The melting of large icebergs is a key stage in the evolution of ice ages

UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: SAMPLING AN ICEBERG DURING THE POWELL 2020 RESEARCH EXPEDITION CLOSE TO THE “JUAN CARLOS I ” SPANISH ANTARCTIC BASE/JOSÉ ABEL FLORES view more CREDIT: UNIVERSITY OF GRANADA

A new study, in which the Andalusian Earth Sciences Institute (IACT) (CSIC-UGR) participated, has described for the first time a key stage in the beginning of the great glaciations and indicates that it can happen to our planet in the future. The findings were recently published in the scientific journal Nature

The study claims to have found a new connection that could explain the beginning of the ice ages on Earth

Antarctic iceberg melt could hold the key to the activation of a series of mechanisms that cause the Earth to suffer prolonged periods of global cooling, according to Francisco J. Jiménez-Espejo, a researcher at the Andalusian Earth Sciences Institute (CSIC-UGR), whose discoveries were recently published in the prestigious journal Nature.

It has long been known that changes in the Earth’s orbit, as it moves around the Sun, trigger the beginning or end of glacial periods by affecting the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet’s surface. However, until now, the question of how small variations in the solar energy that reaches us can lead to such dramatic shifts in the planet’s climate has remained a mystery.

In this new study, a multinational group of researchers proposes that, when the Earth’s orbit around the sun is just right, the Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from the continent, moving huge volumes of freshwater from the Antarctic Ocean into the Atlantic.

This process causes the Antarctic Ocean to become increasingly salty, while the Atlantic Ocean becomes fresher, affecting overall ocean circulation patterns, drawing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing the so-called greenhouse effect. These are the initial stages that mark the beginning of an ice age on the planet.

Within this study, the scientists used several techniques to reconstruct oceanic conditions in the past, including by identifying tiny fragments of rock that had broken away from Antarctic icebergs as they melted into the ocean. These deposits were obtained from marine sediment cores recovered by the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) during Expedition 361 off the sea-margins of South Africa. These sediment cores enabled the scientists to reconstruct the history of the icebergs that reached these latitudes in the last million and a half years, this being one of the most continuous records known.

Climate simulations

The study describes how these rocky deposits appear to be consistently associated with variations in deep ocean circulation, which was reconstructed from chemical variations in minute deep-sea fossils known as foraminifera. The team also used new climate simulations to test the proposed hypotheses, finding that huge volumes of fresh water are carried northward by icebergs.

The first author of the article, PhD student Aidan Starr from the University of Cardiff, notes that the researchers are “surprised to have discovered that this teleconnection is present in each of the different ice ages of the last 1.6 million years. This indicates that the Antarctic Ocean plays a major role in the global climate, something that scientists have long sensed, but that we have now clearly demonstrated.”

Francisco J. Jiménez Espejo, a researcher with the IACT, participated in his capacity as a specialist in inorganic geochemistry and physical properties during the IODP 361 expedition aboard the JOIDES Resolution research vessel. For two months, between January and March 2016, the research team sailed between Mauritius and Cape Town, collecting deep-sea sediment cores.

Jiménez Espejo’s main contribution to the study focused on identifying the geochemical variations associated with glacial and interglacial periods, which has made it possible to estimate with greater accuracy the age of the sediment and its sensitivity to the different environmental changes associated with those periods.

Over the course of the last 3 million years, the Earth began to experience periodic glacial cooling. During the most recent episode, about 20,000 years ago, icebergs continuously reached the Atlantic coasts of the Iberian Peninsula from the Arctic. Currently, the Earth is in a warm interglacial period known as the Holocene.

However, the progressive increase in global temperature associated with CO2 emissions from industrial activities could affect the natural rhythm of glacial cycles. Ultimately, the Antarctic Ocean could become too warm for Antarctic icebergs to be able to carry freshwater north, and therefore a fundamental stage in the beginning of the ice ages–the variations in thermohaline circulation–would not take place.

Ian Hall, also of Cardiff University, who co-directed the scientific expedition, indicates that the results may contribute to understanding how the Earth’s climate may respond to anthropic changes. Similarly, Jiménez Espejo, notes that “last year, during an expedition aboard Hespérides, the Spanish Navy research vessel, we were able to observe the immense A-68 iceberg that had just broken into several pieces next to the islands of South Georgia. Ocean warming may cause the trajectories and the melt patterns of these large icebergs to alter in the future, affecting the currents and, therefore, our climate and the validity of the models that scientists use to predict it.”

###

Bibliography:

DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-03094-7

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-03094-7

From EurekAlert!

2.3 13 votes
Article Rating
117 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 20, 2021 10:41 pm

“However, until now, the question of how small variations in the solar energy that reaches us can lead to such dramatic shifts in the planet’s climate has remained a mystery.”

The asymmetry of the hemispheres acts to amplify changes. Especially those related to the precession of perihelion and the tilt of the Earth as it relates to seasons.

Editor
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 21, 2021 1:55 am

“However, until now, the question of how small variations in the solar energy that reaches us can lead to such dramatic shifts in the planet’s climate has remained a mystery.”. Settled science never ceases to surprise.

Scissor
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 21, 2021 5:14 am

According to Coca Cola’s “Confronting Racism” course, being less white includes being less arrogant, being less certain.

It may just be my out of Africa genes, but “settled science” represents the epitome of white fragility, i.e., it’s racist. Before anything more can be done in the name of climate sciences, this racism must be confronted, and this fixation on the white parts of the globe (the poles) must be examined for its underlying unconscious bias.

https://www.linkedin.com/learning/confronting-racism-with-robin-diangelo

observa
Reply to  Scissor
February 21, 2021 6:01 am

You forgot to contextualize white Darwinism-
Texas freeze shows a chilling truth – how the rich use climate change to divide us (msn.com)
Little did you know glaciations are selective but an old dead bearded white guy knew what it was all about.

Jeff Meyer
Reply to  Scissor
February 21, 2021 7:06 am

Another woke company to never buy from!

To bed B
Reply to  Scissor
February 21, 2021 7:15 pm

Rap music is white?

Reply to  Scissor
February 22, 2021 7:56 am

The claims of racism by the left are a projection of class differences designed to incite class warfare under the guise of racism. The left pushes a narrative that non white people are underachievers and blames systemic racism that doesn’t exist. The underachievement seen the inner cities is the result of incompetent Democratic leadership and the lack of positive role models. It’s not the result of racism, nor is it limited to affect only specific races.

They play the race card because it incites a bigger emotional response, most importantly guilt, and the primary support for all Socialist causes comes from emotion and not logic or reason. Pointing out class differences does not invoke a guilt response since our uniquely American freedom doesn’t restrict how wealthy anyone of any race can become, or even who can become President, as long you put in the work to get there.

Emotion comes from a primitive part of the brain, while logic and reason requires much higher order functionality that necessarily will often override emotion. One of the symptoms of brain calcification is that higher order functionality suffers and misplaced emotional responses take over. I suspect that this is why Biden so easily rolls over to the demands of his Socialist masters.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 22, 2021 9:01 am

The under performance of inner city kids is also the result of liberal policies in the school system.
Giving kids passing grades, just because they show up more often than not.
Failure to provide any form of discipline in the classroom.
Etc.

MarkW
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 22, 2021 9:02 am

I have been following Biden’s career for several decades. He has never shown any evidence that this higher order functionality is operative.

MarkW
Reply to  Scissor
February 22, 2021 8:59 am

When I was a kid, liberals told me that believing you know something about others, especially about how they think, based purely on the color of their skin, was racism.

G Mawer
Reply to  co2isnotevil
February 21, 2021 12:23 pm

As I see it “they” proposed a theory and went thru simulations and machinations to try to prove it. If they did they showed natural variations which ave nothing to do with CO2 or the big problem of “political agendas”!!

Rory Forbes
February 21, 2021 12:19 am

Oh noes … it’s worse than we thought. The Quaternary Ice Age will likely now resume on schedule, ending the Holocene interglacial. This purported anthropic effect on thermohaline circulation could possibly nullify the AGW conjecture. We’ve got no more than 5000 years, tops, and we’re done-for. We’ve already been cooling since the Holocene Thermal Optimum.

Run away!

Last edited 3 months ago by Rory Forbes
observa
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 21, 2021 5:46 am

You can run but I want a V8 to ward off the evil spirits.

Scissor
Reply to  observa
February 21, 2021 5:50 am

Does that work?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  observa
February 21, 2021 9:56 am

I’ve always preferred V8 over regular tomato juice.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 21, 2021 12:00 pm

A ‘Snappy Tom’ would be even better.

IAMPCBOB
Reply to  Jon Salmi
February 21, 2021 5:49 pm

Much MUCH better, in fact, with a cold Coors poured into it!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 22, 2021 6:44 pm

Way too much salt. A disgusting amount of salt.

RickWill
February 21, 2021 12:27 am

drawing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing the so-called greenhouse effect.

This is the money line that wins favour with the CCC.

It is also the point where I know it is garbage.

Right now the tropical Atlantic is energy deficient. There is no part making the 30C controlled limit. That means there is no energy surplus that needs to be regulated down by convective cloud. There is just not enough ocean getting enough sunlight.

By July at aphelion, the ToA insolation at zenith over the tropical Atlantic will be just 1320W/sq.m. That is 422W/sq.m average. That corresponds to a clear sky radiating temperature of 300K, just 27C surface temperature. Any cloud that lowers OLR will have a greater impact on surface insolation so it is no wonder the tropical Atlantic struggles to make 30C.

Glaciation begins with the North Atlantic cooling year-on-year and land ice accumulating year-on-year. During glaciation, the tropical Atlantic only makes a peak of 26C. It even impacts on the eastern Pacific temperature.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000PA000506

Atlantic Ocean at the present time has a sea ice contact of 8,700km and just 6,300km across the Equatorial zone. So the cold ends are considerably longer than the warm middle. The other two tropical oceans are reversed with Pacific almost twice the equatorial length compared with its sea ice contact length.

Last edited 3 months ago by RickWill
Ron Long
Reply to  RickWill
February 21, 2021 2:31 am

RickWill, you identified their money shot, when they introduced the idea of CO2 interfering with the onset of next glacial cycle. Who would of thought that me and my friends driving around in SUV’s, could stall the next glacial cycle? Send more money and we will clarify this a little more? but here’s the deal, they accidently generated some very useful data in their sea voyage and sediment collecting adventure, and this type of data might help understand the signs of going glacial.

Peter W
Reply to  RickWill
February 21, 2021 4:48 am

Of course, we all KNOW that it HAS to be all about CO2, otherwise it isn’t valid science?

Ridiculous!

Newminster
Reply to  RickWill
February 21, 2021 6:03 am

I was OK till I got to:
“However, the progressive increase in global temperature associated with CO2 emissions from industrial activities could affect the natural rhythm of glacial cycles.”



Oldseadog
Reply to  Newminster
February 21, 2021 10:25 am

Yep, me too. Where is the link please?

Alex
February 21, 2021 1:10 am

Icebergs cause ice ages?
No.
They are just canary birds in a cage.

Richard
February 21, 2021 1:22 am

“However, the progressive increase in global temperature associated with CO2 emissions from industrial activities could affect the natural rhythm of glacial cycles. Ultimately, the Antarctic Ocean could become too warm for Antarctic icebergs to be able to carry freshwater north, and therefore a fundamental stage in the beginning of the ice ages–the variations in thermohaline circulation–would not take place.”

Does that mean we have averted an ice-age? Is that a good thing? Or would it be preferable for the northern hemisphere to be covered in mile-thick sheets of ice?

Loydo
Reply to  Richard
February 21, 2021 1:35 am

Yeah, an explosion of 7.5 billion greedy apes, ransacking the planet and releasing a plume of 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2 in an unplanned geoengineering experiment on their own habitat. I’m sure extra food production for a few billion more, even happier greedy apes will be the sole outcome. Afterall, what could possibly go wrong?

sky king
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 1:41 am

Misanthrope.

Loydo
Reply to  sky king
February 21, 2021 3:05 am

Yes, yes sorry I should have called the neurotic, greedy apes.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:39 am

Nobody would miss you, loydo. Remove yourself.

beng135
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 7:55 am

Speak for yourself.

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 7:59 am

 7.5 billion greedy apes, ransacking the planet 

Careful….

Oprah Winfrey boards £50m private jet after filming bombshell interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14111930/prince-harry-meghan-markle-oprah-jet-interview/

Some are more greedy than others right, Loydo?

Last edited 3 months ago by fretslider
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 12:57 pm

Why do you have such deep-seated depression and such a RABID SELF-HATRED.?

Is it because you KNOW you are a total NON-ENTITY and a mindless, brain-washed MORON ?

Why do you CHOOSE to make yourself the lowest form of VICTIM ?

Last edited 3 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:05 pm

Wow, being a loser in life sure has filled Loydo with hatred towards those who aren’t losers.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  MarkW
February 21, 2021 9:52 pm

As Rush said:

Tell a Lie to a conservative and he becomes angry.
Tell the truth to a liberal and he becomes angry.

Bro. Steve
Reply to  sky king
February 21, 2021 4:25 am

That would be “misanthr-ape,” don’t you think?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 2:51 am

You need to go and look at the dictionary definition for explosion because it does not reflect the growth of 7.5 billion apes over several thousand years.

Loydo
Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 21, 2021 3:07 am

Yes, sorry, dear oh dear, exaggerating again, how about ramp-up?

comment image

Last edited 3 months ago by Loydo
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:50 am

That’s a nice graph. What’s your point?
I hope you’re not one of those weirdos who believes in the daft “Limits To Growth” stuff. That’s just for self-loathing wallies.

observa
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 6:21 am

What’s his point? Dunno really but maybe Loydo and Co are planning to storm the Capitol to stop the rollout of Covid vaccine so watch out for the Green New Deal Pelosi Occasional Cortex and Co. If I were Joe I’d mask up and stay home playing Mario Kart with the grandkids and putting logs on the fire staying safe.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  observa
February 21, 2021 7:24 am

“Occasional Cortex”
Love it. Had me laughing out loud!

fretslider
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 8:22 am

I think the point here is yet another hockey schtick ; )

Loydo
Reply to  fretslider
February 22, 2021 11:41 am

Mmm, what a coincidence.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 10:13 am

What’s weird about recognizing that there is a hard upper-limit on the population of Earth? The mass of humans can never exceed the mass of the Earth. It should be obvious that it would be impossible for that limit to even be approached closely because gravity would kill those on the bottom of the pile. So, it becomes a question of what will limit further growth first? Even if significant changes in technology would allow one or two orders of magnitude increase in food production (unlikely) the availability of food would still be a tangible limit on population. So, then it becomes a question of what things in your lifestyle would you gladly give up to support more people? Eating insects instead of beef? Recycling urine to have drinking water instead of relying on rain?

Personally, I find it “weird” that anyone would seriously believe that there aren’t “Limits to Growth.” It is so blindingly obvious that even alarmists can see it.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 21, 2021 2:07 pm

Cheap energy with its resultant prosperity and good health is what limits population growth.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 21, 2021 4:13 pm

While there probably are limits to growth.
However claiming that you must be right because the alarmists agree with you is not as strong an argument as you seem to believe.
Beyond that, we are so far away from any possible limits, wasting time talking about where it is, is an exercise in futility.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
February 21, 2021 9:59 pm

H2O molecules in a glass of New Orlean’s municipal water taken and purified from the Mississippi River has already been through 7 people’s bladders!

MarkW
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 22, 2021 9:05 am

Over the course of geological time, every molecule of water has been through some animals bladder many times.

Tom Schaefer
Reply to  MarkW
March 1, 2021 1:30 pm

There are both geologically nascent water molecules and hydrogen and oxygen that may have been water, been chemically or biologically transformed into other molecule and back into water again many times over geological time – never having been through a bladder. Probably mostly in tectonic subduction and eruption, but also photosynthesis and lightning. It would be interesting to know the stats on the life expectancy of a water molecule. centuries, millennia? Oh, I forgot: There may be nascent exo-water from pieces of organic meteorites or formed from the solar wind.

Last edited 3 months ago by Tom Schaefer
Bob boder
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 5:19 am

Loydo do your part, don’t have kids

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 6:23 am

You’re part of it all, Loydo. If you really feel that strongly about it, do something about it besides sipping on a Starbucks mocha latte while listening to Yanni’s “Song For Antarctica”, contemplating the wonders of nature, and pontificating about climate change.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  David Kamakaris
February 21, 2021 7:32 am

As Loydo hates fossil fules so much, I presume he’ll be wanting to stop using everything made from FFs. He could start giving up this (partial) list of products:

products.PNG
Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 7:33 am

He could also try stopping using these things as well. Bu I bet he won’t, as he’s a complete hypocrite

prudcts2.PNG
David Kamakaris
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 8:54 am

Not likely, Andrew. And you can add Griff, Nyolci, Kerry, Biden, AOC, as well as the rest of the indulgent climate hypocrites.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 8:12 am

It’s funny
I have been saying that there is a hockey stick but it’s human population not temperature.
The real issue is your self-loathing Loydo
Based on recent polls you and griff quoted on the number who now believe AGW, if you all just step off you can flatten that curve.
Switching to crap renewable power simply means chewing up more in disturbed areas so you will make it worse

Do us all a favor.

Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 8:41 am

Loydo

You really lost it that time and let the mask slip.
You’ve made it clear that this Malthusian misanthropy is the driving force – the “forcing” if you like – behind the whole climate campaign.

The figure is out of date, population will peak below 9 billion by 2050, then decline. In fact the pandemic could make that peak a decade earlier and lower. Check out the youtube videos by Hans Rosling about population growth – the essential antidote to Paul Ehrlich.

Anthropogenic CO2 increase has boosted plant growth intrinsically by about 30 %, and the current human population is not even close to exhausting resources. On the contrary, the CO2 increase in enhancing both wild ecosystems and farm production.

The real danger is habitat loss and fragmentation, overfishing and pollution with chemicals and plastic. That should be the target of political action. Not CO2. But CO2 has been found to be so far an effective proxy to just hurt economic growth and – hopefully – reduce population so your Malthusian-misanthropic mandate is to stick with it for better or worse, I guess?

Paradoxically, economic growth is the best solution to the threat to the environment posed by the epidemic of hairless apes. Economic growth leads to termination of population growth and also development of responsible management of environment and active and informed conservation of the biosphere.

So economic growth should be the goal. Anti-capitalism is thus an own goal. Hint – everything Paul Ehrlich ever said is total BS and false. Don’t believe any of his imbecilic prophecies of doom, they are a road to nowhere.

Loydo
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 22, 2021 2:50 am

“economic growth is the best solution to the threat to the environment”

Hands up who thinks they’re exempt from delusion.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 22, 2021 9:06 am

Acknowledging reality is a form of delusion?
Now we know why Loydo is an alarmist.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 9:53 am

Do you think you could have distorted the X and Y axes any more?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 1:00 pm

Loy-dodo continues it UTTER HATRED of all HUMANKIND

Himself in the #1 position

I have never seen such LOATHING as he/she/it has for itself and the planet in general

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 1:04 pm

That expansion of human population is down to one thing

RELIABLE ENERGY

Get over it, and if you HATE HUMANS SO MUCH, perhaps go and live with the Polar Bears.. PLENTY of those about , and they are nice an cubbly

You really have a VERY SICK MIND, Loy-putrid.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 3:10 am

Misanthrope *2

Damn you dirty ape indeed

fretslider
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:34 am

Such intense self-loathing

It must be hell down there

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:41 am

Loydo, Griff et al
Since you all live in a constant state of climate fear and apprehension, may I suggest you just delete yourself from the population of greedy apes. You will no longer be troubled and the rest of us will be better off without you.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
February 21, 2021 4:17 pm

People like Loydo, griff, bethan and the others spend their lives hating those who have succeeded, convinced that somehow the wealth and prosperity their professors assured them they were entitled to, has been stolen by evil right wingers.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:48 am

You obviously feel we need to cut back on the number of apes.
Tell you what: you get rid of yourself first and then we’ll take our turn. We promise…

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 6:22 am

What could go wrong?
We could be subjected to people like you, for one thing.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 8:08 am

Industrialization, monetization, with resultant old age security result in 2 children per family. Make everyone ‘not poor’ is what needs to happen to prevent Loydo’s greedy apes scenario. Increasing the price of basic fuels with carbon emissions surcharges, making poor people disproportionately poorer, is going the wrong direction.

Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 8:19 am

Sir, you go too far…I assure you that Nine Year Kerry is no greedy Ape…he may produce a few tons…maybe even a few tonnes, but he’s working hard to save the planet…..the Great Barack calmed the winds and stopped the sea rise….now Joey and Nine Year will complete the job.

fretslider
Reply to  Anti_griff
February 21, 2021 8:32 am

Anti_Griff

Every part of the Multiverse needs one

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 9:51 am

You’ve always had the solution to these things, my boy. Simply hold your breath if you’re so concerned. Your problem is solved and we know there isn’t one.

Richard
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 10:07 am

7.5 billion greedy apes? And what sort of ape are you? Some of us have evolved into homo sapiens but I guess a few slipped through the cracks. Some of us think it may be preferable to save humans rather than the planet, which after all spins and revolves without your help.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 12:54 pm

“greedy apes”

An “ape” would have 10 time your mental capacity, Loy-dumbest !!

There is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 does anything but provide more food for plant growth

Sit back in your comfy padded cell using you fossil fuel power compuetr t type MEANINGLESS wads of total nonsense…

While enjoying all the benefits of modern civilisation.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT, Loy-dodo

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
February 21, 2021 4:04 pm

If humans are so innately evil, why are you still breathing?

What’s this “ransacking” that your hate filled mind invisions? Everywhere I look, the environment is getting better and cleaner. Or are you one of those morons who believes that any change caused by man is evil and must be stopped.

There isn’t a shred of evidence that CO2 is bad for the planet. Indeed just a few tens of million years ago, CO2 levels were as high as 7000ppm, and nothing bad happened. In fact life was flourishing at the time.

What could go wrong from a few billion more humans? Nothing.

James
Reply to  Loydo
February 27, 2021 7:04 pm

As opposed to the changes wrought by the lowly cranobacteria.

Perhaps we should determine how to sequester o2 and go back to our true pristine world??

Editor
February 21, 2021 1:51 am

I read as far as the heading of “Climate Simulations”. No need to read after that.

Regards,
Bob

Editor
February 21, 2021 1:52 am

There seem to be several things wrong with this paper or with the way it is represented.

They say melting icebergs will cause the cooling. That sounds like warming causing cooling. But in fact “the Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from the continent”. So it’s not the melting icebergs causing the cooling, it’s the Antarctic continent and/or Southern Ocean cooling that makes icebergs get further away before they melt, and therefore it’s the Antarctic continent and/or Southern Ocean cooling that is the cause of their global cooling. Of course we still don’t know what is the cause of the Antarctic continent and/or Southern Ocean cooling, but presumably we’re looking at the sun or Earth’s relationship to the sun.

The paper’s attempts to link their future glacial period to CO2 is just pathetic. I will give the authors the benefit of the doubt, and assume that without that garbage about CO2, they couldn’t have got their paper published in Nature. Climate science is in a dreadful state, but hopefully someone can end the gatekeepers’ stranglehold before the next glacial period ends the Holocene.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 21, 2021 2:06 am

“They say melting icebergs will cause the cooling. That sounds like warming causing cooling. But in fact “the Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from the continent”. So it’s not the melting icebergs causing the cooling, it’s the Antarctic continent and/or Southern Ocean cooling that makes icebergs get further away before they melt, and therefore it’s the Antarctic continent and/or Southern Ocean cooling that is the cause of their global cooling.”

Precisely. Proponents of AGW like the Loydo and Griff have always had a problem with causation by getting it the wrong way round.

AndyHce
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 21, 2021 3:11 am

Could it be those icebergs on they way north that cool the southern ocean? That works in my ice tea.

Reply to  AndyHce
February 21, 2021 3:38 am

So, your glass overflowing yet with that rising liquid level caused by the melting ice? It was quite an interesting read, until the CO2 thing cropped up. I was waiting for the guy to put two and two together, but he never got so four.

AndyHce
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 21, 2021 5:55 pm

The article is about cooling oceans and their effect on general climate, not about seal level.

Reply to  AndyHce
February 21, 2021 8:56 pm

No, the article is specifically about icebergs, I understood your ice tea comment to be showing signs of a sense of humour.
My mistake…

Steve Keohane
Reply to  Graemethecat
February 21, 2021 4:38 am

It seems like the minimum obliquity would cause melting further away from the poles.

Bob boder
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 21, 2021 5:23 am

Growing ice is unstable, more ice bergs. Warming doesn’t cause more ice bergs. It’s all BS.

taxed
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 21, 2021 11:19 am

Or a other factor could be a long term change in wind patterns. A increase in cold southern winds blowing up from Antarctic,would not only aid cooling taking place further north.But would also help to drive the icebergs further to the north as well.

Lrp
Reply to  Mike Jonas
February 21, 2021 9:51 pm

Climate science belongs to science fiction area

Derek Wood
February 21, 2021 2:17 am

“However, the progressive increase in global temperature associated with CO2 emissions from industrial activities” I was sorta on board until this came up.

Peta of Newark
February 21, 2021 3:10 am

How Ice Ages Work.
The Encore, for those who missed it previously.

The rocks comprising Earth’s land surface are very old, as is Earth obviously.
These rocks are very highly chemically weathered.
After millions/billions of years of exposure to the weak acid that is all rain (Carbonic Acid), everything that could be or is or was acid soluble has been leached / eroded away.
Washed into the ocean by the rivers.

Plant life depends on those water soluble elements:
Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Sulphur etc etc etc
52 in total

Rock from all different places are all different themselves, some erode faster than others. Hence the diversity we see.

But, they all erode and as they do, the supply of nutrient for the plants gradually fades.
With it, so do the plants. They grow weaker & less vigorous, more prone to disease and are fewer in number leaving them prone to fire.

As they fade, so does the deep layer of litter that countless previous generations of plants had accumulated in the soil beneath them.
It is a triple whammy, that accumulated junk retained:
water
water soluble nutrients
in turn, the retained water stored huge amounts, as only water can do, of heat energy

In a vigorous healthy plantation, the plants (trees almost entirely) would have created a canopy over that soil to protect it from the drying heat of the sun, drying winds and also the sterilising effect of sunlight on soil bacteria = the things that actually comprise most of the soil organic material.
Hence why most people ‘Don’t Get It’ – they expect to see old leaves, plant stalks and other twiggery.

Thus the canopy, in conjunction with the clouds it can/does create from transpiration and also the stored heat in the soil, would have regulated the average temperature, average rainfall and thus = weather = climate.
As would be seen on-the-ground under the trees and as we don’t fly too good and are hopeless tree-climbers, would never know any different.

Should a hole appear in the canopy as would happen when any given tree falls or dies, very effort is made to fill it back in ASAP,
Done via ‘Annual Plants’ using a vast seed-store built up in the soil. The annuals would ‘hold the fort’ until a new tree got itself established.

Consider Earth in 2 parts.
Part 1 being maybe up to 35 degrees latitude having lots (excess) of solar input and part 2 being everywhere else.

If the plants in Part 1 become nutrient deficient, holes will appear in the canopy, the sun will get in and those holes will grow rapidly. Like cancer does I ‘d suppose.
Thus, a desert will appear and it will be self sustaining.
No amount of water or CO2 will repair it.

In Part 2 (low solar input) of the globe, nutrient deficient plants will work harder and harder pulling on the water reserve stored in the soil beneath them.
This because, every drop of water they suck up will contain fewer and fewer vital nutrients – so they suck more.
But of course, that liquid water they pull up has to be got rid of, they transpire and in doing so create an epic cooling effect. The forest becomes global sized air-con.

This will cool everything rapidly. There wasn’t a strong sun to start with and the evaporated water creates clouds, cooling even more.
Cold rain will fall. At some point, it will become snow.

Meanwhile in the soil under that forest, soil bacteria are slowing their activities: viz recycling nutrients for the trees. At a temp of 5 Celsius or less, they effectively switch off.
Trees on the very edge will start to die and instead of presenting an albedo of about 0.4, the albedo will rise to that of snow, circa 0.8
So the forest will retreat from the colder North, leaving pure white snow in its place.

See how it goes now. Because at some point, the increasingly expanding and burned out tropical forest heading North will meet the nutrient starved and cold forest as it retreats South.
When they meet, BINGO. Ice Age

Thus we have created an Ice Age, now how to get out of it.
Simples.
The very cold air will behave as the Polar Vortex does – moves with laminar flow at very high speed.
These high speed winds will pick up dust from the deserts around the middle of the Earth and deposit it on the snow at higher latitudes.
Thus decreasing the albedo and starting the process of ice/snow melt

The winds have a lot of work to do but have ‘nothing else to do’ and will physically erode the deserts to quite significant depth.
In doing so, will expose fresh new rock.

This will sand-blasted by the wind and this nutrient rich fresh rock will deposit over the ice/snow at higher latitudes. Lowering the albedo some more

At some point as must happen, the ice will crack and whatever plants there are left will very rapidly move in, fertilised by this wind-blown dust.
They will further pull down the albedo and the Ice Age will fall apart.

Life, sweetness, loveliness and (sun) light will prevail…

Until, the new crop of plants have used up all the wind blown dust and the process must/will repeat.

Neat innit.
No GHGE. No Solar wobbles. No Cosmic Rays. No Mankovitches. No ellipticals
Nothing very interesting at all really
Simple common sense. Easy to understand thermodynamics and every-day, often ‘taken-for-granted’, observations.

Sadly however and as is De Rigueur in the Modern Times, no supercomputers, no Ivory Towers, no tenured professors, no new tax, no legions of omnipotent bizzies, no books to sell, no Nobel prizes and no money to be made
ho hum

The alert one out there may notice that as the nutrient content of the plants decreases, so does the nutrient intake of any critters that might eat those plants.

How might that pan out?
What sort of evidence would one look for?

Last edited 3 months ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 21, 2021 3:45 am

I likeee! Although, I still think planetary wobble and sun weather explains a number of other things, none of them belie your take, though.
One has to add the recent reports of sand ‘polluting’ the snow, though. Evidence for your theory, no question.

Peter W
Reply to  Peta of Newark
February 21, 2021 4:58 am

From shat I have learned about Milankovitch cycles, they explain the fairly regularly repeating ice ages pretty well.

Stephen Skinner
February 21, 2021 4:11 am

No mention of the re-arrangement of the continents such as the formation of the Atlantic and what effect these large blocks and land and Ocean have on disrupting ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns. India collided with Eurasia forming the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau (the third pole) around the time Antarctica started to freeze over, which was also the time Antarctica moved into it’s current polar position. 5 million years ago the Med filled up for the last time, in a very short time scale. Prior to this the Med was the largest canyon in the solar system (2,400 miles long and over 17,000 ft down at deepest) which would have been a large source of heat. No. It has to be CO2 that controls everything.

Joseph Zorzin
February 21, 2021 4:38 am

Bottom line- nobody knows- nobody understands the climate so its insane to push a revolutionary change to our energy and economic systems. This is more dangerous than the French and Russian revolutions- as it’ll effect everyone, not just the people of those nations. Such drastic changes in the short term are far more destructive than a trivial change in temperature- especially when many parts of the world will get better. It’s obvious, there is no such thing as “climate science”. There is physics and chemistry- real sciences when can prove theories in a lab- but even they don’t claim to be “settled”. When I hear someone say “climate science is settled”- it raises my blood pressure. To me it sounds like astrology.

Loydo
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 22, 2021 11:50 am

“nobody knows- nobody understands the climate”

If that is true wouldn’t it be prudent to show a little restraint in emissions in the first place?

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Loydo
February 23, 2021 3:22 am

The restraint should be for common sense- efficiency is a good thing- saves us money and maybe, probably, there is a very minor contribution to the slight warming of the climate due to those emissions. But a drastic, revolutionary change to our civilization costing trillions is crazy and NOT gonna happen.

Andrew Wilkins
February 21, 2021 4:52 am

Models and See-Oh-Toos
When I saw both of those I knew the study was junk.

donald penman
February 21, 2021 5:34 am

The way that low solar radiation can change the climate is that in some parts of the globe solar radiation becomes very low during mid winter and solar radiation has in the past been cut by industrial pollution as well as volcanoes. A week sun does not warm the surface of the Earth and ice builds up on the surface. In mid summer only Artic or near arctic areas are affected by a week sun. The spread of ice sheets during an ice age is a surface event not an atmospheric event which are random, when there is a week sun frost and ice remain all day on the ground without melting.

jono1066
February 21, 2021 5:49 am

Nay,
they all missed it . . .
Ice 9

Bruce Cobb
February 21, 2021 5:55 am

Somewhere in there lurks ClimateDoom™, making it an excellent candidate for the game of Spot the ClimateDoom™.

Nicholas McGinley
February 21, 2021 6:09 am

Do they know cause from effect?
For icebergs to melt further North, the ocean has to be already colder and the currents already to have changed.

I wish the language used to describe such speculations stayed grounded in the fact that it is simply a speculation, and not a “finding”.
The word “Is” does not belong in the headline of an article like this.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 21, 2021 10:24 am

“It all depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” 🙂

S.K. Dodsland
February 21, 2021 6:38 am

It is interesting research but they lost me when they attempted to link it to the AGW.

beng135
February 21, 2021 7:25 am

This process causes the Antarctic Ocean to become increasingly salty, while the Atlantic Ocean becomes fresher, affecting overall ocean circulation patterns, drawing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing the so-called greenhouse effect.

Didn’t take long to get to a nonsense statement.

Pat from kerbob
February 21, 2021 8:02 am

“Ultimately, the Antarctic Ocean could become too warm for Antarctic icebergs to be able to carry freshwater north, and therefore a fundamental stage in the beginning of the ice ages–the variations in thermohaline circulation–would not take place.“

Did they really just say that CO2 heating will prevent the next glaciation?

Have they been executed yet?

February 21, 2021 8:16 am

However, until now, the question of how small variations in the solar energy that reaches us can lead to such dramatic shifts in the planet’s climate has remained a mystery.

Glacial and interglacial are the two attractors in the climate attractor landscape. The system is flickering between them since it is finely balanced at the boundary and Milankovich forcing causes alternate attractors to become dominant.

The only mystery is why so many continue in wilful denial of chaotic nonlinear dynamics that underlie climate dynamics.

This process causes the Antarctic Ocean to become increasingly salty, while the Atlantic Ocean becomes fresher, affecting overall ocean circulation patterns, drawing CO2 from the atmosphere and reducing the so-called greenhouse effect. These are the initial stages that mark the beginning of an ice age on the planet.

This speculation is flat-out contradicted by paleoclimate data. At the last glacial inception, Schneider et al. 2013 showed that:

At 120 000 yr BP, Antarctic temperature begins to decline in Fig. 2 (Jouzel et al., 2007), whereas atmospheric CO2 concentration remains at a constant value of 276 ppm for another 5000 yr.

So CO2 stayed high for 5000 years during the initial, steep cooling that started glacial inception.

How can reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere be responsible for glacial inception, when CO2 level was not reduced at glacial inception?

https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/9/2507/2013/cp-9-2507-2013.pdf

As Ganopolski et al 2009 also stated that over several recent glacial–interglacial transitions, temperature has “robustly” led CO2, not the other way around:

Analysis of leads and lags between different paleoclimate records remains an important method in paleoclimatology, used to propose and test hypotheses about causal relationships between different processes in the climate system. The robust lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 concentration during several recent glacial–interglacial transitions inferred from the Antarctic ice cores apparently contradicts the concept of CO2-driven climate change and still remains unexplained.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379109003229

Why do scientists continue to ignore the data and construct theories and models of CO2 causation of glacial inceptions and terminations, when the data show that they can’t be true?

Even as far back as the end Ordovician glaciation ~400 million years ago, Seth Young and colleagues show by advanced and precise isotope geostratigraphy, that not only did CO2 in air increase during the inception of the deep Saharan-Andean glaciation, but high (1000 ppm+) levels of CO2 persisted throughout this glaciation.

https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/

Why do scientific journals allow CAGW-politicised papers which arrogantly ignore all previous research, to be published? It makes palaeo-climate research look like “50 blind dates” research.

Last edited 3 months ago by Hatter Eggburn
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 21, 2021 8:41 am

What do you think about https://plateclimatology.com

Reply to  Anti_griff
February 21, 2021 8:52 am

Climate change over deep time – tens of millions of years – is indeed dominated by tectonic movement. And I support any opposition to the “atmosphere bias”. As a gross generalisation, weather is from the atmosphere but climate is from the ocean. And over much longer timescales, tectonics are the driving force as they change the pattern of global ocean circulation.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 21, 2021 10:13 am

This “science” has always been about geology, not climatology. Our atmosphere is merely a less concentrated extension of the oceans. This planet doesn’t have an atmospheric circulatory system, a “climate”. It has numerous coupled, local climates affected by the land masses and oceans.

DP111
February 21, 2021 8:54 am

It has long been known that changes in the Earth’s orbit, as it moves around the Sun, trigger the beginning or end of glacial periods by affecting the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet’s surface.

I was under the impression that it was the precession of the earths axis that gave rise to cyclical glaciation and warmth.

ResourceGuy
February 21, 2021 10:25 am

We continue to re-live the age of Copernicus with bits of science among the religious police state.

We found this pattern in ocean sediments. Praise be to Gaia forever and ever, amen. You may publish now my son.

goldminor
February 21, 2021 10:25 am

Note how this statement is not quantified ” …moving huge volumes of freshwater from the Antarctic Ocean into the Atlantic.”. What would be considered as huge in relation to the size of the Atlantic?

BrianB
February 21, 2021 1:16 pm

You guys are all missing the point.
We finally have that elusive planetwide thermostat.
We just hook tugboats to icebergs and push them back and forth around the Atlantic until we have the just the right temperature.
The hard part, as always, will be finding the ideal temp between the sexes.

Jean Parisot
February 21, 2021 2:38 pm

With Arctic icebergs reaching the Iberian coast, did Antarctic icebergs reach Australia, Africa, or South America?

MarkW
February 21, 2021 3:51 pm

Just how much extra warming does an increase in ocean temperature of 0.06C going to cause?

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
February 22, 2021 11:56 am

Misleading. That figure is for the entire ocean volume. The relevant number is the temperature rise of the mixed surface layers because they affect the atmosphere on short time scales.

Voltron
February 21, 2021 4:25 pm

I knew something was up when Nature was called prestigious. It may have been in years gone by, perhaps, but the drivel they publish now….

MarkW
February 21, 2021 4:41 pm

The closer these ice bergs get to the equator, the more efficient they will be at reflecting sunlight.

To bed B
February 21, 2021 7:14 pm

There may be a titanic negative feedback unaccounted for in the settled science?

guidoLaMoto
February 22, 2021 8:44 am

“In this new study, a multinational group of researchers proposes that, when the Earth’s orbit around the sun is just right, the Antarctic icebergs begin to melt further and further away from the continent, moving huge volumes of freshwater from the Antarctic Ocean into the Atlantic.”

If the bergs are melting farther away from the source, doesn’t that mean it’s already started to get cooler?…Isn’t it an effect and not a cause of cooling???

“Huge” volumes? How big is an iceberg? How big is the ocean?

%d bloggers like this: