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.
I thought the surges and ebbings of ice age glaciations in the past few million years had a linkage to atmospheric CO2 – with CO2 lagging, due to being a positive feedback rather than a root cause. Warmings caused the oceans to outgas CO2, and coolings caused the oceans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
Nowadays, the amount of CO2/carbon in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere is not constant but increasing, due to modern transfer of carbon from the lithosphere to the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere. The oceans are removing CO2 from the atmosphere despite the warming, because anthropogenic CO2 is being dumped into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to be excessively CO2-rich compared to the oceans even considering warming causing reduced solubility of CO2 in water.
Solubility of a gas in a liquid is a ratio of gas concentration above the liquid to concentration of the gas in the liquid, which means a higher concentration of gas over the liquid means the liquid has to have more of the dissolved gas to be in equilibrium with the gas over the liquid. The good news here is that while adding CO2 to the atmosphere from lithospheric carbon warms the world, the hydrosphere can absorb some of this added CO2 despite warming reducing the solubility of CO2 in water, due to the nature of solubility of a gas in a liquid.
A Milankovitch cycle does not always have to have planetary/global effect on insolation in order to have an effect on global temperature. If the northern and southern hemispheres have unequal climate sensitivity to a change in year-round insolation, or unequal climate sensitivity to a change in north/south balance of insolation (year-round or seasonal), then a Milankovitch cycle that does not affect global insolation may, or sometimes may, cause an effect.
The northern and southern hemispheres are very different. The Arctic is an ocean almost surrounded by land. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean. Regional feedbacks to the various Milankovitch cycles are not the same in these two areas.
Something that has been seen to complicate this is that the surges and ebbings of the ice age glaciations in the past ~1.2 million years largely followed the ~100,00 year eccentricity one of the Milankovitch cycles, and for almost two million years before, this largely followed one of the others.
Also changing in the past few million years, is when the modern several million years of ice age (caused by Antarctica’s contental drift taking it to the South Pole) lowered the global ocean level in recent millions of years, so that the Isthmus of Panama got in the way of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, in terms of heat transfer by ocean current.
What the Climate State are doing to science is the same as what the Islamic State are doing to archaeology in Syria and Iraq.
There is a misunderstanding by the general public, concerning the facts of what has happened in the paleo climate record, as to how large the past abrupt changes were, and how abrupt the past climate changes were, and that the very abrupt, very rapid changes are cyclical. The general public believe there has been one ice age, not 22 glacial/interglacial cycles where the cooling has become larger and faster.
Each and every interglacial period has started abruptly and ended abruptly 8000 to 12,000 years, later. The abrupt changes to the planetary temperature (Younger Dryas type changes where the high latitude regions cool by 8C with 75% of the cooling occurring in less than decade.) where in the order of the same magnitude as the Younger Dryas change.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
Abrupt, rapid change climate is a real, imminent in your face problem, not a theoretical will happen in a 1000 years problem. If this assertion is correct, we need to move this discussion on.
The orbital position of the earth does affect planetary temperature. The mechanism is not however insolation changes from the sun.
Planetary temperature in the paleo record changes abruptly, not gradually changing. Insolation changes due to planetary orbital changes gradually not abruptly. Insolation changes due to orbital changes are opposite for the two hemisphere. Milvankovich’s insolation theory is an urban legend. (See this link for more than a half dozen paradoxes.) There is something fundamental incorrect with the approach to solve one of the most important scientific problems ever faced by humanity when an urban legend is still discussed decades after it is known it is an urban legend and cannot possibly cause what is observed. It is ironic, surreal, that we are discussing the increase atmospheric CO2 is not a problem, the problem.
The problem is that urban legends incorrectly, irrationally fill the theoretical void. Pure scientists have no idea how to solve holistic problems that involve multiple fields where there are multiple fundamental errors in the basic theories. (i.e. In the case of this problem the sun and other stars are different than assumed which explains what has happened in the past to the geomagnetic field and to the climate, and explains what is currently happening to the sun, and what will happen to the climate/geomagnetic/earth.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems
The abrupt changes to planetary temperature are caused by abrupt changes to the geomagnetic field intensity and orientation. In the last 15 years, the geomagnetic field specialists have found the geomagnetic field changes cyclically and abruptly and that planetary temperatures correlate with the abrupt geomagnetic field changes.
The sun is causing the abrupt changes in the geomagnetic field and the orbital position when the sun changes abruptly modulates (amplifies or inhibits the solar change) the sun’s change on the geomagnetic field.
It is a physical fact that the geomagnetic field intensity is now for unexplained reasons dropping in intensity at 5%/decade and has dropped by roughly 8%. That is an extraordinarily fast drop. That is a drop faster than theoretical possible for core based changes. Changes in the earth’s core did not cause what is observed.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar…than-expected/
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/416/
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010EO510001/pdf
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf
William Astley
March 21, 2015 at 2:17 am
From most of what you say, the only conclusion I get is:
Nothing in this Earth of ours has changed or varied lately more than the Magnetic field and the CO2 emissions.
Nice correlation there…!
Seems these two both in the same road lately!
cheers
I noticed your mention of warming in the 1980s. Work I’m now engaged on points to late 1987 as the point at which a sudden change in European/Russian temperatures changed by + 0.5 to + 1C. The traditional linear fit to climate around this period, say 1960 to the present, can be readily shown to be a poor model. Just split the data at about Sept 1987 and do two linear fits. Quick and easy and enlightening.
It was generally understood that the ice age cycles are governed by NH Milankovitch Cycles. The NH has land that is succeptible to Milankovitch downturns while the SH does not.
When it gets 5C colder in the NH, the SH does not escape that. The atmosphere is a well-mixed gas after all and there is no barrier at the equator to stop the oceans either.
Milankovitch’s theory is an urban legend. The glacial/interglacial cycle is not caused by changes in summer insolation at 65N. There is no theory which provides a forcing mechanism as to what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle, the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, and the Heinrich events is better than the insolation urban legend.
In reality, in the physical world, there is a forcing function. The sun changes abruptly in a manner which we have never seen before which abruptly changes the geomagnetic field, which explains why the planet abruptly cooled during the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event for 1200 years. The sun returns to its normal cycle, the geomagnetic field takes 1200 years to integrate the abrupt charge change. The orbital position when the Younger Dryas abrupt change occurred was to amplify the geomagnetic field when the integration was finished. The geomagnetic field intensity increases by a factor of three to four during the interglacial periods.
Come on man.
The following are some of the paradoxes that support the assertion that Milankovitch’s theory is an urban legend, summer insolation changes 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?
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.) Insolation does not change abruptly and hence cannot cause what the observed cyclic abrupt climate changes.
5) The glacial and interglacial periods end abruptly. The paleo record supports the assertion that the mysterious cyclic abrupt climate forcing function terminates both the glacial and interglacial period.
6) The cycle abrupt climate change cools both the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern hemisphere synchronously. This does not make sense at the Southern Hemisphere has maximum insolation in the summer when the Northern Hemisphere has minimum insolation in the summer.
7) There is the 100,000-year paradox which is the fact that 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. …
8) There is the 400,000-year problem which 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. ….
9) There is the stage 5 problem which 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 (this is also called the causality paradox).
10 ) There is the paradox that 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).
11) There is 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) There is the paradox that there is no 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems
The extreme AGW paradigm pushers have anchored the climate change discussion on a warming world.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/sample_articles/cr/2002PA000791/2002PA000791.pdf
The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery
Coming later to this AGW debate than ,probably , most other contributors , some of the data discussed still has the excitement of novelty . One such plot is the well known Vostok plot ( and I appreciate there are many subsequent ice dome studies) .
I do not dispute the claims made that, whatever the trigger or primer for the sharp rises in ice temperature , the acceleration is enhanced by CO2 emission from the oceans , but this raises some questions in my mind:
Why does the temperature max out at about 2C above “benchmark” in each of the 4 main cycles ? Is it because the CO2 emission has slowed sufficiently for underlying cooling effects to re – establish?
Why is the prevailing temperature for much of the Quaternary period far below present global temperatures?
Is the ice core temperature representative of global temperatures ?
I saw somewhere a version of the Vostok plot that had dust levels added . These appeared to peak just prior to the onset of warming of the 4 main cycles . Any connection? Where did the dust come from , presumably amenable to geochemical analysis , and was it the trigger for warming?
Mike
The feedback driving abrupt change between glacial and interglacial (both ways) is driven largely by albedo, there is no evidence for and no need for any role of CO2 other than as a passive marker of temperature.
Consider this fact: there exists an albedo feedback threshold latitude (AFTL) at some high latitude. Below this latitude, ice cover cools it’s environment due to albedo. Above this latitude insolation is so weak that cooling by evaporation and radiation into a cold atmosphere is more significant than reflection/albedo. In short, South of the AFTL sea ice cools, North of it sea ice warms. By contrast open water north of the AFTL cools the climate.
Big changes between glaciation-interglacials are driven by albedo feedback which operates both ways when a large amount of ice is below the AFTL. But once the ice retreats to above the AFTL albedo feedback stops. CO2 is an irrelevance in this process.
Thank you for the response Phlogiston .The question of the effect of albedo seems to be coming up more frequently here. Perhaps IPCC will give it more attention (won’t hold my breadth).
Whatever the future conclusions on the ice cores it is , to me, remarkable that the scientists involved can extract so much from a cylinder of ice, and the results themselves still seem amazing.
From the abstract:
“but the Milankovitch theory should have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, ….”
This is a misconception. The total insolation is decreased during an iceage. The average goes down. The Southern hemisphere may go up somewhat with respect to that average, the temperature still decreases.
Moraine peaks at 41,760, 35,500; 27,170; 20,270; and 18,290 years ago.
And they are SO different than the Greenland’s temperatures that CO2 must be responsible (rather than the build-ups and drawdowns of NH ice-sheets and the resulting global Earth Albedo changes).
Hi-res Greenland and Antarctic temps and CO2 over the last 50,000 years.
http://s17.postimg.org/h3rxcfeof/Last_50_K_Greenland_Antarctic.png
Bill…
If the ECS is 3°C, shouldn’t the Greenland ice cap’s average surface temperature be about 1.3° C warmer than it was during the Medieval Warm Period?
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/WarmingIsland_GISP2.png
Wait until Gavin has time for more adjustments. It will be.
Technically Greenland’s temperature was 25C lower when CO2 fell to 180 ppm so it has a 5 times polar amplification factor.
Now that is probably more because of the Greenland d18O isotope to temperature formula which is based on borehole temperatures is way off reality and it was really only 10C colder, not 25C colder. The borehole models really screwed up Greenland’s temperatures and set-back the science by decades.
So your GISP2 numbers are probably only half as variable as Kobashi 2010 has it.
In the above chart, I was converting Antarctica and Greenland to a global temperature equivalent just to avoid the big artificial variability which is built into Greenland’s ice age temperature estimates..
My point was that the Greenland ice cap doesn’t appear to be any warmer now than it was during the MWP.
So, either the rise in CO2 from 280-400 ppmv yielded no measurable warming, Greenland should be about 1.3-6.5°C colder than the MWP or CO2 was a lot higher during the MWP than indicated by Antarctic ice cores.
I don’t have access beyond the paywall, but it seems to me they’re making the case for internal ocean variability being the biggest “control knob”.
regarding glaciers many of the earth`s glaciers in the Alps, Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia retreated nearly half a century before the industrial revolution and man`s CO2 emissions. So if there was a CO2 connection it is not due to humans.
Amazing! 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. From the study of alpine glaciation to global climate in a nutshell. Next they will be claiming they now understand global beach formation from their sad box research. I wonder how mush tax funding supported this agenda driven rampage at the expense of Science. SHAMEFUL is what it is.
From what I dope out, the paper is saying the the Milliecycles still rule, but there is a more complex feedback mechanism involved in the retreat of the ice sheet.
It does not appear to be saying CO2 drives the ice ages, but that it feeds back the warming of the cycles. But we already knew that: CO2 outgassing “shortly” follows the interglacial onset, and has a knock-on effect, contributing ~1C to the interglacial acme and slowing the descent into the following ice age.
The paper merely seems to be hypothesizing the mechanics in greater detail. Interesting, but not a groundbreaker, so far as I can tell.
“…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.”
This describes a positive feedback loop, how does the earth ever warm up after getting locked into it? This would apply to a positive feedback loop for temperature increasing as well like a home thermostat telling the heater to give more heat as the house get hotter. For a system to stay stable in need a negative feedback to keep from running away in one direction.
Rrom the article;
“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.”
So the MC are confirmed by this study to cause IA’s – and not refuted as some above have said.
Also why should the MC “have opposite effects for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres”?
With TSI yes – but the SH is mostly water which will store the heat overwhelmingly as the NH cools and the feed-backs there due land-mass lower albedo will dominate, and the atmosphere cool over the entire planet.
Currently the MC is at a point where TSI is strongest in the SH summer (~8%) and NH winter. It needs to be the other way around to warm the planet overall. Now it seems also that SH glaciers are sensitive to sea temps (evaporation/deposition of snow (LH) + sensible heat). The ocean current cycle must be much delayed vs the MC cycle, and bear in mind the cold melt water pouring into the ocean and sinking over millenia too.
[[popcorn] Ok…[/popcorn]
Paul.
Verry sorry, but can’t really tell what exactly your reply means.
Mods any help there with the translation?!?
cheers
Means calling out rgb as just “wrong”, is likely to be entertaining, not that he can’t be…. Rolling out the popcorn and waiting to see if there’s gonna be a show… 🙂
Ah, ok, I see.
Thanks for the clarification/////and good luck with the popcorns. 🙂
This post emphasizes something that has been known for some time from Greenland and Antarctic ice core data. When orbital cycles decrease insolation in the northern hemisphere (NH), they increase insolation in the SH. Yet glacial cycles in both NH and SH occur at about the same time and correlate with low insolation in the NH. So orbital cycles per se are not the direct cause of SH glaciation. Neither can increased NH ice albedo be the sole cause (although it is contributory), because this ice cannot cool the globe by some 4-6 deg-C, as suggested by proxy data.
Somehow the SH is depleted in solar heat during glaciation. Some may be stored in deep oceans, but I suspect increased SH cloud cover and higher albedo play a significant role.
If greenhouse gases played a part in ice age climate change then H2O would have had to be the primary culprit. The climate has had to have sufficient negative feedbacks to make it stable enough for life to have evolved. AGW theory is dependent on the idea that, because H2O is a greenhouse gas, H2O provides a positive feedback to changes in CO2 so as to amplify how CO2 affects climate. But the theory ignores the fact that H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface of where clouds from via the heat of vaporization. They also ignore clouds and what must happen in the upper atmosphere. I would expect that if changes in CO2 affected climate then such changes would change the temperature lapse rate in the troposphere but it does not. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.
Afternoon all.
As many have said the orbital cycle theory of ice ages just doesn’t make sense.
1) As the paper, and NOAA, acknowledge the cycles and glaciation can be antiphase: NOAA: “during the most recent ice age occurred at about the time the region was experiencing a peak in local sunshine.” See (e.g) the last cycle in the below image, it’s the wrong way round.
2) The change in forcing is too small, so they must invoke a high sensitivity to CO2.
3) Why does the temperature only respond stringly to the fifth cycle? Whats wrong with the photons of the other peak? And why a rapid change on the fifth, when the orbital forcings are gradual?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/images/data2-dome-fuji-lg.gif
To my mind a much better, simpler, and more elegant mechanism for ice ages comes from the Arctic flicking between ice free and ice covered states.
Phase 1) When the Arctic is frozen over the ocean beneath it is prevented from losing heat to space. Warm currents from the equatorial Atlantic arrive, but in effect the ice “insulates” the sea from radiating (and evaporating and conducting) to space, so more energy builds up than would normally be the case in an ice-free state.
And it builds up.
And builds up. Slowly heating the oceans over hundreds, thousands, of years.
We are talking about 14 billion m^2 of sea area that would (in an ice free state) be radiating/convecting/evaporating tens of W/m^2 to space. But it’s not as ice cover is preventing that. (Note open sea can obviously absorb solar also, but at the high N lattitudes there isn’t much direct solar especially in winter)
Eventually there’s enough heat in the system to start melting the ice again, leading to…
Phase 2) Only when the ice cap has lost sufficient area can the process shift to the opposite phase. As the Atlantic can now lose heat via the now Ice free (or mostly ice free) Arctic the energy in the system starts to fall.
And fall. And fall.
Note that the Arctic is also evaporating water vapour, but there’s limited solar for it to act as a positive feedback there. So we now have cold temperatures + moisture –> snow, snow, snow, snow, snow, and the ice builds up, and up and up, and it’s deja vu all over again as we move back to phase 1.
The M-cycles may be the final “push” that melts that last bit of Arctic ice sending the system into phase 2. That explains why it’s only the peak cycles that do so. The change in their own energy is not sufficient on it’s own.
An attempt to link past ice ages to CO2, rather than orbital cycles, is equivalent to a drowning man clutching at straws. The catastrophic man-made global warming mantra is now so broken, these climate change charlatans will resort to anything to keep their mantra flame burning. It’s shameful! It’s embarrassing! It’s disgraceful! It’s unscientific!
In our country there is a saying, when something is wrong and says: “Where is the much-midwife midwife, children are suffering from hernia” .This can be applied to “toil” theory of the causes of climate change. It is really so far all hernial, if we consider so claims, evidence and predictions, of which there are no real nor the results or certificates.
Milankovic was on his way to find out the true causes and gave the receipts of the theory related to the long-term laws of motion of our planet and its behavior under the influence of the greatest causes of all the phenomena in our solar system, and that is the sun. Science has no sense to realize that all changes to the planets and the sun, the consequences of mutual influence on each other. This what some scientists, who are on the right track evidence of true causes of climate change, related to the appearance of the sun, these are only indicators of something much more subtle and more powerful what causes these changes, and we do not want to analyze. The simplest is to blame CO2, because it can not prove or disprove any of its properties that can cause these changes. Place the probe into the ground to the depth of several tens of meters and measuring the magnetic field of the earth and temperature and find their mutual relationship and will be more clearly which direction and who act on these changes. I claim that four influential planets, their positions around the sun, forming cycles of about 11.2 years, which determines the behavior of sunspot. These spots do not cause climate change but are pointers of some bigger and stronger changes in the planets. It is pictured as when someone gets redness and increased body temperature. This is an indication that something big going on in the organism, and the organism to which there are sunspots are planet and only sun, only we still do not have “competent doctor” who knows when it causes. I’m trying to publish this, but everyone wants and they are used to pay for them to learn something new. While this relationship does not change, can not be defined not true causes of climate change.
‘the more robust
climate models can be in
predicting future change.’
never forget:
It’s about the future of our climate models.
stay tuned.
I am always bemused when workers suggest that the post-MPT terminations, and subsequent interglacials, were spurred by GHGs. Think that through for a moment. At each glacial maximum, when populations of just about everything are down, some mysterious, rhythmic (paced by eccentricity) burst of CO2 appears from somewhere and terminates the glacial and rockets us into an interglacial. OK, such a burst of CO2 that can cause sea levels to jump ~400 feet would seem to require the majority of our attention. How on earth (literally) do we deal with that? Instead of focusing on the “big thing”, we are instead focused on something which according to AR4, Figure 10.33, series marker A1F1, and the upper error bar at that, might yield a +0.6 meter rise in sea level by 2099. Anybody else realize that we are focused on the smallest possible aspect of GHG inspired sea level rise?
But wait, if you call in the next 10 minutes, we will double the cognitive dissonance with this stunning bit of mental chicanery. Assume, for the purposes of discussion, that CO2 is responsible for glacial terminations. Humor me (and yourself). OK, and now you want to remove it from the 11,718 year old (uh, that’s half a precession cycle you know) late Holocene atmosphere. Riiiiggghhhtttt!!!! What? You want to remove the only prognosticated speedbump to glacial inception? I mean, er, ah, 7 of the last 8 interglacials have each lasted about half a precession cycle.
They never see that one coming………..
You would be surprised to learn that some would be farmers standing for election in NSW believe that CO2 levels are rising and contributing to global warming. That Australian soils were caused by glaciers grinding down rocks (no glaciers in Australia possibly one in Tasmania) but the tree lines were lower and rain forests less abundant. Hadn’t they heard of igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Basalt and granite are igneous. That land clearance rules was ruining farmers? Well land clearance and die back of certain gum trees has been blamed on soil erosion and degradation. They want clean energy to stop climate change. Ah, they get paid $15k per year to put up a wind turbine on their land. I told one aspiring member of this class, to bloody look up at the sky, see what angle the sun was, and the type of clouds in the sky and watch when deciduous trees turn color. It’s a shame but behind their silly and corrupted views that there is $$$’s.
bushbunny
Alice Springs is right at -23.5 latitude right? That is, the middle of OZ is crossed by the southern tropic of Capricorn, and so half of Australia is in the tropics, and the other half is between the tropics and the southern equniox zone, right?