Life on Earth was nearly doomed by too little CO2

During the last ice age, too little atmospheric carbon dioxide almost eradicated mankind

Guest Essay by Dennis T. Avery

Aside from protests by Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio and friends, the public didn’t seem to raise its CO2 anguish much above the Russians-election frenzy when Trump exited the Paris Climate Accords.

Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had already pointed out that the Paris CO2 emission promises would cost $100 trillion dollars that no one has, and make only a 0.05 degree difference in Earth’s 2100 AD temperature. Others say perhaps a 0.2 degree C (0.3 degrees F) difference, and even that would hold only in the highly unlikely event that all parties actually kept their voluntary pledges.

What few realize, however, is that during the last Ice Age too little CO2 in the air almost eradicated mankind. That’s when much-colder water in oceans (that were 400 feet shallower than today) sucked most of the carbon dioxide from the air; half of North America, Europe and Asia were buried under mile-high glaciers that obliterated everything in their paths; and bitterly cold temperatures further retarded plant growth.

In fact, Earth’s atmosphere had only about 180 parts per million CO2, compared to today’s 400 ppm: 0.018% then versus 0.040% today.

The Ice Age’s combined horrors – intense cold, permanent drought and CO2 starvation – killed most of the plants on Earth. Only a few trees survived, in the mildest climates. Much of the planet’s grass turned to tundra, which is much less nourishing to the herbivores prehistoric humans depended on for food and fur. Recent Cambridge University studies conclude that only about 100,000 humans were left alive worldwide when the current interglacial warming mercifully began.

The few surviving prey animals had to keep migrating to get enough food. That forced our ancestors to migrate with them, in temperatures that routinely fell to 40 degrees below zero (both Fahrenheit and Celsius). The Neanderthals had been living in relatively warm caves protected from predators by fires at the cave mouths. They had hunted their prey by sneaking through the trees – which no longer existed. They apparently couldn’t adapt, and starved. Cambridge found no evidence of genocidal warfare.

The most successful human survivors – who provided most of the DNA for modern Europeans – were nomads from the Black Sea region. The Gravettians had never had trees, so they invented mammoth-skin tents, held up by salvaged mammoth ribs. They also developed spear-throwers, to kill the huge beasts from a safe distance.

Equally important, Gravettians domesticated and bred wolves, to protect their tents from marauders, locate game animals on the broad tundra, and harry the prey into defensive clusters for easier killing. The scarcity of food in that Glacial Maximum intensified the dogs’ appreciation for the bones and bone marrow at the human camps.

When that Ice Age ended, moreover, CO2 changes didn’t lead the warming. The atmospheric CO2 only began to recover about 800 years after the warming started.

Carbon dioxide truly is “the gas of life.” The plants that feed us and wildlife can’t live without inhaling CO2, and then they exhale the oxygen that lets humans and animals keep breathing.

Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.

There’s little danger to humans of too much CO2 in the air they breathe. Even the Environmental Protection Agency says 1000 ppm is the safe limit for lifetime human exposure. Space shuttle CO2 alarms are set at 5,000 ppm, and the alarm in nuclear submarines is set at 8,000 ppm!

If there’s little danger of humans having too much CO2 in their air, and a real danger to civilization from having too little, what’s the ideal level of atmospheric CO2? The answer? There’s a broad safe range – with far more risk of too little than too much. At low levels, with few or no plants, there’d be no people or animals, let alone civilization.

Human numbers, moreover, expanded strongly during the Holocene Optimum, with temperatures 4 degrees C higher than today! Even now, residents of the tropics keep demonstrating that humans can tolerate much higher temperatures than most of us experience. (As we utilize the new malaria vaccine, the tropics will prosper even more.) And far more people die from “too cold” than from “too warm.”

The crops continue to produce record yields in our “unprecedented” warming – and the extra CO2 in our air is credited with as much as 15% of that yield gain!

It’s not whether more CO2 in the air raises Earth’s temperatures. We know it does, by some small but still hotly debated amount. Both sides agree that a redoubling of CO2 in the air – by itself – would raise earth’s temperature by only about 1 degree C.

That’s hardly noticeable or measurable in the midst of all the local temperature variations, with the myriad of natural forces that govern planetary climate, with all the discrepancies among the various measuring systems, and amid all the errors, biases and missing or revised data that have crept in.

Moreover, 1 degree C of warming was obviously not enough to frighten the public.

So, the computerized models cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made another assumption: that a hotter world would hold more moisture in its atmosphere. Since water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, the climate modelers claimed Earth might heat by 5 or even 10 degrees C. One scientist (who supposedly advises Pope Francis) recently claimed 12 degrees C (21 degrees F) of overheating!

The awkward truth, however, is that NASA has monitored moisture in the atmosphere since 1980 – and water vapor has not increased despite the higher levels of CO2 in the air. Is that why the IPCC models have predicted more than twice as much warming as we’ve actually seen?

The year 1936 recorded the hottest thermometer readings of any year in the last 5,000. However, these days NOAA reports only its “adjusted” temperatures, which always seem to go only higher. In fact, the first surge of human-emitted carbon dioxide after World War II should have produced the biggest surge of warming – if CO2 is the control factor. Instead temperatures went down from 1940 to 1975.

Why did the computer models fail to predict (or even factor in) either the Pacific Oscillation’s current 20-year non-warming or the coming solar sunspot minimum?

The latest data from the CERN particle physics lab has produced a model based on cycling – and it foresees no runaway warming. Instead, it sees an impending cold solar minimum.

Is the long, wrong-headed war against carbon dioxide finally fading? Science certainly says it should. But perhaps there is still too much money, prestige and power in climate alarmism for that to happen.


Dennis T. Avery is an agricultural and environmental economist and a senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia. He was formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State and is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years.

4.7 23 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

176 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 1, 2017 12:01 am

This data is shown as a bar graph in Fig 7 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com. The paleo estimates are near the minimum of the range determined by Berner as shown in the graph at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Carbon dioxide levels, ppmv
40,000 Exhaled breath
20,000 No symptoms in healthy young people below this level
8,000 OSHA limit for 8 hr exposure
5,000 OSHA limit for continuous exposure
5,000 Approximate level 500 million years ago
1,500 Artificial increase in some greenhouses to enhance plant growth
1,000 Approximate level 100 million years ago
1,000 Common target maximum for ventilation design for buildings
405 Current atmospheric level
275 Atmospheric level before industrial revolution
190 Atmospheric level at end of last glaciation
150 All land plants and animals become extinct below this level.
Land plants become extinct because they are unable to reproduce. Land animals then starve.

SAMURAI
July 1, 2017 12:03 am

CO2 levels below 150ppm is a global extinction event….
Just 12,000 years ago, some proxy estimates put CO2 levels at 170ppm– just 20ppm away from all life going extinct…
We should be absolutely ecstatic that life-giving CO2 levels have increase to 400ppm…. but, alas…
Some research suggests the increase of CO2 levels alone (from 280ppm in 1750 to present day 400ppm) have increased crop yields 25%, with another 25% increase, if they beneficially increase to 560ppm by 2100…
CAGW Is such a loony Leftist sc@m…

MRW
Reply to  SAMURAI
July 1, 2017 5:33 am

The CO2 count under a forest canopy today is 600 PPM. For all those who like to go camping and hiking in the Rockies.

Reply to  MRW
July 1, 2017 9:00 pm

Yes, the canopy prevents the CO2 produced by soil from dispersing.

July 1, 2017 2:24 am

Without CO2 there would be no Oxygen …

Willy Pete
Reply to  vuurklip
July 1, 2017 12:11 pm

The O2 in our air comes from water, but it wouldn’t have been released without both water and CO2 in photosynthesis.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  vuurklip
July 2, 2017 5:28 am

There’s 500 times more oxygen than Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s aytmosphere

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 2, 2017 6:40 am

Exactly. Without plants, water and CO2 there would not be oxygen in the atmosphere. So, more CO2 = more plant matter = more oxygen.

ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 3:56 am

Just a thought from a non-expert: I frequently hear about ocean outgassing when it warms, but wouldn’t the huge amount of ice melt from glacial maximum to/through the HCO also release a lot of sequestered CO2? Would that also contribute to the 800ish year time lag?

ChrisDinBristol
Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 3:59 am

(oh, and aren’t the ice cores an unreliable measure of historic CO2, becoming more so the further you go back in time?)

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 5:59 am

They’re not unreliable. However, they do have limited resolution. High accumulation-rate ice cores have higher resolution, but can only “see” back a few thousand years. Low accumulation-rate ice cores can “see” back 400-800 thousand years, but they have very low resolution.comment image
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/28/breaking-hockey-sticks-antarctic-ice-core-edition/

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 11:45 am

David,
If I remember well, Vostok has a resolution of ~600 years over 420,000 years, while Dome C is at ~560 years over the past 800,000 years.
While looking for the exact figures I found a response to the critique of Dr. Salby on ice cores reliability by Eric Wolff, from BAS and Cambridge;
http://www.climatescience.cam.ac.uk/docs/icecoreco2.pdf

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 12:20 pm

David,
BTW, I missed the discussion about the ice core resolution of some months ago, but while a sinusoid of up to twice the resolution will not be detected in an ice core, the current increase is either one-way and will be detected in every ice core, even with the worst resolution – be it with a lower amplitude, or it is part of a large sinusoid and then the wavelength is already over 600 years, again vivisble in every ice core, even with the lowest resolution…

Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
July 1, 2017 11:12 am

Chris,
Hardly of influence, as the air in the ice is of similar compostion as the atmosphere at the moment that it is enclosed. Thus varying between about 180 and about 300 ppmv. As the bubbles at closing depth are about 10% of the ice volume and the ice volume is a tiny fraction of the atmospheric volume (at 1 bar), it may give only a change of a few ppmv when released at the opposite point of the temperature cycle…

ChrisDinBristol
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 2, 2017 5:57 pm

Thanks. You chaps (and chapesses) are an ongoing education . . .

Shane
July 1, 2017 3:58 am

Finally someone is saying what I have been saying for a long time.
The statement above are correct.
Whats missing, humans and animals alike need CO2 which controls the blood PH levels.
Without it we would not function.
The one thing thats missing is the NASA Saber project which seems that higher concentrations of CO2 actually protect the planet from solar burst.

July 1, 2017 11:56 am

What the author doesn’t take into account is that there is a little advantage that inland plants have, compared to the CO2 levels in the bulk of the atmosphere: CO2 in the first few hundred meters over land is biased higher compared to “background” (as measured in ice cores), in average but also at least a few hours in the morning, until photosynthesis takes more and more out of the air.
Here the monthly averages at Giessen, mid-west Germany which show some average 40 ppmv levels above background. Most of that is from soil bacteria, rotting vegetation and nightly respiration, but it may have helped some C3 plant in growth, even if it was only a few hours per day…
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/giessen_mlo_monthly.jpg

Gabro
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
July 1, 2017 12:21 pm

I suspect that CO2 was not “well mixed” during glacial intervals, which are windy, with pronounced temperature gradients.
As areas with plant cover suck CO2 out of the air, masses would come in with more, particularly off of the ice sheets. Air with more CO2 is also heavier than those with O2 instead, if ever so slightly.

July 1, 2017 1:04 pm

Thoughts from 2009 – not all that bad for the time – a few corrections added later – details re C3 vs C4 and CAM plants, 180 ppm vs 200 ppm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comment-79426
(Plant) Food for Thought (apologies – written too late at night)
Background:
http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html
1. “As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels – below 200 ppm – will cease to grow or produce.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth's_atmosphere
2. “The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 kyr BP (Before Present). During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials…
… On longer timescales, various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 myr BP of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm.”
Questions and meanderings:
According to para.1 above:
During Ice ages, does almost all plant life die out as a result of some combination of lower temperatures and CO2 levels that fell below 200ppm (para. 2 above)? If not, why not?
Does this (possible) loss of plant life have anything to do with rebounding of atmospheric CO2 levels as the world exits the Ice Age (in combination with other factors such as ocean exsolution)? Could this contribute to the observed asymmetry?
When all life on Earth comes to an end, will it be because CO2 permanently falls below 200ppm as it is permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks, hydrocarbons, coals, etc.?
Since life on Earth is likely to end due to a lack of CO2, should we be paying energy companies to burn fossil fuels to increase atmospheric CO2, instead of fining them due to the false belief that they cause global warming?
Could T.S. Eliot have been thinking about CO2 starvation when he wrote:
“This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Regards, Allan 🙂

Reply to  Allan M.R. MacRae
July 3, 2017 9:03 am

Allan
According to this paper by Franck et al (Causes and Timing of Future Biosphere Extinctions, 2006) CO2 starvation is a highly plausible reason for eventual total biosphere extinction:
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/297542/filename/bg-3-85-2006.pdf

Gabro
July 1, 2017 3:26 pm

Toward Pleistocene Park:
http://www.realclearlife.com/science/peter-thiel-funding-effort-bring-woolly-mammoths-back-life/
After the woolly mammoth, then the rhino, Irish elk and long-horned bison!
Not so sure about short-faced bears, cave bears, saber-tooth cats, cave lions, dire wolves, etc.

July 1, 2017 5:01 pm

“In fact, Earth’s atmosphere had only about 180 parts per million CO2, compared to today’s 400 ppm: 0.018% then versus 0.040% today.”
Think about that mate. 180 ppm put us in the freezer, 280 ppm is the norm during interglacials – and we’re currently over 400 ppm.
You don’t see that that indicates the acute sensitivity of planetary temperature to CO2 level?
You’d have to be blind not to see it.

Reply to  Jack Davis
July 1, 2017 8:09 pm

You have the cart before the horse. There is a sensivity of CO2 levels to planetary temperatures. This is well-known and understood.

Reply to  Jtom
July 2, 2017 11:19 pm

“Understood” by the science [snip] on this website – refuted by science.
[Reply: Certain pejoratives are prohibited on this site. Be nice and we won’t call you names either ~ mod ~ but some of you can guess who ~ yeah I’m back for a couple of months]

Reply to  Jtom
July 2, 2017 11:40 pm

K. Understood. Impressed you didn’t cull it completely.
Reply: Booyah ~ mod

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Jack Davis
July 2, 2017 12:24 am

“Jack Davis July 1, 2017 at 5:01 pm
180 ppm put us in the freezer, 280 ppm is the norm during interglacials…?
Evidence for this is where?

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 2, 2017 11:14 pm

“180 ppm put us in the freezer, 280 ppm is the norm during interglacials…?
Evidence for this is where?”
It was stated in the article at the head of this discussion.

donb
Reply to  Jack Davis
July 2, 2017 12:44 pm

Jack: Variation of atmospheric CO2 with temperature is unrelated to what effect CO2 has on temperature as a greenhouse gas. Even IF CO2 were not a greenhouse gas, its solubility in oceans as a function of temperature would remain.

michael hart
July 1, 2017 5:31 pm

Note that the pH changes associated with all that extra CO2 (concentrated in shrunken oceans) also didn’t cause terrible “‘ocean acidification” extinctions. The coral reefs are still with us.
The amount of extra CO2 would have come not only from the atmosphere itself but also from the water that was condensed in the ice sheets, because solid ice cannot contain the same amount of CO2 that can dissolve in liquid water (either fresh or saline).
Then there is all the extra carbon dioxide that would have come from the forests as they were swept from the landscape. Thus, massive changes in the carbon sources and sinks and yet no chemical disasters arising from CO2. This give sthe lie to the current scare stories about how extra CO2 would impact the oceans. The biosphere has seen it all before and took it in its stride.

Martin Hertzberg
July 2, 2017 1:55 am

Current CO2 measurements are direct air samples and are accurate. Vostok values are from bubbles trapped in ice for many centuries. Lots can happen to those trapped gases and so the absolute values for the Vostok data cannot be too accurate. However the relative values between Glacials and Interglacials are probably OK.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Martin Hertzberg
July 2, 2017 5:52 am

“Martin Hertzberg July 2, 2017 at 1:55 am
Current CO2 measurements are direct air samples and are accurate.”
How many sites? Mauna Loa? How many meters above sea level?

Robert W Turner
July 2, 2017 9:01 am

Most crop plants are angiosperms and have evolved over the past 100 million years, not 400 million. Some crops, i.e. corn, are C4 pathway plants that evolved in the past 20 million years. C4 photosynthesis evolved independently in several plant families, suggesting that global CO2 levels directly led to this evolution.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 3, 2017 11:42 am

Corn is a hybrid of two other grass species. They evolved for millions of years, but corn was created by crossing them perhaps inside 10,000 years (exact date uncertain and some guesses as short as 5000 years). This article claims residue found about 9000:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html
The cross has been recreated in the lab, BTW. A big deal as this means a whole lot more genetic material is now available to corn breeders. Teosente and some other grass.
This doesn’t detract from your point, it only adds an interesting detail of the process and path. Many food crops are inter species hybrids. Look up the Triangle Of Wu, three species (mustard, cabbage, turnip) crossed in pairs to give the brassicas… kale, chois, rutabagas, broccoli, cauliflower, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_of_U

Gabro
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 3, 2017 12:03 pm

E. M.
You have more recent information than I, but IMO maize is not a hybrid at all, but simply results from domestication of teosinte by selective breeding (artificial selection). Indeed,their genes, ie protein-coding sequences, might well be the same.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/corn/
Hybrids of maize and teosinte are used for research purposes, but in terms of “genes” they are variants of the same species.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 5, 2017 1:03 am

Thankfully, opinions are of little importance.
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-04/du-poc033004.php

MONTREAL — The scientific puzzle pieces are fitting together to form a definitive picture of the origin of corn, says a Duke University plant geneticist who has proposed that the world’s most important food crop originated in an ancient cross between two grasses.
Mary Eubanks described the latest evidence that corn, or maize, originated as a cross between teosinte and gamagrass, or Tripsacum, in a talk Friday, April 2, 2004, at a symposium on maize held at the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (www.saa.org) in Montreal. Her research is supported by the National Science Foundation and the North Carolina Biotechnology Center.
Eubanks, an adjunct professor of biology, has developed evidence that modern corn, scientific name Zea mays, did not evolve solely from a Central American grass known as teosinte — traditionally the most widely held theory. Rather, her experiments clearly demonstrate that corn arose from a serendipitously viable cross between teosinte and gamagrass.

July 2, 2017 1:49 pm

wrt Gobbekli-Tepe. Cutting raw rock with only stone tools is immensely labor intensive. The question is how to feed these folks. Seems there are two possibilities. You get the work done fast, which means a lot of people working full time at it and not producing squat as food. So you hunt to feed them. How long until the area is hunted out? How far can you haul a dead deer, should you have to go further and further to find one, and still have it edible? Two days?
The alternative is to have a few people working for decades or centuries and so feeding them isn’t a problem. It does, however, presume a culture which will keep the effort going for decades or even centuries.
Rejigger the date of the Neolithic, seems like the best bet.

E.M.Smith
Editor
July 3, 2017 11:19 am

Loved your 1500 years book!
When I first got started looking at “global warming” I ran into Bond Events and similar periodic cycles. Then ran off to Barnes & Noble looking for more on “global warming”; saw the title, and had to buy it. That was the moment I turned from “puzzled seeker” to informed understanding.
Thank you for that.
Anyone who looks at the horrific conditions during glacials will understand cold is bad, horribly bad. Anyone who goes to vacation hotspots already knows warm is good. Very very good.
Just look at the preferred locations. Florida, Brazil, Italy, Australia, etc. etc. Hot, sunny, beaches and forests.
Where are the people in California? Not in the cold mountains, not in the cool north, but in the hot southern desert… Where do folks go to retire? Phoenix Arizona and southern Florida. I was in Phoenix when it was reported at 125 F at the airport and the tarmac taxiways were melting, so they shut down. The family went to a cactus garden in the morning, then the hotel pool that afternoon. Mornings and evenings were glorious!
(It was a bit funny in the pool, though… they had dark tile stripes so it solar heated, but that isn’t adjustable… the hot tub, though, by law had to be no more than 104 F… so we would dip in the hot tub to cool off! The pool was about 114 F. Get wet, then sit in the shade and you cool off a lot.)
Nobody in our party (nor anyone we met) was particularly bothered by the heat. This means that everywhere ELSE has a long ways to warm before they are too hot… At worst, you take a long lunch and siesta from about noon to 3 PM, dinner at 9 pm… like traditional Mexico…
The notion that hot is bad is just crazy and defies common experience. Very few people choose to vacation in Siberia in winter… many are found in Miami in summer.
That we are positioned at the very end of the interglacial cycle time line is the problem. That ought to be what folks work to fix. IFF CO2 were a “greenhouse gas” (an oxymoron as gasses convect but glass does not) then the proper thing to do is burn all the carbon we can find. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to stop nature from returning to the freezer…

Gabro
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 3, 2017 11:28 am

The Holocene is liable to last at least 3000 more years and possibly 30,000 or longer, depending upon which Milankovitch cycle rules.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 12:21 pm

It is also just as valid to say it is already ending, given the historical cooling from the Holocene Optimum and the length of prior interglacials. I’ll take historical fact over hypothetical extrapolation of models, thanks…
The dominant state of global climate is glacial ( has been for about 1/2 million years of this Ice Age, with 100,000ish years of ice, then about 10,000 of warm). We are already below the level of insolation at 65N that keeps us warm. We are now in the unstable zone. If, at any time for any reason, we do not melt the north polar area in summer, we enter the next glacial. The only question is how much must stay snow covered through summer, and that amount decreases each year as obliquity changes.
Nobody knows when that day will come. Milancovitch gave us a method of understanding the mechanism, but not a stopwatch on the process. What we do know it that interglacials arrive in only one case: enough insolation in summer to melt the north polar glaciers. We are past that point in the cycle. It is over. Now it is just a waiting game to the first cold blip and then the plunge.
The Little Ice Age almost put us their. Some folks claim it was a Bond Event. IMHO, there is a half Bond Event cycle as well, and the L.I.A. was a half Bond Event (these show up in 750 or so year cycles of empires, wars, migrations, and famine through history). If that is valid, the next cooling will be a real full Bond Event, due to arrive after the present warm burst. Normally there is a warm spike, then a cold plunge. The present warm means the cold is comming… That could be as soon as this grand solar minimum. 540 A.D. + 1500 = 2040 A.D., at the outside. 536 + 1470 = 2006 A.D. as the earliest, which is about when “global warming” stopped… But these things are slow. Even a 750 year subcycle takes 10 lifetimes.
So you have a nice modeled conjecture, but I’d not bet on it with my life… It is just as likely that we get a full Bond Event in 20 years, the North freezes over, and the glacial begins.
FWIW, my best conjecture is that it holds off until about 2300 A.D. I won’t go into why, but there’s reason to think that’s going to be a cold turning point. (Lunar tidal changes of 1800 year cycles stir up cold ocean, or don’t, and that shifts currents).
IMHO, the most important warning shot was the L.I.A. The Roman Optimum was far warmer than now (they knew how to build central heating. It is missing from some of their homes in places that need it today) and the L.I.A. almost a glacial entry. Next cycle will be colder still. This isn’t a “static until it changes” process, it is a constant change to colder with a 1500 year sine wave overlay. Then an ice threshold glacial inception.
Now even if, by some magic, we avoid glacial inception for 3000 years, it will still be coldrr in the next L.I.A. than in the last one, and it will arrive on schedule. Either in a few years if it was a Half Bond Event, or in about 2600 A.D. if it was a full B.E.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
Expecting continuous normal is as foolish as expecting continued warming. We are on a cycle machine in a downslope to cold. Exectly where in which cycle TBD…

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 12:33 pm

The problem is that historically, interglacials vary greatly in duration.
So far the 11,400 year-old Holocene hasn’t lasted as long as the previous interglacial, the 16,000-year Eemian, let alone the much longer interglacial of MIS 11. There have also been a few shorter than the Holocene since the mid-Pleistocene transition to longer glacial intervals, but they were more like double interglacials.
So history isn’t much of a guide.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 1:26 pm

comment image
Shows past interglacials with a much sharper peak. IMHO, it was a meteor strike into the N.American ice field causing the Younger Dryas cooling that peak clipped ours. We have had an anomalous flat pattern due to that destruction of ice via impact.
The pattern of rapid down will resume, and looking at the width of peaks at the 0 line, the odds are highest for very soon. But as I pointed out above, exactly when is known to no one. It has a stochastic component. Volcanoes, meteor strikes causing lava flows or dust clouds, Bond Events arriving in sync with other cold pressures. One simply can not say when the end comes. All it would take is a shift of the Gulf Stream leading to ice build up. (As one example).
Now one might take solice from our flatter top, or become worried that we are already at the lower level of now. I’m hopeful the lack of downward momentum in temperatures is a benefit, but it could just as easily mean we can start the plunge without warning.
What is very clear is that the historical record gives much higher odds that we are very near the end and it is highly unlikely we have thousands of years left. Ice near Greece bringing down the Byzantine Empire, ice faires in England, year without a summer in New England: all those say we were on the edge of glacial inception. Orbital mechanics say the next dip will be even worse. Bad enough? That is not knowable.
So about “now”, or about 2300 A.D., or about 2600 A.D. are all very likely inception events (depending on the exact status of the Bond Event cycle and lunar cycle of orbit change). Could we get through those? Sure. But there are a lot of IFs… it is also possible that a 5000 year cycle must happen:
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full
The interaction of Milancovitch cycles with lunar tidal cycles matters, and glacial inception can happen any ANY time they leave summer frozen in the northern hemisphere, since we are below the insolation limit.
I choose to look at the L.I.A and see a near miss. You choose to look at orbits and take comfort.
I see continued migration to a colder North from lower insolation. You choose to see stasis.
Cycles will continue. We are on the edge. It is a stochastic entry. Rolling dice is not predictable in details of any given roll…

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 1:37 pm

E. M.,
There is no convincing evidence of an impact at the YD and all the evidence in the world to see it as just another of the usual fluctuations during a normal deglaciation transition to yet another normal interglacial, cooler and so far shorter than the Eemian.
We have indeed been a cooling trend for at least 3000 years, but most likely have at least than long again before the next glaciation. Even if the next centennial-scale cool cycle be colder than the LIA, it still probably won’t take us back to glacial conditions. There is no reason to assume that we’re near a tipping point yet, based upon the tilt cycle, which appears to rule.
As noted, there are however those who favor eccentricity. If that cycle rules, then we’re in for a long warm spell, a la MIS 11. That would mean “natural” catastrophic climate change, with further melting of the Southern Dome of the Greenland Ice Sheet and maybe part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. But we’re talking tens of thousands of years.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 2:02 pm

http://cosmictusk.com/ is a good place to start looking.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 2:16 pm

E. M.,
Been there. Done that. Nothing to see there.
It has all been hashed and rehashed repeatedly on WUWT.

E.M.Smith
Editor
July 3, 2017 1:52 pm

There is plenty of evidence for a Y.D. impact, if you choose to look. From the Clovis extinctions, to massive dust layers, to a platinum group metals mine under the likely impact spot, to scour marks, to craters from ejecta and much much more. It also explains the flash frozen mammoth and jumbled stratigraphy as a tidal wave of ice slush arrived where they were living…
I don’t care to argue the point, only point out it is there for those who care to look.

Gabro
Reply to  E.M.Smith
July 3, 2017 1:58 pm

I’m familiar with the alleged “evidence”, most of which is bogus. And the bit that isn’t doesn’t lead to the desired conclusion.
It can’t possibly explain extinctions, since megafauna on islands closer to the supposed impact area survived, while those far too far away to have been killed on other continents were wiped out. And of course the Pleistocene megafaunal extinctions occurred over thousands of years, or tens of thousands if you factor in Australia. And even longer if you consider Holocene extinctions.
The YD was just another meltwater event, no different from those which preceded and followed in during the Pleistocene-Holocene transition and prior deglaciations during the Pleistocene. No special explanation required. The null hypothesis can’t be rejected.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 2:16 pm

“The desired conclusion” is an interesting phrase. For me, no conclusion is “desired”, only reasonable based on logic and evidence, or not.
Then you leap to all sorts of megafauna extinctions when I only referenced the Clovis extinctions. North America only, and more surviving the further south you go.
Like I said, you either care enough to look, or will remain wilfully blindered. Not my problem in any case.
The likely cause was Encke breaking up. We enter the most dense remnants with a thousands year period…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
It returns periodically and adds to our history…

Dynamical calculations show that, as a Taurid-like orbit precesses, the northern daytime intersection occurs just a little (a few centuries) before the southern nighttime one, and the southern daytime one just before the northern nighttime one. That is, the four intersections occur in two pairs, and the influx of material to Earth is enhanced during epochs lasting a few centuries and spaced by a few millennia. The term “coherent catastrophism” has been used by astronomers at Armagh and elsewhere to describe the idea that there are strong patterns in the influx of extraterrestrial material to Earth.

“Coherent Catastrophism”, eh? Two pairs, separated by a couple of hundred years, returning every ‘few millenia’. Sures sounds like that ‘two impacts’ in 2200ish BC that Timo was talking about with a couple of hundred years between them.

But I’m sure you will not look… nor see…

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 2:33 pm

E. M.,
As noted, the island megafauna clearly falsifiy the YDI extinction hypothesis. And of course the pattern of extinctions in North America, as well as everywhere else.
The only potential physical evidence for this highly improbable alleged event is a platinum spike found in Greenland. The problem is that for one meteorite to have deposited so much platinum, there would have to be a crater, of which there is no sign. Hence, it appears to be a coincidence. Platinum rains down all the time in small meteorites. Also, there is no telltale osmium and far too little iridium at the time of the YD. Nor has a platinum excursion been found outside of North America.

Gabro
Reply to  Gabro
July 3, 2017 3:02 pm
E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gabro
July 5, 2017 1:23 am

Yup, firmly snapped shut … why I wasn’t interested in arguing about it.
Do note that rarely are craters a mile deep, and the ice was that deep, so any ice impact would not be expected to leave a crater, but the scour marks that are seen.
BTW, I read those articles at the time published, more or less. Some interesting points, but hardly definitive. They leave far too many unexplained loose ends.
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-discovery-widespread-platinum-clovis-people.html

of platinum – an element associated with cosmic objects like asteroids or comets – found by Harvard University researchers in an ice-core from Greenland in 2013.
The South Carolina researchers found an abundance of platinum in soil layers that coincided with the “Younger-Dryas,” a climatic period of extreme cooling that began around 12,800 ago and lasted about 1,400 years. While the brief return to ice-age conditions during the Younger-Dryas has been well-documented by scientists, the reasons for it and the demise of the Clovis people and animals have remained unclear.
“Platinum is very rare in the Earth’s crust, but it is common in asteroids and comets,” says Christopher Moore, the study’s lead author. He calls the presence of platinum found in the soil layers at 11 archaeological sites in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina an anomaly.
“The presence of elevated platinum in archaeological sites is a confirmation of data previously reported for the Younger-Dryas onset several years ago in a Greenland ice-core. The authors for that study concluded that the most likely source of such platinum enrichment was from the impact of an extraterrestrial object,” Moore says.
“Our data show that this anomaly is present in sediments from U.S. archaeological sites that date to the start of the Younger-Dryas event. It is continental in scale—possibly global—and it’s consistent with the hypothesis that an extraterrestrial impact took place.”

July 5, 2017 8:01 pm

Appears the Taurid Complex has yet another stream that we cross twice a year. Cheers –
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/06/07/new_branch_in_taurid_meteor_swarm/

Verified by MonsterInsights