elephant.
It seems to me that we are at the stage where portraits of the CO2 molecule are being spotted in wall stains, etc.
It was there, this morning, brazenly staring back at me from the top cake in my stack of pancakes. I did the only responsible thing I could think of, I sequestered it.
The proper term for it is “carbon pollution”.
I wonder if these people worry about getting too much chlorine in their diet from eating salted potato chips?
http://www.c3headlines.com/are-todays-temperatures-unusual/
Here is data showing temperature records which shows they are full of it.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/09/the-inexorable-causal-relationship-between-co2-and-temperature.php
More data showing they have no support for their claims..
It is the season of the N.H. that dictates the average global temperature for the globe not the S.H.
Same principal for Milankovitch Cycles . My post at 11:00am, Mar 20 look at.
ALL ‘science studies’ today that have anything remotely to do with ‘climate change’ is pegged on the CO2 stuff. All of it. This is how they get their funding. Even the stupidest, most unattached object of study has to be tied into ‘CO2 is going to kill us/it’.
They have got to be kidding me. Seriously? So all that 22 and 40 and 100 ky stuff visible across the entire Pliestocene, that’s all just chaotic oscillation in some sort of complex oceanic CO_2 reservoir system? Pure chance that the periods are coincident with orbital stuff?
I want some of what they’re smoking.
rgb
“I want some of what they’re smoking.”
Yeah, but do they have to light it with our paper money?
Thank you for admitting that there is no substance that you can smoke that will lower your IQ by 60 points.
If you believe that is what I said, I can only conclude that you have a reading comprehension problem. It is unknown to me if the problem is of natural occurrence, or the consequence of IQ lowering by artificial means.
That’s OK …..just blame it on what YOU are smoking.
Well I don’t smoke anything, hence the root cause is more likely naturally occurring deficiencies in mental acuity.
I want some of what they’re smoking.
Well I am confused. You want something that demonstrably lowers IQ by 60+ points?
Mike Borgelt March 20, 2015 at 5:11 pm
Citation for your claim of lowering IQ please.
You have, apparently, missed the point of the comment. Since what they’re smoking is completely hypothetical, the effect is implied by the quality of their work. Since no specific substance was identified, only that the hypothetical substance was the root cause of the poor quality work, the request for a cite is unreasonable. If you believe otherwise, I can only wonder if you are suffering the deleterious effects of smoking the precise same hypothetical substance.
You are assuming their IQ were above 60 to begin with.
One can always go from sixty to zero by smoking hemlock.
“You have, apparently, missed the point of the comment. Since what they’re smoking is completely hypothetical, the effect is implied by the quality of their work. Since no specific substance was identified, only that the hypothetical substance was the root cause of the poor quality work, the request for a cite is unreasonable. If you believe otherwise, I can only wonder if you are suffering the deleterious effects of smoking the precise same hypothetical substance.”
Thank you all for proving my friends are wrong when they label ME the single most argumentative person on the planet.
rgbatduke
March 20, 2015 at 11:36 am
Very wrong rgb.
That will mean that the 22, 40 and 100ky stuff, where probably you missed the 60ky stuff in between, can be explaining that the climatic cycles are of 20ky length, so every 100ky glacial period will be seen as a summery of 5 full climatic cycles (periods),,,,, as the climatic signal of Alaska suggests..:-)
Is not chaotic at all.::-),,,,,,,or perhaps only to those who try to deny even the contemplation of this as probable.
The coincidence of anthropogenic CO2 emissions with the global warming that is failing to turn in an AGW is a much more head scratching coincidence than the one you mention.
cheers
OMG, how stupid can they get – when global temperatures are running about 5-6 degrees C, like they did 20,000 years ago, you bet that glaciers will be growing in locations like Chile and New Zealand.
That evidence for cold periods within the last glacial period is some good data to have. Now we just need to extend the solar activity record back that far. Usoskin 2007 produced/examined an 11,500 year proxy record from GCR in ice cores. Shaviv produced a much longer 500 million year record from his meteorite study, but with very low resolution. Is there any ice-core GCR study or stalagmite GCR study or other type of cosmogenic isotope study extends the higher resolution solar proxy record back 20,000 or more years?
Ok, here we go, a 2002 paper studying GCR in marine sediments: “Variations in solar magnetic activity during the last 200 000 years: is there a Sun–climate connection?”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X02005162
Excerpt: “The marine δ18O record and solar modulation are strongly correlated at the 100 ka timescale. It is proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100 ka glacial–interglacial cycles.”
And from 2004: “Evidence for a link between the flux of galactic cosmic rays and Earth’s climate during the past 200,000 years,”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682603002852
which includes a graph of several 200,000 year proxy records:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/fig1christl2004.jpg
Would be nice to see the evidence for a possible solar explanation for this new cold-period data considered alongside the possible CO2 explanation.
Anybody know of any more recent higher-resolution solar proxy studies for the last glacial period?
How do they explain all the ice ages that occurred after the CO2 levels were in the thousands of parts per million? Shouldn’t the earth have burst into flames after it reached the “tipping point?”
That was different, because we did not add that CO2.
It only causes a problem when it is “unnatural” human added carbon pollution.
Honestly though, all one needs to know is that CO2 always lags warming.
Cooling starts while CO2 is rising, and warming starts while CO2 is falling.
Over and over again. It could not be more clear.
CAGW is pure BS, as is the hypothesis written about in this article.
BTW, thanks to all the sane people who comment here.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-maps/average-temparature-january-enlarge-map.html
Next I will send average global temp. for July to show N.H. dictates this.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-maps/averages-temperature-july-enlaged-map.html
This ties in with the points I was making in my post at 11:26 am and 11:00am mar 20
The CAGW hypothesis suffers from the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc…
The reason CO2 levels fall during glaciation periods is that cooling oceans absorb more CO2, and during warm Interglacials, warming oceans release more CO2 due to a process called outgassing..
Ice core analysis shows that when global cooling cycles first start, CO2 levels are still rising, and when global warming cycles first start, CO2 levels are still falling…. Eventually the CO2 levels follow the warming/cooling trends, but that’s in response to ocean temps…
Milankovitch cycles involving Earth’s orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession, combined with solar flux still best explain the long and medium term climate cycles.
CO2 levels merely FOLLOW Milankovitch cycles, and certainly are NOT the climate control knob, which Warmunists desperately try to claim…