By Andy May
The phrase “Ice Age” is poorly defined and often abused, so let’s first define the climate state during most ice ages. It is called “Icehouse Earth.” The earth is in an icehouse state when either or both poles are covered in a thick, permanent icecap (Scotese 2015). Today, both poles are covered in ice year-round, so you may be surprised to learn this is very rare in Earth’s history. In fact, out of the last 550 million years, the earth has had permanent ice caps on one or both poles only nine percent of the time.
An “Ice Age” is best defined as a geologically (or millions of years long) long period of low temperatures. This usually results in the presence of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. We are currently living in the Quaternary Ice Age, this is only the fifth significant and severe ice age in Earth’s known history, and, so far it has lasted about 2.6 million years (technically 30+ million years ago when permanent ice appeared on Antarctica). It is the most severe ice age in the Phanerozoic, the geological name for the past 550 million years. Ice Ages are rare, but humans evolved during one, so it seems normal to us.

As Figure 1 makes clear, the “normal” or “optimum” global average temperature of the Earth is 19.5 degrees C. or 67 degrees F. This is over 5 degrees C. (9 degrees F.) warmer than today. Over the past 550 million years, the Earth has normally been in the green area of Figure 1, the “Greenhouse” or optimal temperature regime. There are five periods when the Earth became very warm with average surface temperatures of more than 24 degrees C. or 75 degrees F. This area is called “hothouse” and is shaded in red in Figure 1. The blue area in Figure 1 is called the “icehouse” and we are living in the fourth or fifth icehouse period. Normally the Karoo Ice Age is considered one icehouse period, but it briefly returns to greenhouse conditions in the middle. The sharp cooling period labeled “KT Impact Winter” occurred 66 million years ago and was caused by a large asteroid striking the Earth near the Yucatan Peninsula in southern Mexico. The ejecta, which included a lot of SO2, from the crater caused a sudden cooling of the Earth and the extinction of all large animals, including the dinosaurs. This impact also marks the end of the Cretaceous Period and the beginning of the Tertiary. It is not considered an Ice Age, as it is too brief. In this article, the Jurassic-early Cretaceous Cool period will be considered an ice age, although the temperatures were not low enough to enter the icehouse state for any significant period.
The maximum swing in temperature in Figure 1 is from 13 degrees to 28 degrees C. or an increase of 15 degrees C. (27 degrees F.) between 280 million years ago and 250 million years ago. This is from the depths of the Permo-Carboniferous icehouse to the peak of the Triassic hothouse. Tropical temperatures change more slowly than polar temperatures, compare Figure 1 to Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, the global temperature of the tropics (roughly 23.5 degrees north latitude to 23.5 degrees south latitude) varies less than the average global temperature of the entire Earth’s surface (see Figure 1). This means that the temperatures in the polar regions vary a lot from warmer periods to cooler periods. In the cooler periods, like our current ice age, the polar temperatures are low enough for ice to survive the summer months and thus, form permanent ice caps. Ice reflects more solar radiant heat than the soil or ocean under it, which amplifies the cooling.
With today’s configuration of the continents, the tropics are mostly covered with ocean water, which has a very high heat capacity, which means a lot of thermal energy is required to change the ocean water temperature. This characteristic of the oceans, plus the cooling effect of water evaporating from the ocean surface, carrying considerable thermal energy away as latent heat, reduces, or dampens, changes in tropical temperatures. But, even when the continents are clustered around the equator, the temperature change in the tropics is less than at the poles. Christopher Scotese has made a terrific animation of both plate movement and ice ages coming and going in the Phanerozoic that can be viewed here. Figure 3 is a screenshot from the animation showing the position of the continents 204 million years ago, in the Late Triassic. At this time, the land masses cover a lot of the tropics and the tropics are less than three degrees warmer than today (Figure 2). Yet, the average surface temperature is eight degrees warmer, implying that the polar temperatures are much higher than today. There are no ice caps on either pole at this time.

When viewing Scotese’s animation, one must consider that sea ice normally leaves no geological record. Evidence of glaciation, such as striations (“striae,” Figure 4) on rock surfaces or anomalous boulders (“erratics, “Figure 5) that were carried large distances inside glaciers are not preserved, normally, from sea ice. In recent times, in the North Atlantic, icebergs, calved from Greenland, can carry erratics out into the ocean that can be seen in subsea cores. But, interpreting these requires considerable knowledge about currents and the nature of the rocks under the ice in Greenland that we do not have for older glaciations. It also requires that the sediments containing erratics be preserved. Older rocks are not preserved on ocean floors due to plate subduction in ocean trenches.


What causes ice ages? They occur roughly every 150 million years, as we can see in Figure 1. Notice that I am including the Jurassic-early-Cretaceous cool period (see Figure 1) as an “ice age,” even though it did not reach icehouse conditions. One possible explanation relies on the hypothesis that the amount of galactic cosmic rays striking the Earth varies as the solar system traverses the arms of the Milky Way, which it does roughly every 135 million years, plus or minus 25 million years (Svensmark and Svensmark 2017). The theory suggests that when more high-energy cosmic rays strike the Earth, more low-level clouds form. Low-level clouds cool the planet because they reflect more thermal energy than they trap under them. This reduces the warming effect of solar radiation (Svensmark, et al. 2017). This effect is one of the possible reasons that low solar activity and reduced solar wind in the eleven-year solar cycle minima cause the Earth to cool. A strong solar wind and high solar activity, during solar cycle maxima, reduce (attenuate) the cosmic rays in space before they strike the Earth, cloud cover goes down and temperatures go up, and vice-versa (Svensmark 2019). A definitive causal link has not been demonstrated to everyone’s satisfaction, although the work by Henrick and Jacob Svensmark is quite convincing. We consider the theory very intriguing, but still controversial.

If the cosmic ray and climate link is true, it could explain why ice ages occur. The density and energy of cosmic rays is higher in the Milky Way arms because there are more stars there (Shaviv 2002). So, the theory suggests that each time the solar system crosses a galactic arm, an ice age could be triggered. This idea was originally developed by Edward Ney of the University of Minnesota (see here) and the details of the theory are explained well by Nir Shaviv (Shaviv 2003). Shaviv also explains that variations in cosmic ray density is recorded in meteorites and that these variations correlate well with the known ice ages and with computed solar system galactic arm transits.
Ice ages are glacial periods, or periods of glacier advances, that are interrupted by periods of glacial retreat, called interglacials. We are currently living in an ice age interglacial we call the Holocene, see Figure 7. The forces and mechanisms that cause glacial advances and interglacials within an ice age are understood reasonably well and are well described by Javier, here and here. A plot of Antarctic temperatures, interpreted from ice cores, for the past 750,000 years is shown in Figure 7. The interpretation was done by Ryu Uemura and colleagues (Uemura, Motoyama and Masson-Delmotte 2018).

Discussion
The Earth’s normal or optimum global average temperature over the past 550 million years is about 19.5 degrees C. or 67 degrees F. according to the temperature reconstructions done by Christopher Scotese. The normal state of the Earth’s climate is called the “Greenhouse” state, in this state there are no permanent, year-round ice caps on the North or South poles. But, in the past 550 million years there have been four, long anomalously cool periods we call Ice Ages. In three of these cool periods we entered icehouse conditions where there were permanent, year-round ice caps on one or both poles. We are currently living in the most recent ice age; we are also in icehouse conditions and have permanent ice on both poles. In the past 550 million years we have been in icehouse conditions about nine percent of the time and the current icehouse is one of the most severe in that period.
There is no general agreement on why the Earth has ice ages or why they appear in a roughly regular pattern. But, as Nir Shaviv has shown there is some evidence that the position of the Earth, relative to the arms of the Milky Way Galaxy, correlates with the occurrence of Ice Ages in our history. It also correlates with cosmic ray density. High cosmic ray density and energy also correlate with the ice ages and low cosmic ray energy correlates with warmer periods as shown by Shaviv’s meteorite studies. Henrik Svensmark provides us with a mechanism for creating additional low level, cooling clouds, as cosmic ray density and energy increases. Cosmic rays increase when the solar system is in the Milky Way galactic arms because there are more exploding stars in the arms, and they are the source of cosmic rays.
Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (CERN) were used to create a model of cosmic ray/atmospheric ion collisions. The model suggested that cosmic rays have a minimal effect on cloud formation. However, subsequent experimental and theoretical work by Svensmark and Svensmark has suggested the model is flawed. In our judgement, while the cosmic ray/climate connection is far from proven, it is still a viable hypothesis and worth considering.
Works Cited
Scotese, Christopher. 2015. Some Thoughts on Global Climate Change: The Transition from Icehouse to Hothouse. PaleoMap Project. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275277369_Some_Thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_for_Icehouse_to_Hothouse_Conditions.
Shaviv, Nir. 2002. “Cosmic Ray Diffusion from the Galactic Spiral Arms, Iron Meteorites, and a possible Climatic Connection?” Physical Review Letters 89. http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/PRLice.pdf.
Shaviv, Nir. 2003. “The Spiral Structure of the Milky Way, cosmic rays, and ice age epochs on Earth.” New Astronomy 8: 39-77. http://old.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/long-ice.pdf.
Svensmark, H., M. B. Enghoff, N. J. Shaviv, and J. Svensmark. 2017. “Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei.” Nature Communications 8. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2.
Svensmark, Henrick, and Jacob Svensmark. 2017. “The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate.” London: GWPF. https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2018/03/SvensmarkLondon2018.pdf.
Svensmark, Henrik. 2019. Force Majeure: The Sun’s Role in Climate Change. GWPF. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf.
Uemura, R., H. Motoyama, and V. Masson-Delmotte. 2018. “Asynchrony between Antarctic temperature and CO2 associated with obliquity over the past 720,000 years.” Nature Communications 9. doi:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03328-3.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?”
Nir J. Shaviv and Ján Veizer, GSA Today, June 2003
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf
Phil Salmon, So your argument is that evolution stopped at the end of the Cambrian explosion? I find this very hard to accept. What species living today, evolved in final form in the Cambrian?
High solar minimum GCRs didn’t stop the ocean and troposphere from warming in 2019.
If only Svensmark’s idea worked in the real world…
The sort of GCR flux postulated for driving major ice ages isn’t an annual sort of thing. It would be significantly elevated for 10’s of millions of years.
One implication of GCR flux significantly elevated for 10’s of millions of years is the solar activity was quite likely very low for long periods, with commensurately long-enduring TSI, with clear cooling implications, together with the long-term orbital changes.
Most likely.
Andy…
You need to also check out the dust-albedo theory for recent ice age modulation…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Ralph
Andy, very nice interesting post.
Glaciation phases – into and out of are multifaceted complicated processes.
We know from recent studies that Greenland ice melt and Arctic sea ice extent / volume are primarily controlled by atmospheric ingress primarily by lower and mid latitude convection = atmospheric displacement plus heat. Current science pays no attention to variances to daily, monthly and yearly convection volume patterns. Convection occurs in pulses, not a constant boiling pot process. This has never been considered from what I have read.
There is the dust theory as a catalyst when moving into inter glacial phase. But what carries the dust to the higher latitudes during this phase, it is the wind – atmospheric ingress at increasing rates from lower latitudes. Yes the dust plays a part of increased surface heat uptake, but the wind has a far greater role for heat transport and sublimation effects. Just look at the rapid changes of surface melt for very short periods (days) in Greenland.
Some of my own research has been focused on how to identify and quantify convection volume, timing, and the annual hemispherical differences in volume and the many associated downstream outcomes. Some years the NH has a noticeably higher rate that the SH for example, some years the hemispheres are balanced, then vice a versa. 2012 for example had a higher volume of convection in the NH compared to the SH. This convection process has a major role in temperature outcome that people take so seriously. Temperature records are not a very accurate measure of the work done, the effect on climate and the current state and direction. Temperature record should be one of a number of lets say KPI’s
With best regards
Martin
Dear Mr. May,
What a wonderful essay! I’ve been waiting for just this! And Christopher Scotese’s “movie” is excellent.
The take home for me is that a degree or two or five of warming is nothing to fear. Global warming, should it occur, would be a Good Thing, a boon to all life, a return to normality and the normative Earth.
The paranoia regarding a possible slight warming is entirely unfounded. So-called scientists who wish to exterminate all the cattle, spew aerosols into the sky, soil the oceans with rust, sequester CO2 in caverns, ban farming, air flight, diesel, gas, coal, and natural gas, and inflict dozens of other crazy expensive “solutions” to a non-problem should be forced to read this essay a hundred times, and be tested on it, and required to memorize key passages.
Warmer Is Better. Warmer Is Normal. Life Requires Warmth. Those who crave the deep cold are cordially invited to go live in Antarctica or on the Moon.
“and, so far it has lasted about 2.6 million years”
Much longer. The first continental ice sheet in Antarctica started about 35 million years ago, and Antarctica has been continuously glaciated for about 14 million years.
It is true that there were no really large continental ice-sheets in the northern hemisphere before 2.6 million years ago (with one exception, see below), but there has been montane glaciers in Greenland-Svalbard and Alaska almost as long as in Antarctica.
However there was at least one fairly major glaciation in North America, Greenland and Iceland during the Pliocene (MIS M2 c. 3.3 MYA). However this is not talked about by the right-rhinking since it happened during a interval with high CO2 which is supposed to be impossible.
tty, You are correct. Technically the most recent Ice Age started 30+ million years ago when the first large continental glaciers developed on Antarctica. I stand corrected.
Yup. IMO there’s pretty good support for at least an ice cap on southern Greenland in the Pliocene, and maybe along the NE coast.
But it took complete closure of the already shoaling Interamerican Seaway to initiate ice sheets in the NH. A shallow version of it might have reopened around 1.8 Ma, which used to be the Pleistocene boundary before the Gelasian Age was, IMO, correctly moved from the Pliocene to the Pleistocene, leaving not much of the former.
The highlands of Northeast Greenland were definitely extensively glaciated in the Neogene. The fjords there are the largest in the World and must have taken a very long time to form. And at Scoresby Sound, the largest fjord of all, there are Late Pliocene/Early Pleistocene deposits (Lodin Elv Formation) inside the fjord, so it already existed then.
Thanks.
The fact that much of the Arctic Ocean shore was surrounded by boreal forest during the Pliocene isn’t the whole story. Higher elevations exposed to moisture-bearing winds in the Arctic were indeed icy.
Fjords, aka “the squiggly bits”!
John
I think he only made 42 “squiggly bits.” 🙂
Figure1.
Err. Its a schematic. Not data. And zero uncertainty.
Steven, Go to the source, Chris Scotese’s report for the details and the uncertainty. 54 pages of excruciating details, 15 pages of footnotes, and 13 pages of bibliography. Lots on uncertainty.
It is about time someone actually did an article on the REAL state of the Earth! Pleistocene ice is still around today. Barnes, Greenland, Antarctica? Great job Andy!
In this video, Jasper Kirkby discuses the Cloud findings and states that cosmic rays enhance cloud condensation nuclei when the aerosols are biogenic and says that before the industrial revolution this was the primary way clouds were formed. He goes on to state that they are mostly formed today by sulfuric acid from pollution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M3up6T9Zeg
However his conclusion would not appear to be the case in the Southern hemisphere, which is the cloudiest part of the earth and where only 10% of its population lives.
See https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/6/e1500157
“The Southern Ocean (SO) is an expansive and dynamic ocean with rich ecosystems remote from most human influences. It is also the cloudiest region on Earth. These clouds influence the atmospheric and oceanic circulation of the entire Southern Hemisphere and beyond (1), and may help determine the Earth’s climate sensitivity (2). Its remoteness from anthropogenic and natural continental aerosol sources makes the SO a unique natural laboratory for our understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions. Aerosols influence clouds by acting as the cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) on which cloud droplets form, and the resulting concentration Nd of cloud droplets influences the amount of sunlight reflected by clouds (3). Aerosol processes remain a poorly understood influence on clouds (4). Processes regulating the concentration of naturally occurring aerosols, in particular, remain a major source of uncertainty, limiting our ability to quantify the magnitude of the human impact on climate from aerosols (5, 6).
The rich biological activity in the SO produces a range of biogenic aerosols and aerosol precursor gases (7). Marine biogenic emissions influence atmospheric aerosols in this region, both through primary emissions of organic matter in sea spray aerosol (SSA) (8) and through secondary aerosol formation processes, that is, the condensation of volatile sulfurous and organic compounds (7–9). ”
So the cloudiest part of the world, where Svensmark’s hypothesis is most likely to be true and having significant effect today is in the part of the world least accessible to humans, and where there are very few land based temperature measurements since 80% of the Southern hemisphere is ocean, and a significant part of the southern land mass is Antarctica.
Well, I like this kind of thing, something that looks back as far as possible and points out several things, e.g.,
– the Earth is physically active, changing “dry” land shapes on a recurring basis
– the climate, per the fossil records, changes on a recurring basis with NO interference from anything other than the planet itself
– and that part about the cause of these and those changes in the climate and what caused them.
We’re fortunate to have evolved in a Hooman-friendly climate period. Having just watched an informative and interesting video about Neanderthals and H. Sapiens getting together to produce so-called Modern Man, and this during the Pleistocene when things were not really user-friendly, I’m inclined to think we’re lucky to have survived anything at all. No, I have not had my DNA tested to see how much Neandertal DNA I have, but I may do that out of curiosity some day. It might explain why my brother is frequently a colossal jerk. But I digress.
I’m most interested in the Silurian and Carboniferous periods, which were warm, tropical and heavily oxygenated, which I’ve mentioned before, and what may have brought those to a close. There are still some survivors from the Carboniferous, such as the horsetail reed and shrimp, and I have fossils of both of those. I live where there used to be a river delta that emptied into a shallow ocean of the Carboniferous, north of the what is now the Mazon Creek fossil district near Braidwood, IL, an area awash in coal from that time so long ago. I have a bunch of fossils I found down there. I’m more interested in what ended all of that, than in quibbling over how continental drift was the cause of this or that, or something like that.
And where was our Solar System when the Silurian and Carboniferous periods were underway, anyway? That was a prolonged time ago, and many species of bugs, including spiders and centipedes, existed back then and still exist today. And was that hyperoxygenation caused by excessive warmth which boosted the plant population and density enormously? Or was it something else? And are we going to face it again, or face extreme cold and heavy precipitation?
Anyway, I did enjoy that article although I did not see a button to push for what was supposed to be animated.
Sara, click on Figure 3, you can see the animation.
Thank you, I will do that!
Am I the only one who doesn’t get this? The primarily driver isn’t cosmic rays, though possibly that may contribute slightly, it’s obvious that continental positions is the overwhelming driver behind long term icehouse or greenhouse eras. Consider what’s happened during the Cenozoic:
Antarctica sits over the southern polar region with no land around it to the north, allowing circumpolar oceanic circulation to isolate it
The Northern Hemisphere has a lot of land at subarctic latitudes that have closed off most of the Arctic Ocean
The closure of the Panama Isthmus, preventing warm Pacific water to get even warmer
The locations of the Rockies, Cascades, and Himalayas
Continental drift/development is everything. Other factors may contribute or mitigate, at best.
“Am I the only one who doesn’t get this? The primarily driver isn’t cosmic rays, though possibly that may contribute slightly, it’s obvious that continental positions is the overwhelming driver behind long term icehouse or greenhouse eras. ”
I agree that cosmic rays, is not primary driver of global climate. But cosmic rays probably affect weather and perhaps a significant effect upon global weather.
But I have question, also, don’t people understand that an Ice Age is about having a cold ocean?
So “the continental positions” are important in terms of how they produce a cold ocean. Or whether the continental positions produce a warm ocean.
So we in an Ice Age because we have polar icesheets AND because we have a cold ocean.
Glaciers {permanent or otherwise} aren’t even a key aspect. A icehouse climate is cold ocean and hothouse climate is warm ocean.
Our ocean is cold, it’s got average temperature of about 3.5 C.
In our Ice Age the ocean has been as cold as about 1 C and has been as warm about 5 C
“As Figure 1 makes clear, the “normal” or “optimum” global average temperature of the Earth is 19.5 degrees C. or 67 degrees F. This is over 5 degrees C. (9 degrees F.) warmer than today. ”
I would say “normal” is ocean which is 10 C or warmer. And hothouse is ocean 15 C or warmer.
But I would say with our “continental positions” “normal” is ocean with temperature of 1 to 5 C.
Regarding this:
“Figure 1. Christopher Scotese’s geological interpretation of Phanerozoic global temperatures in degrees C. The vertical line on the right side, labeled “PAW” is a projection of possible anthropogenic warming according to a pessimistic IPCC climate model. ” {global average temperature of PAW: 19.8 C}
I think you might be able to get a global average temperature of 19.8 C, but I think you need a ocean with an average temperature of about 5 C. Or you need to increase the average temperature of the entire ocean by 1.5 C. And that seems pretty much impossible anytime soon. In terms of within 100 hundred it seems possible that ocean could warm by .5 C or our ocean could have average temperature of around 4 C.
And if ocean become 4 C, that would have fairly dramatic effects. for example with ocean of 4 C, we would have ice free polar sea ice in the summertime.
And Canada which presently has average temperature of around -4 C, should get it’s average temperature up to around 0 C.
Also we get about 1 foot of sea level rise due to the ocean thermal expansion.
And if talking about a few centuries, than the ocean could get average of about 4.5 C and with again very dramatic effects.
But there no indication that our ocean will warm by .5 C within century or even a few centuries.
The ocean can’t possibly warm that much within a few centuries for the very good reason that the turnover time for the deep ocean is on the order of 1,000 years.
And the ocean can’t warm 5 degrees in a millenium even if the production of NADW stops completely. It would also require that the production of AABW stops, which requires that the katabatic winds off East Antarctica stops, which requires that East Antarctica becomes ice-free at least near the coast.
Ain’t gonna happen in a millenium or ten.
“And the ocean can’t warm 5 degrees in a millenium ”
Nor cool by 5 C within a millenium.
I think it is possible that our ocean did cool .5 C within a millenium.
Or I think think our ocean did cool .5 C or more, since the time of the Holocene climatic optimum:
“The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
And I think it’s possible that within the last 5000 years, the ocean has cooled .5 C or less
I also think The Little Ice Age may have cooled as much .2 C and the since the LIA the entire ocean may have warmed as much as .2 C. Though ocean may started warming prior to 1800 AD or before the accepted end of LIA which is largely agreed to be about 1850 AD.
But generally I think 1 C of warming or cooling can occur in about 1000 years, but that quite fast and normally it takes a lot longer to change by 1 C. Or having ocean temperature stay within 1 C for a ten thousand year or longer period is common or ordinary.
Or if increased CO2 levels can change the ocean temperature by 1 C within 1000 year, it proves that CO2 is a major control knob of global climate.
And, I don’t think it is. Though CO2 levels such as more than 1000 ppm might warm the Ocean by 1 C within 10,000 years.
Or it’s 1/10th or 1/1000th of what some people imagine it is.
Johne, I don’t think so. Below is the continent configuration 250 Ma during the Triassic hothouse.
An interesting memento from the previous ice-house period. 300-million year old glacially striated rocks near Adelaide in South Australia:
Christopher Scotese has indeed made a terrific animation of both tectonic plate movement and ice ages coming and going. It emphasizes how rare it is over time for Earth to have ice covering at least one pole for any considerable length of time (i.e., for more than one million years continuous).
Assuming the animation correctly portrays ice coverage in white (I have no reason to believe that it doesn’t), it invites this question: Why, during the peak of the Karoo Ice Age, right around 300 million years ago, when there was a truly massive area of ice around Earth’s south pole, was there no ice coverage at Earth’s north pole?
I believe the correct answer to that question would show that we understand the primary driver(s) of climate. But as far as I know, we have no good answer. Note that the south pole ice cap of the Karoo Ice Age lasted some 50 million years (from about 330 to 280 Ma) so it would have withstood multiple Milankovitch cycles of any type.
What created the huge climate asymmetry between Earth’s northern and southern hemispheres for such an extended period of time?
John Tillman:
“If the LIA date from c. AD to 1850, and the MWP from c. 950 to 1400, then the former did suffer more VEI 6 or 7 eruptions than the latter (earlier), but each interval experienced just one magnitude 7 event”
The start of the LIA has also been more properly stated to have begun with the VEI7 eruption of Samalas (Rinjani), in 1257, which would include the VEI5 eruption of Katia in 1262, and the string of six VEI5 eruptions of Tarawera (N.Z) in 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, and 1315, whose cooling caused the Great Famine of 1315-1317, with ~ 7,500,000 deaths in Europe, alone. It does not require a VEI7 eruption to cause global cooling (even VEI4 eruptions produce measurable cooling, although of a smaller magnitude).
You also state that “IMO warm and cool cycles are better explained by solar activity ”
It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine solar activity from proxy measurements at the Earth’s surface , since intervening layers of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere will cause cooling , which will show up in tree ring measurements, and reduce the flux of incoming incoming cosmic radiation, giving the false impression that the sun’s output has diminished.
Only since the advent of satellite measurements from above the atmosphere has it been possible to detect changes in solar irradiance
It is far from impossible, indeed the opposite. SO2 from eruptions are short-lived.
We know that the 1257 eruption didn’t end the MWP because the second half of the next century returned to warmth, despite the Wolf minimum of 1280 to 1350.
Bindidon:
Re your earlier post of large volcanic eruptions during the LIA.
“Volcanoes of the World”, 3rd edition (2010) has similar listings, but does not show 3 VEI6 eruptions on your list (1452, 1641, 1650–your data may be more recent), and 3 VEI6 eruptions which are not on your list (1600, 1783, 1809) The listing which follows includes VEI5 eruptions, which can cause significant additional cooling, especially if they erupt during La Nina conditions:
1257 Rinjani, Indonesia (VEI7)
1262 Katia, Iceland VEI5
1280 (?) Quilotoa, Ecuador (VEI6)
1310 Tarawera, N.Z. (VEI5)
1311 ” ”
1312 ” ”
1313 ” ”
1`314 ” ”
1315 ” ”
1350 El Chichon, Mexico (VEI5)
1352 Oreafajolkull, Iceland ((VEI5)
1370 Soufriere, West Indies (VEI?) (Plinian)
1380 Parker, Philippines (VEI?) (Plinian)
1440 Soufriere, West Indies (VEI?) (Plinian)
1450 Pinatubo, Philippines VEI5?)
1471 Sakura-jima, Japan ((VEI5?)
1477 Bardarbungua, Iceland (VEI6)
1480 St. Helens, U.S. (VEI5+)
1482 ” (VEI5)
1550 Pago, SW Pacific (VEI?) (Plinian)
1563 Agua de Pau, Azores (VEI5?)
1580 Billy Mitchell, SW Pacific (VEI6)
1586 Kelut, Java (VEI5?)
1593 Raung, Java (VEI5?)
1600 Huaynaputina, Peru (VEI6)
1625 Katia, Iceland (VEI5)
1630 Furnas, Azores (VEI5)
1631 Vesuvivus, Italy (VEI5?)
1632 ” ”
1640 Komaga-take , Japan (VEI5)
1641 Parker, Philippines (VEI5?)
1650 Shiveluch, Kamchiaaika (VEI5)
1660 Long Island, New Guinea (VEI6)
1663 Usu, Japan (VEI5)
1667 Shikostu, Japan (VEI5)
1673 Gamkoanora, Indonesia (VEI5?)
1680 Tongkoko, Indonesia (VEI5?)
1707 Fuji, Japan (VEI5)
1721 Katia, Iceland (VEI5?)
1739 Shikotsu, Japan (VEI5)
1755 Katia, Iceland (VEI5?)
1783 Grimsvotn, Iceland (VEI6)
1800 St. Helens, U.S. (VEI5)
1800(?) Pago, SW Pacific (VEI?) (Plinian)
1809 Unidentified (VEI6)
1815 Tambora, Lesser Sunda Is. (VEI7)
1822 Gallunggung, Java (VEI5)
1835 Cosiguina, Nicaragua (VEI5)
In addition to the above list, the reference shows 95 VEI4, VEI4?, and VEI4+ eruptionss.
Plinian eruptions are explosive eruptions where the VEI has not been determined, as yet, and can range
between VEI4 and VEI7. They have been included as VEI?, since some may eventually be found be VEI5, or higher.
Burl Henry
Thank you very much for this list.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
But… let me add a detail or 2:
– 1600 Huaynaputina, Peru, VEI 6 was on the list;
– the list was restricted to huge eruptions which occured before Maunder start, due to the context it was published around.
Bindidon:
Thank you for the correction and comment!
My reference did not include the VEI6 eruption of Kuwae in 1452, or the VEI6 eruption of Kolumbo in 1650, although they are included in the Wikipedia list of large volcanic eruptions, and need to be added to my list.
Note that within the ~70 year Maunder Minimum there were 11 VEI4 eruptions, 6 VEI5 eruptions, and 2 VEI6 eruptions, which occurred in a climate already cooled by prior large eruptions, worsening their effects.
They easily explain the cooler temperatures of that era; no need to invoke any supposed change in sunspot activity, which is actually impossible to determine from proxy measurements at the Earth’s surface.
I think of this in terms of external climate forcing at three different scales.
Milankovic cycles are at the scale of 10,000s to millions of years, caused by orbital eccentricity, obliquity and precession. That stroke of genius has stood the test of a century of time. However, it is insufficient to explain all external climate forcing for all of Earth’s history. Geologists know there is climate change on the scale of 100 millions to billions of years. Nir Shaviv’s idea on the solar system’s position with respect to the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy may be the answer to external climate forcing at the very long scale, which to a geologist is very exciting.
It is very helpful to understand spectral densities and Fourier analysis to get this. It can be reduced to just superimposed waves of different amplitude, wavelength and phase. Shaviv’s external forcing is long waves, Milankovic external forcing is intermediate waves.
Neither of these external forcings bear on climate change due to external forcing on the scale of decades to centuries. For that, a new understanding is needed.
As I like to say, CO2 could in theory cause warming, all else being equal. And that is the problem. All else is not equal. There has been well-deserved skepticism for as long as it has been pushed on the public. Minor changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulation or cloud cover could indeed eclipse CO2 driven warming. Solar variation is a player. But what killed the beast for good in my mind was the assertion on this web site that radiative forcing is not the only thing at work. Thermal transport must be considered. Every weather map shows low pressure zones (warm air rising) and high pressure zones (cold air aloft, sinking). a minor increase in this convection would again eclipse radiative forcing by CO2. Heat is moved by vertical circulation. Hadley cells and Ferrell cells.
Short-cycle change is occurring. CO2 is playing a role. However, here is another favorite great truth. The Earth’s climate is remarkably stable. If it were not, Earth’s geologic history would be vastly different. There is lots of evidence (and the science of physics) that external forcing has changed climate at all scales periodically, and the explanation is astronomical. Evidence of internal forcing is weak at best.
“Heat (energy) is moved by vertical circulation.”
Atmospheric heat energy is also affected by horizontal movement of air masses. Case is point: watch a massive cold front move across the USA . . . or any other temperate latitude on Earth, for that matter.
Jim January 4, 2020 at 9:23 pm
Have to disagree. In the period (125-84 mya) leading to the most recent peak temperature around 85 mya at least 135 million km^3 magma erupted into the oceans, delivering enough energy to warm all ocean water 135K. This is on top of the ~100 mW/m^2 Geothermal Flux into the oceans, that “refreshes” the total OHC every 1,5 million years or so.
It depends on how efficient the Thermohaline Circulation can transport all this energy to (very) high latitudes, the only place where it can be “vented” to the atmosphere/space, whether the oceans heat up or not.
Since the deep oceans were also (very) warm around ~85 mya, any external “forcing” from outside needs also an explanation on how it can warm deep ocean water.
“…Since the deep oceans were also (very) warm around ~85 mya, any external “forcing” from outside needs also an explanation on how it can warm deep ocean water.”
Since we live in an Ice Age, an immediate concern, is explanation of what is cooling deep ocean waters.
It seems to me, that ocean which 1 C is unstable and a ocean of 5 C is unstable.
If 1 C was not unstable, we would have “snowball earths” and if 5 C was not unstable, we would have left the Ice Age, millions of years ago.
Or Earth is not a planet which has runaway effects, not in our Ice Age and not apparently at anytime on Earth. But one could point to “minor” runaway effects. Or glacier formation seems to have a runaway effect. Or water vapor in the tropics seems to be runaway effect.
And it seems polar sea ice should have runaway effect. Or having less polar sea ice, seems “to lead” having less polar sea ice, or having more polar sea ice, seems “to lead” to having more polar sea ice.
So I would guess that over last 1 million years the total amount time spent within .5 K of 1 C ocean is far less than 50,000 years in total and likewise, time spent within .5 of 5 C is far less than 50,000 years.
And would guess the most of the 1 million year is spent within .5 of 2 C. Mainly because most of time in spent is in glacial periods. But in terms of feeling more certain, I would say you have to be in glacial period if ocean is 2 C, and you have to be in a interglacial period if average temperature of the ocean is 4 C.
Re:
“…the only place where it can be “vented” …”
I generally think ocean warms and Land cools. So, land areas “vent”, and the higher land elevation “vents” more.
And Antarctica has a high average elevation. And I agree with the general notion that a warming Antarctica is not connected to “global warming”. Or that there factors isolating Antarctica from warming a lot, and being kept cold is something “adding to” global warming. Or Antarctica is venting heat, but it could “somehow” or “potentially” vent a lot more heat {and also remain being a frozen wasteland}.
Ice house or Hot house, in both cases the temperatures are way above radiative balance temperature. So in both cases the explanation for the high temperatures is the same: hot deep oceans (currently 275K, maybe ~290K around 85 mya)
Without occasional warming from gigantic magma eruptions in the oceans, Earth will become colder and colder, like happened in the last 80 my.
No runaway climate.
Seems current Ice Age started when the deep oceans cooled below ~7 C.
Both land and ocean SURFACE can lose energy directly to the atmosphere/space (solar energy almost exclusively.)

Deep oceans cannot. Every liter of water warmed at the ocean floor has to be transported to mostly Antarctica before it can surface and lose energy to the atmosphere/space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_bottom_water#/media/File:Antarctic_bottom_water.svg
There is little reason to believe there are more galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in the spiral arms. The spiral arms are just density waves where the stellar density is slightly higher. There are more of the bright young stars which is why they appear brighter. GCRs come from high energy astrophysical events, not stars themselves. Since the whole theory is based on a flawed assumption it seems to be worthless?
I tend to think spiral arms would have less GCRs.
But new star formation, can include large star formation with short lifetimes before they supernova. So any region with more supernovas {and/or blackholes} could have more GCRs.
But nevertheless, I tend to think spiral arms would have less GCRs.
And I think there are region of galaxy, which Sol could move into and out of that have more GCRs, and I think that we can in the future, we predict where they are, and map our path, Sol has taken and will take in the future.
We only a few decades into getting somewhat serious and having the technology of detecting GCR and mapping our galaxy and there will be many hypothesises which will tested.
kzb and gbaikie, You answered your own question. You wrote: “There are more of the bright young stars which is why they appear brighter.” Bingo! Cosmic rays are mainly generated when massive stars die. This is why there are more GCR’s in the arms, there are more massive stars dying there.
Abstract:
“In the course of our motion through the Galaxy, the solar system has encountered many interstellar environments of varying characteristics. Interstellar medium (ISM) density variations spanning six orders of magnitude are commonly seen throughout the general Galactic environment, and a sufficiently dense cloud within this range has the potential to compress the heliosphere to within one Astronomical Unit (AU). ”
http://sredfield.web.wesleyan.edu/Kthesis_master.pdf
Our heliosphere is currently about 100 AU. Well beyond Neptune, and of course the Earth’s distance from Sun is 1 AU.
Chapter 1
Introduction
“Throughout the last 100 years, researchers have speculated on possible connections between our interstellar environment and Earth’s climate. As far back as the 1920’s, Harlow Shapley was suggesting the idea of “Cosmic Seasons” (Shapley 1921), the possibility that periodic mass extinctions and drastic climate changes on Earth could be attributed to the Sun’s passage through different galactic environments in its orbit around the center of our galaxy….”
…”As we will see, these molecular clouds are dense enough to pose potential hazards to life on
Earth should the solar system slip through one in its passage around the center of the Galaxy.”
But I not talking about this, I am thinking of GCR going thru denser regions of space. GCR will past thru a brick wall, but if brick wall is meters thick, it has very low chance going thru.
https://www.space.com/25434-star-formation-recipe-revealed.html
“Using data from 16 nearby molecular clouds, each within about 850 light-years of Earth, “we could devise a very concrete recipe for how new stars are born in the interstellar gas clouds,” study lead author Jouni Kainulainen, an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Heidelberg, Germany, told Space.com. “And the ingredients of this recipe are simple to understand — only those regions in the clouds in which density is higher than about 5,000 molecules per cubic centimeter produce stars, and about a tenth of the gas in these regions collapses into the new stars.”
And our solar wind varies from 1 to 20 {or more} protons per cubic cm, though generally around 4 to 6 proton per cubic cm. And atmosphere of Moon is about 100 molecules per cubic cm. And low Earth orbit has more atmosphere than the Moon.
But generally the spiral arms have higher density and clouds so dense you can’t see into or thru them.
Now if you close to supernova, you are dead. Lets see, what is fairly safe distance:
“Bottom line: Scientific literature cites 50 to 100 light-years as the closest safe distance between Earth and a supernova. May 11, 2018” So if closer than 50 light years, GCRs are not really the concern- things like atmosphere stripped from Planet and etc are the kinds of problems. Though maybe if there is dense cloud between you and the supernova, they might not be allowing for this particular factor.
But anyhow, wiki sums it up:
“Spiral arms typically contain a higher density of interstellar gas and dust than the Galactic average as well as a greater concentration of star formation… The Milky Way’s spiral structure is uncertain, and there is currently no consensus on the nature of the Milky Way’s spiral arms.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year
“Estimates of the length of one orbit range from 225 to 250 million terrestrial years”
“One possible explanation relies on the hypothesis that the amount of galactic cosmic rays striking the Earth varies as the solar system traverses the arms of the Milky Way, which it does roughly every 135 million years, plus or minus 25 million years”
Earths wobbles and ever changing angle towards the sun will have minor effects, longterm orbit changes of Earth around the sun will have minor effects, output of the sun will have significant effect.
I’d postulate that one Galactic Year is 150 million years and that the place of our solar system in our galaxy every 150 million years, affected by neighbour solar systems and this local solar systems center of gravity which probably influence both oribital planes and solar irradiation/earth insolation…
Is what happens.
As for the clouds, the more there are of them, the less insolation. Correct. But these couds also works as a blanket. Like in less heat escapes the planet?
In high-pressure weather systems, the earth gets warmer in summers, correct. But also significantly colders in winters. Colder winters building up from icesheets to slush from southpole/northpole and 45 degrees towards the equator. Slush to warm climate from 45 degrees to equator.
That should also fit nicely as to the expansion of ice sheets to Portland USA, southern France or northern Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacial_stages_in_North_America
“During the most recent North American glaciation, during the latter part of the Last Glacial Maximum (26,000 to 13,300 years ago), ice sheets extended to about 45th parallel north. These sheets were 3 to 4 kilometres (1.9 to 2.5 mi) thick.[73] ”
Oddgeir
I’m not so sure we need to hypothesise about spiral arms. The breakup and collision of continents radically alter oceanic heat transport between the tropics and the poles. The current ice age, for example, initiated when Panama isthmus closed, allowing the present-day Gulf Stream to establish.
Absolutely agree. That said, it is difficult to see this action repeat itself every 150 million years?
Himalayas (arid and cold north, moist and temperate south):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas#Geology
“About 50 million years ago this fast moving Indo-Australian Plate” (crashed into the Eurasian Plate)
Andes (arid and cold west, moist and temperate east):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_Plate
its existence as an independent plate having been formed from the break-up of the Farallon Plate about 23 million years ago. The oldest rocks of the plate are about 50 million years old (crached into the South American plate).
Off course the climate would not have been the current climate in those regions were it not for tectonics. I doubt however that these tectonics were capable of influencing ice ages (the 150 million year cycle).
Oddgeir
Oddgeir January 8, 2020 at 4:29 am
What would be the recharge time of a major mantle plume once it has left the core and convected all the way to the surface?
Oddgeir January 8, 2020 at 4:29 am
The Indian continent racing north (possibly driven by the mantle plume that created the Deccan Traps? ) could nicely explain the higher deep ocean temperatures around 50 mya.
One more thing: it seems from the plot above that the current Ice Age started when the deep oceans cooled below ~7 C, and became serious for Antarctica with the deep ocean temperature dropping below ~4 C.
To me it is obvious that Earth is bound to cool down into Ice Ages, unless the deep oceans are heated by gigantic magma eruptions into those oceans.
I agree with the findings of the article, not because I am a scientist. I am an artist with a questioning and analytical mind…. But all the debate here is far more hilarious than a bunch of artists at a critique. Scientists having a pissing contest over data that no one seems to completely agree on. So what does that tell you???? Will there be a day in waking up that scientists will all agree on data pulled from current and historical sources on climate anomalies? Probably not. What can we all agree on? 1. The Earth’s climate is not static. 2. it is difficult to get a complete historic picture without using conjecture. 3. Earth systems are inter-related. 4. No one can really claim the total answer or truth…which could depend on where their funding comes from. 5. The is much we do not know. So while the debate (although smug data crunchers think there is no debate) continues…the Earth has lots of things she needs to happen. Like….cleaning up our Oceans, better farming practices for soil regeneration, fossil fuel independence, as well as better ways for scientists to honor each other’s perspectives… Perhaps some GIS (geographic information systems…management)…you know where you integrate various avenues of data into 3D maps that can show things inter-related that independently would not appear. Guys and gals of Science…pissing contest are irrelevant and NOT HELPFUL.