By Ross Pomeroy
Hundreds of millions of Americans are presently besieged by a massive arctic blast and winter storm. Luckily for them, it will only be temporary. That wasn’t the case 20,000 years ago…
Between 26,500 to around 19,000 years ago, gargantuan glaciers covered around a quarter of Earth’s land area year round. Their frigid reach extended to the areas that are now Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, and Boston. The average global temperature was then about 46 degrees Fahrenheit (8 degrees Celsius), 11 degrees F (6 degrees C) cooler than the global annual average today. It was a chilly time to be alive.
And make no mistake, humans were alive. Though much of our species sheltered around the equator at the time, some did live in cooler regions such as central Europe, not far from the glaciers’ icy reach. Clothing, constructed dwellings, fire, and omnivory all helped our ancestors outlast the cold.
When that great freeze ended and the ice retreated about 11,700 years ago, then humanity really started to thrive. Buoyed by the warmth of the current “interglacial” period, humans have been able to propagate pretty much everywhere on the surface of Earth.
But what if this period of relative warmth we’ve enjoyed were to come to an end? What if Earth entered another “ice age”?
First off, Earth is technically in an ice age right now, defined as a time when both of the planet’s poles are covered with ice. What people actually mean when they talk about an “ice age” is a “glacial period.” This is when the ice at the poles creeps toward the equator. These glaciers reflect the sun’s rays back into space, making the Earth colder, which allows the glaciers to spread further, which chills the Earth even more – a positive feedback loop.
Glacial periods are initially triggered by subtle changes in Earth’s orbit as well as its tilt and wobble. These factors collectively affect how much solar radiation the Earth receives. Such changes are cyclic and predictable, which means that we have the ability to gauge when another glacial period is on the way. So when will that be?
Current estimates suggest that we have at least 10,000 more years of relative warmth, and perhaps as many as 200,000. Why the wide range? Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.
In a study published in December, a team of researchers estimated that under current conditions, the next ice age is expected 50,000 years into the future. If we emit twice as much carbon as we have so far, which we’re on pace to do in the next five decades, the next ice age will begin in 100,000 years. The researchers say we could delay glaciation by up to 200,000 years from present, but by then an ice age is likely unavoidable.
Professor Andreas Born at the University of Bergen’s Department of Earth Science isn’t so sure.
“If a new ice age were to come, cities like Oslo, Stockholm, and Chicago would be covered by several thousand metres of ice. In that case, it’s probably highly unlikely that humans would allow this to happen again, as long as there’s a society,” he told ScienceNorway. “That could mean that the last ice age was actually the last ice age.”
Over the next tens of thousands of years, it’s reasonable to assume that humanity will have pioneered numerous ways to geoengineer the planet’s climate on rapid timescales, so another ice age could very well be preventable. But if not, humans will likely have hundreds or even thousands of years to adapt as polar ice returns to claim the land at lower latitudes. It won’t appear as suddenly as America’s current cold snap.
This article was originally published by RealClearScience and made available via RealClearWire.
My first reaction is to agree, because I’ve always thought this. But considering how badly politicians have panicked the populace into the last 30-40 years of climate catastrophe hand-wringing and wasting so much money and resources to make life worse and stall innovation, I have zero doubt that politicians will eff things up even worse in the future.
Yes, but even as politicians have eff’ed things up for the last 30-40 years, humanity still got Amazon.com, Garmin watches and LED lightbulbs that don’t suck (well they’re not as bad now as they used to be). I think future humans will “get there”.
We also got one of the worst things ever, Social Media.
And the worst thing ever, the anti-human, anti-economy, anti-development “climate” agenda.
A glacier couldn’t happen fast enough to Minneapolis. Wipe that cesspool off the map.
Not only that, but attempts to manipulate a chaotic system will likely have unintended effects that will make things worse as opposed to better.
Especially given the current mind virus of “warmer = bad,” which is 180 degrees WRONG.
I do disagree completely with your believe in geoengineering! Have you not learned yet, that people screw up everything they touch? We are living in the coldest part of the last 5000 years, so what’s the point in blocking the sun, unless of course you would like to bring the ice age forward.
It is just a little ice age caused by the grand solar minimum (2020-2053) similar to that seen in 17 century which was called Maunder minimum https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23328940.2020.1796243
Don’t be silly, we are not in a grand solar minimum now, not even close.
Even the previous solar cycle #24, the lowest cycle in 100 years at the time, was more powerful than the Dalton Minimum of the early 1800s, which was still far and away more active than the Maunder Minimum. The Maunder was also entered into gradually, so don’t expect a sudden fall before 2053. Some have predicted higher solar activity into the 2050s.
Longer-term orbital factors aren’t the only condition for ice grown. The Little Ice Age has been attributed to low solar activity before and during the Maunder Minimum. Of course the LIA was a blip compared to previous longer glacial periods, real ice ages.
It is just a matter of time before the next grand solar minimum occurs, several are likely before the next orbital-induced, more widespread glaciation. Ten thousand more years would be a long time to go without a GSM.
Valery, I agree that we’re in a cooling period — it started in 2016, not with current weather. That said, I suspect there won’t be another LIA before the Modern Warm Period optimum in 2200, but I can’t rule it out. The Sun has too many cycles. I put the next LIA in 2400.
Prediction from sunspots, slight cooling until 2035:
Prediction from Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (subset of cycles, so long term warming is not obvious in data as plotted). Watch for the AMO to turn:
Predictions for three locations in Greenland based on climate largely repeating after 3560 years.
This particular GISP2 reconstruction suggests significant cooling before the optimum. The NGRIP and NEEM sites tell a different story proving climate is local. A paper describing the origins of the 3560-year period is currently under review.
As for the next glacial period, we have a while. Most of the periods identified appear to be related to the same cycles I used to determine the 3560-year pattern. Milankovitch cycles may play a role, but they’re not the whole story. Note that the termination of the Younger Dryas aligns with the 8.2ka event after a 3560-year shift. It’s a shame that articles like this treat Milankovithch cycles as a proven fact — just like the CO2 crowd and anthropogenic warming.
CO2 concentrations lag and are integrally related to sea surface temperature. They are a response, not a forcing function.
“CO2 concentrations lag and are integrally related to sea surface temperature……”
That is true …. For the natural carbon cycle.
However the excess Atmos CO2 is not contributed by that natural cycle and will not be visible by looking for correlation to SSTs.
“They are a response, not a forcing function.”
CO2 is both.
If it comes first (as in outside of the natural carbon cycle, which is in balance between its sources and sinks), then it becomes a driver.
If it comes second, as in response to temperatures it is indeed a feedback.
However a (+ve) feedback is still something that amplifies the causative process.
”Natural processes contribute by far the largest share of carbon dioxide (CO2) flux into the atmosphere, but human activities are responsible for the net increase in atmospheric concentration because nature’s emissions are balanced by natural sinks.
Natural vs. Mankind Carbon Cycle Annual Contribution
Why Mankind’s Contribution Matters
I’ve found no evidence to support your argument. I can only find evidence of one process which appears to regulate CO2 concentrations no matter the source. We know from ice-core data that CO2 concentrations lag temperature. We know from modern measurements that [CO2] lags temperature. It’s also easy to show that modern [CO2] trends are integrally related to temperature trends (e.g. quadratic [CO2] for linear temperature).
Detrending [CO2] with a quadratic and temperature with a linear function allows us to easily see that [CO2] lags temperature. In fact concentrations are just now starting to decelerate as the Hunga-Tonga anomaly fades.
A logarithmic detrend, which is what is expected to work with [CO2] forcing, doesn’t. I haven’t updated this plot in a while. No point.
I first noticed the integral relationship in the frequency domain where it’s possible to attenuate uncorrelated signals using coherent averaging, and where I can avoid filtering the data to remove seasonal variations. The -90° response implies a six-month delay for a 2-year cycle and a 250-year delay for a 1000-year cycle.
The best evidence that I have to offer that there’s only a single integral process is a single integral equation which can be used to predict temperature from [CO2] and [CO2] from temperature. This wouldn’t work if the trend, and the variations on the trend, were different processes.
“We know from ice-core data that CO2 concentrations lag temperature.
As I said, that is correct.
Ice core data will show that CO2 lags temp, as ice cores, even the most recent ones only give us data up to 1855, which is before anthro warming began
The natural carbon cycle does that.
”We know from modern measurements that [CO2] lags temperature. “
If you mean modern CO2 levels then no, we absolutely don’t.
Because the correlation cannot be seen due the massive saturation of the signal that the natural cycling of carbon>CO2>carbon from sources to sinks gives.
750 Gt of carbon is naturally cycled and there is only 35-40 Gt of human emissions.
Of course you only see a correlation of the 750 as following global temp – because it does.
The extra 35-40 anthro carbon is outside of that cycle and as an excess from equilibrium will drive warming but would not show in your graphs.
I’m not buying it Anthony. If anthropogenic emissions were accumulating, then predicted [CO2] levels would not match actual. In other words, the curvatures wouldn’t match in the right panel of the blue graphic and the temperature slopes wouldn’t match in the left. That was the point of solving the coef’s for a single integral equation.
Robert:
Before you come back again saying “you don’t buy it”.
Consider the following.
There is a reason that UAH TLT is the coolest series of the world’s annual mean temp trend.
It does not *measure* surface temperature – it *measures* a broad layer of the atmosphere.
Which is plotted as an anomaly.
Try redoing the graph with surface temps (GISS, Hadcrut, Berkley, JMA etc).
You will then find that those curves do not match.
Also:
“changes in CO2 are driven by changes in temperature”
As I’ve said the vast majority is … it’s called the NCC (natural carbon cycle) but around 5% gets put into the atmosphere without and obviously isn’t.
Again your graphs will not show it .
Is CO2 a GHG?
Then GHG’s absorbs/emits terestrial LWIR.
Which has the effect of slowing it’s escape to space with a resulting rise in the temp at the surface.
CO2 does that whether it’s driven by surface temps OR by being put in the atmosphere by us.
They are not mutually exclusive!
The NCC is driven by surface temps and not those computed (by the radiance of gases in a broad thickness of atmosphere centred around 4km and extending as far as 13km
The cumulative total anthro carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution (roughly 1750–2024) exceed 1,800 to 2,000 GtCO₂.
Anthony, I’ve explored most of the CO2 and temperature datasets.
UAH is measured in the lower troposphere, that’s a fact. As such it isn’t biased by UHI. Also, it doesn’t undersample the vast SH oceans; accurate SST is important when analyzing CO2 concentrations.
Here’s the same data using GISS global and ocean. The land/UHI bias shows up as too much curvature in the predicted CO2 concentrations. The predicted temperature has too much variance and a low trend.
GISS Ocean is better, but not as accurate as UAH, likely due to undersampled ocean data.
Robert,
As soon as I read the latest get-of-jail-free statement aboveI new I had better call it quits
All the best anyway.
There is no global temp.
Jeff, Is the Northern Hemisphere warmer or colder in January?
How about the Southern? Please explain your answer without using a hemispherical average. Do you see my point?
You’re talking broad abstracts, not a line on a graph with an average temp.
Then why is it plotted (as an anomaly) on the front page of this very WUWT?
Taken above the Earth’s surface in UAH TLT’s case.
Man’s CO2 matters because it increased the available CO2 for plant growth.
This is absolutely beneficial to the planet.
CO2 growth is regulated by the ocean temperature.
Human emissions are responsible for less than 20% of the highly beneficial CO2 increase since 1959
I can agree to humans contributing to the total, annually.
I cannot agree that natural sinks are already in equilibrium.
There is nothing in any of earths energy systems, geology, chemistry, physics, flora, fauna, orbit, moon, sun, celestial bodies, even planetary tilt and rotation, that are in equilibrium.
Just take plants. Per NASA, the planet has “greened” over 5% in the past 2 decades. That is not equilibrium. In the past 20 years, 100 million hectares were lost to deforestation (net). Again, not equilibrium.
The amount sequestered by oceans, etc., is driven in part by temperature, and partial pressure. No equilibrium.
The greening varies widely, with some locations almost an order of magnitude greater than the areas with the least greening. I seem to remember an average of about 18%.
I don’t actually mind it when rabid climate worriers think that human CO2 causes most of the CO2 increase and most of the warming.
China, India, Asian, South Africa, etc are all building new COAL -FIRED power stations hand over foot.
All of these will be in operation of maybe 50+ years.
That means that human CO2 emissions and the atmospheric CO2 level will continue to climb…
And guess what…
There is absolutely nothing they can do about it 🙂
So they are destined to a lifetime of self-induced useless hysteria, and whinging self-pity 🙂
That statement is true. However, what you are missing is that there is not a single point of equilibrium. Instead, equilibrium is a continuum or range that is determined by the difference between the extant CO2 partial pressures of the sources and sinks. The balancing act between sources and sinks is a lagged response that is always playing ‘catch up.’ As humans pump more sequestered carbon into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the biosphere, particularly photosynthetic terrestrial and marine organisms, is fertilized and withdraws annually increasing amounts of carbon dioxide until such time as a new equilibrium is achieved. However, the equilibrium is a moving target. You don’t acknowledge that carbonate sequestration is continually removing CO2 from warm saturated waters, such as the limy muds in the Bahamas, and the planktonic rain of calcifier skeletons onto the abyssal plains. During the COVID 19 shutdowns, temperatures continued to increase, as did atmospheric CO2 concentrations, despite significant declines in anthropogenic CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
I don’t think that our measurements are adequate to accurately characterize what is happening long-term with the Carbon Cycle. Almost certainly, the range in the seasonal flux is increasing because of biological changes. I think that one should focus on Antarctic waters to minimize the impact of terrestrial vegetation on the ‘well-mixed’ CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. A significant problem is that the natural sinks can’t distinguish between ‘natural’ and anthropogenic sources and we know little about the isotopic fractionation that occurs with chemical reactions occurring with the constituents of the (bi)carbonate Bjerrum diagram, or outgassing of CO2 with up-welling bottom waters.
I do not agree, if it never warms above freezing in Kamchatka, what can technology do about that? Evacuate people and move them to a place that is not inundated with several meters of snow and ice. It is not known what has caused the warming, and it is highly likely that it is not natural, point being that there is so much ignorance of how Earth’s climate works on both sides of the fence, how could you postulate that humanity will master it one day, when everyone is clueless.
“it is highly likely that it is not natural, point being that there is so much ignorance of how Earth’s climate works on both sides of the fence”
With all that supposed ignorance on both sides of the fence, what makes you conclude it’s not natural? You know more than everyone else?
That is correct Joseph, I know more than everybody else.
Don’t you think you have a monopoly on some truth, it is a systemic issue with humans, but the reality, our understanding is wrong about most things, except for the buttons we have been taught to push.
That’s the thing.
Lack of energy is almost always the problem,
not the abudance of it.
While we can succeed in blocking the sun in terms of warming, countering a new ice age will be almost impossible, as we can not produce(nor direct) the needed energy, if we don’t do a significant jump on the Kardashev scale – and this scale is pure fantasy.
Any number of things.
Orbital mirrors that reflect more sunlight onto Kamchatka.
Spreading materials on top of the glaciers to speed melting.
Who knows, they might have the ability to change the Earth’s tilt and orbit to cancel out the Milankovich cycle.?
I think as long as we keep flying jets in the lower Stratosphere and exhausting 100 billion gallons of H20 there, there will be no runaway glaciation. But when it stops, temps will plummet within a year. It’s easy to be wrong in this game, but my conjecture has much supporting evidence.
The Earth’s daily rainfall is over a trillion metric tons, and you’re worried about an extra “100 billion gallons” (per year?) Get a life!
Rain occurs in the Troposphere, I said “flying jets in the lower Stratosphere”
The HT eruption’s estimated 45 billion gallons injected into the Stratosphere caused this..
There is no convection in the Stratosphere and no rain, and particulates remain for months to years.
Wouldn’t water in the Stratosphere be frozen?
No, because of sublimation (direct conversion from solid to gas). Remember it is only possible for water vapor to condense in the atmosphere if there is particulate matter to form condensation nuclei. Contrails behind jets form ice crystals within a few hundred feet behind. But this is only if there is enough water vapor in that region of the Lower Stratosphere to prevent rapid sublimation or there is substantial particulate matter in the regions such as volcanic aerosols.
Once H2O molecules have sublimated from the frozen exhaust stream, they remain in their molecular state regardless of the temperature and even though they are well below zero, they interfere with the IR heat flux leaving the Troposphere. And more than likely ride the heat flux to higher layers and eventually above the ozone layer, in which H2O molecules split by extreme UV, the atomic hydrogen atoms will leave the atmosphere. There are reports of it (H2O) being vented through the poles as well.
Also, the temperature profile in the Stratosphere is inverted, the temperature increases with altitude, there is much unknown about radiative transfer in the Stratosphere.
You are ignoring, as too many do, the null hypothesis. Which is that all climate change is natural.
Until you have EVIDENCE to the contrary (hint: “hypothetical bullshit” that you treat as “carved in stone fact” is not evidence; nor are “arguments from ignorance” as in “we can’t account for it” (based on our limited knowledge) without blaming it on human activities), then there is no real scientific support for the notion that any changes to the climate are anything but natural.
There is “evidence to the contrary”.
That you and most others on here disregard it does not make it go away.
Nor does it make the vast majority climate science experts who concluded it, go away.
I have been trying to kill it, but I cannot. The multi-decadal warming trend cannot be from particulates in the atmosphere (graph 1), nor solar (graph 2), but Anthropogenic water vapor in the Stratosphere is a real possibility (graph 4).
“a positive feedback loop”
I will be delighted the first time someone properly uses the term feedback, not this social/common context driven definition, but the control theory definition.
I will be delighted the first time someone properly uses the expression feedback loop, not this social/common context driven definition, but the control theory definition.
The incoming solar EM energy reflecting off ice or water or anything else is not a positive feedback loop by the concise definitions in control theory.
Define the loop in this context. A loop is a transfer function from input to output and with a transfer function from output fed back to input.
By using the lexicon of the trans-reality alarmists, we are granting them unearned credibility.
Nobody controls language, especially technical terms which enter the common parlance. Get over it.
We are supposedly in a Science discussion about Science.
Common parlance is not applicable in this context.
He who controls the language controls the ideas.
So, we can never communicate. Got it.
From the article:
“These glaciers reflect the sun’s rays back into space, making the Earth colder, which allows the glaciers to spread further, which chills the Earth even more – a positive feedback loop.”
Before we even get to “feedback loop” there is this most basic misunderstanding of physics:
reflecting the sun’s rays back into space DOES NOT make the Earth colder; instead, it results in less heating of Earth than would happen IF that sunlight had been absorbed instead of being reflected.
Hmmm . . . it appears that some, besides author of the above article Ross Pomeroy, believe that if one took a common cardboard box and wrapped it in shiny, aluminum foil it would become a refrigerator simply because the box would then be reflecting incoming light.
Oh, well.
That is true.
““a positive feedback loop””
To get a feedback, you need a signal in the first place.
There is no evidence supporting a CO2 signal in the UAH temperature data, so the term “positive feedback loop” is utterly unscientific and meaningless.
So the upward tilt in the UAH TLT data does not signify a warming trend?
This despite there being a temperature scale on the y-axix.
Cue the bonkers bnice magical theory that it’s the El Nino half of the ENSO cycle that is driving it.
This of course ignores the cold La Nina half – and if it were true it would violate the 1st LoT.
Others on here hold the same contempt for that “theory” – but can’t be arsed to argue, as it’s like whacking moles.
“How did he die, officer?”
“He fell out of a window.”
“Oh, you probably mean that the earth suddenly accelerated toward him, and the atoms in his body were in collision with the atoms that make up earth’s surface.”
The officer- “You must have trouble finding a girlfriend…”
The irony is that if the “global warming” models are correct, and GHGs are really the control over temperature, the only real dispute is over whether warming is a benefit or a detriment.
The hysteria is over a supposition that any warming from the Little Ice Age is tantamount to Armageddon.
Nobody on the alarmist side of the spectrum seems willing to step up and provide a rationale for an optimal temperature for Earth. As close as they come is a conservative position of suggesting that whatever the global average was before industrialization, that is the best temperature.
Which is of course utter nonsense.
A warmer climate is clearly better than the misery and suffering of The Little Ice Age.
Unless, of course, you view positively the crop failures, famines, diseases and mass starvation. Of course, the average alarmist, anti-human Eco-Nazi might just view those aspects of The Little Ice Age as being “beneficial.”
Maybe 🤔😏
When the glaciers advance again, the greens will be begging us to burn as much coal as possible.
And it wouldn’t help one bit.
My son and I had a debate on that point several years ago.
He made the comment that if removing CO2 made it colder we had the solution at hand.
The unstated assumption is that of all the possible influences, CO2 is the dominant influencer.
I say we give plant life the right to vote on it.
Solution to WHAT?
First there needs to be a problem.
If some Scientist, aided by modeling, is saying our alterations of the atmosphere could stave off the effects of the next negative turn in the Milankovitch Cycles (the next glaciation) then basically were screwed and the ice is already on the march.
I’m not convinced humanity will be around in 1000’s of years to test this. Why? Just look at global fertility rates, most of the world is well below replacement.
” Just look at global fertility rates, most of the world is well below replacement.“
Google says the birth rate in Islam is dropping. Having just been there, Egypt & Jordan have a lot of kids running around with pregnant mothers.
Sounds like a potential Google Con-spiracy
https://www.hoover.org/research/fertility-decline-muslim-world
And it’s even more dramatic a fall in nations with more modern cultural norms.
Just look at the Dooms Day Clock.
And then there was the recent adjustment of the ‘Doomsday Clock.’
“Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.”
It would be a nice “save” if this were physically possible, but the influence of incremental CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels is not up to the job of “altering the climate.” This is because the computed increase in the atmosphere’s static IR absorbing power is massively overwhelmed by dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation. The modelers know this.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link
Thank you for listening.
I notice the paper doesn’t give a link to the proof of the statement in your first paragraph.
I wonder why not?
That is because there is no proof that humans or CO2 are changing the Earth’s climate or weather. They don’t have a link for that.
More albedo and Earth cools.
Less albedo and Earth warms.
No albedo and Earth bakes in a 250 F solar wind much like the Moon.
That’s not what RGHE says.
About 35M years ago there was no Polar Ice Caps or Glaciers. Albedo was as low as it gets and Life Flourished.
I immediately stopped reading the above article when I ran across these two consecutive sentences:
“Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.”
Oh, please! There is zero—repeat ZERO!—objective, scientific evidence that mankind’s additions to atmospheric CO2 when combined with natural variations in atmospheric CO2 have any effect on the timing of glacial/interglacial cycles.
Paleoclimatology has produced evidence that over the last million or so years, Earth has experienced repeated glacial/interglacial cycles with a periodicity of roughly 100,000 years per cycle, and with each cycle having roughly the same narrow ranges of minimum and maximum temperatures (see attached graph).
During those million years, up to about 200 years ago, atmospheric CO2 cycled at about the same periodicity between a low of about 180 ppm and a high of about 280 ppm (ref: introductory graph at https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ ), but with the paleoclimatology evidence indicating that the changes in temperature drive the changes in atmospheric CO2 with a slight delay, not the other way around.
The current best scientific explanation for the ~100,000 periodicity of glacial/interglacial cycles on Earth is found in Milankovitch cycles and possible resonances between the various components of such (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ).
Also, I guess the author has not even considered that the last 200 or so years of atmospheric CO2 being above 280 ppm (from whatever cause) is too small a sample to enable trending/projections for cycles having a period of ~100,000 years . . . mathematics 201.
Bottom line: IMHO the above article is unscientific and is fronting a hidden agenda . . . but kudos to WUWT for still permitting the author’s viewpoint to be published for all readers to critically examine.
I didn’t stop reading, but I agree that there are mistakes in the text (in the writer’s mind ?) making the post garbage-like. Any time spent on this is a waste of time.
Next.
I am sorry but this paper is based on an illusion. That by putting ever more CO2 we can stave off the next glaciation. Even at 5000 ppm, a concentration like in the Precambrian, the increase in temperature is less than 3K from what it would have been otherwise. That is comparable to the natural variation over the past 5000 years and therefore not even close to being able to postpone the next big freeze.
Agree. I’m disappointed that so many bloggers here on WUWT are so “less than wise” to be unable to quantify that and to not understand what historic geology is telling us about forever ongoing future climate change.
And as usual ignores the fact that the Earth has experienced a glaciation with TEN TIMES today’s atmospheric CO2.
Where was atmospheric CO2’s “climate driving power” then?! It was the same planet orbiting the same star and the basic physics have not changed.
“Current estimates suggest that we have at least 10,000 more years of relative warmth, and perhaps as many as 200,000. Why the wide range? Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.”
Aha, slipping through the back door that humanity is influencing the world’s climate. Get lost whoever writes this utter bullcrap…or move to Antarctica where you can freeze your nuts off…
These estimates are complete garbage. The average interglacial warm period is about 12,000 years so we are already on borrowed time as we cool into the next glaciation event estimated to be between 1,500 and 3,500 years from now, based on paleoclimate data. Our orbital distance from the sun controls these glacial cycles, they will happen whether we apply geoengineering solutions to enhance warming or not. If solar radiation ultimately controls our global temperatures, the coming solar minima in 2028-2042 should provide evidence for this by moderate cooling during this period, it will also either confirm or reject the AGW hypothesis if cooling occurs whilst CO2 levels continue to rise from any source. I look forward to this resolution!
“Because we are ourselves drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels. The more we burn, the longer we delay the next glacial period.”
Happer and Wijngaarden have shown that we are not “drastically altering the climate by burning fossil fuels.” They are both atmospheric physicists who specialize in radiation transfer in gasses and have concluded that heating from CO2 is nearly saturated and the most that can result from doubling of current CO2 levels is about 0.6C, absent any countervailing effect that nature often creates such as more clouds. You must disagree with their findings. Please explain why.
Yes, Happer, Wijngaarden, and Lindzen have told us what is happening with CO2. The next step is to expose the IPCC for being the alarmist fear mongering propaganda mill it has always been so that the general population will stop encouraging their elected officials to “do something” about the non-existent climate crisis.
That 0.6C is based on radiative effects within the atmosphere
.. David Dibbell has conclusively shown that radiative effects within the atmosphere are totally swamped by energy moved by bulk air transfer.
So much so as to make them totally insignificant and irrelevant.
CO2 level has zero measurable effect on the atmosphere.
Thanks for mentioning this. I honestly don’t know how the unsound claims have survived so long in the atmospheric science community. The modelers know the dynamic reasons why the influence of rising CO2 simply cannot – ever, in my opinion – be isolated or measured for determination of cause-and-effect of a “warming” trend. I’ve placed a full explanation here, with references, about the concept of energy conversion within the general circulation.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
It is the ultimate hubris that humans can control the weather, erm, the climate.
If CO2 is the control knob for the climate then why do climate models have 10s of control knobs to tweak the hind cast?
And they hindcast to totally fictitious temperature series like GISS..
Which is even funnier than the total basis of CO2 causing warming.
And the key words are “absent any countervailing effect,” which indicates that such “effect” still assumes “all other things held equal, ” when in fact the cumulative “feedbacks” are most certainly negative and the actual, as opposed to hypothetical, effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 is indistinguishable from ZERO.
Seen this before…
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11194016_CLIMATE_An_Exceptionally_Long_Interglacial_Ahead
Today’s comparatively warm climate has been the exception more than the rule during the last 500,000 years or more. If recent warm periods (or interglacials) are a guide, then we may soon slip into another glacial period. But [Berger and Loutre][1] argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years. The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5585/1287
It’s unclear what your mean by “soon”.
If we mathematically examine the last eight full glacial/interglacial cycles on Earth, each having a period of roughly 100,000 years, we find that about the first 65% of the cycle is on the cold side and the remaining 35% is on the warm side, with the separation between “cold” and “warm” being the simple mathematical average of the minimum and maximum temperatures for that particular cycle.
So, if we logically expect that our current cycle is like the previous eight full cycles, then we should have about 35,000-12,000 = 23,000 or so years remaining before crossing over into the next long term interval of “cold”.
Please note that this calculation is only considering long-term (i.e., multi-millenia) trending. Paleoclimatology and even recent human history (e.g., Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age) clearly reveal that in either the cold or warm intervals of any given glacial/interglacial cycle there will be relatively brief excursions, up and down, from the average long-term trends.
Apologies, this was a quote. Berger and Loutre calculated next ice age in 50,000 years based on astronomical cycles.
Recessional moraines in the Sierra Nevada indicate that even though the long-term behavior of Pleistocene alpine glaciers was retreat of their front or ablation zone, the frontal retreat was punctuated by periods of stability before the retreat resumed.
“the ice retreated“
Common wrong usage. Ice melts.
“ A retreat is a period of withdrawal from normal life, often for reflection, meditation, or personal growth. It can also refer to a military withdrawal from a position or a place of safety and privacy.” {So says the internet and it is never wrong.
FYI:
— The Quechua and other Andean peoples have long considered the snow-capped mountains and their glaciers as Apus, or powerful mountain gods.
— Traditional Inuit spirituality includes Nootaikok, a spirit or god presiding over glaciers and icebergs.
— In the Himalayas of Nepal, Bhutan, and China, mountain glaciers are regarded as the homes of protector deities.
— Tlingit and other First Nations people have historically viewed glaciers as sentient, snake-like beings with specific behaviors and requirements, often demanding respect to avoid destruction.
— In East Africa, some tribes at the base of Mount Kilimanjaro have traditionally viewed its ice cap as a “house of God”.
My take: it is likely that even gods, given the parallel presence of Man, need retreat periods for “reflection, meditation, or personal growth”.
Of course, this information comes from Internet, so I could be misinformed.
It is a social/common language context derived definition.
A short cut for the ice boundaries/perimeter retreated.
What is being discussed is the behavior of glaciers, not people. It is a retreat of the ablation zone, even though the body of the ice itself may continue its down-slope movement until such time as it becomes stagnant with no direct connection to the up-slope ice.
It is sheer foolishness and hubris to think that we could halt, or even slow down the arrival of the next glaciation. In any case, it’s silly to worry about something that might not happen for 10k years. What we should be concerned about would be another cooling period like the LIA, which happened rather suddenly, and was marked by huge storm surges in Europe. We don’t know when the next cool period will be, although some have predicted it to be in the coming decades. But what we can and should be doing about it is to have robust, stable, and affordable energy systems in place, along with thriving economies. Because that is how humanity can not only endure, but continue to thrive during a period of cooling such as the LIA. This is the exact opposite thing that the wacko Alarmists are striving for, of course.
It is the ultimate hubris that humans can control the weather, erm, the climate.
Article almost reads like AI wrote it.
Anyway I do believe we can stave off another glacial period for a while but how long is the real question. There’s things we can do today that would possibly slow down formation of those big glaciers in the early stages but once they get up and rolling kiss northern climes goodbye.
I also believe in today’s political climate we would end up sitting on our hands and doing nothing because cooling our overheated planet is a good thing /s
Anybody care to address the financial costs (you know, $USD) associated with practical “geoengineering”, assuming of course we ever have any technology to really do such in a controlled manner targeted to a specific outcome and not effing up the planet via unintended consequences. . . a HUGE assumption.
And we would have some federal judge that we have never heard of before say that the president, the military, or possibly even Congress, does not have the legal authority to intervene.
Given the technological changes over the last 100 years, only a fool would try to project what technologies would be available 10,000 years from now.
Estimates on the end of the current interglacial based on CO2 emissions are pure fantasy…
… based on an unproven conjecture…
There is still no scientifically measured evidence that CO2 affects the temperature in any way whatsoever.
“Current estimates suggest that we have at least 10,000 more years of relative warmth, and perhaps as many as 200,000. “
To counter the ‘Think about the grandchildren’ of the alarmists, can we use ‘Think about the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandchildren because ‘The researchers say we could delay glaciation by up to 200,000 years’?
Changing Sunlight, Weather & Climate (Richard Willoughby / WUWT / January 26th, 2026)
“The current interglacial has persisted for 9,000 years since sea level was within 20m of the present level. The peak solar intensity in the NH has been increasing since 1700. Careful examination of the historical evidence shows that temperature increases and sea level rises within 1000 years of the eventual rapid decline in sea level. All the current climate trends are consistent with approaching re-glaciation of the NH within the current millennium. Accumulation of ice at altitude in high latitudes is an early indicator for the eventual ice accumulation down slope and at lower latitudes. Greenland’s largest and most productive glacier, Jacobshavn, has advanced and thickened over the past decade.”
Over on that thread, I asked this question — when the next period of glaciation returns, how soon will we have direct evidence that it is happening, evidence which cannot be denied or explained away? I would also ask further, what would that evidence consist of?
This was what Svante Arrhenius originally thought and hoped, that man’s CO2 emissions could stave off the next ice age (or glacial period). He knew that warmer was better for all life, including man. But later, he realized that such was not the case, that CO2 did not have that power, unfortunately. He was correct however, that man’s CO2 would be a boon to all life by greening the planet.
“But later, he realized that such was not the case, that CO2 did not have that power …”
As he was obviously unaware of the explosion in energy use that followed him.
And so he did not say it explicitly but it is clear that what he discovered would indeed “have the power”.
https://ponce.sdsu.edu/global_warming_science.html
“We note that while Arrhenius did not explicitly suggest that the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming, it is clear from his paper that he was aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide. Arrhenius could not have predicted the enormeous increase in fossil fuel consumption that followed the invention and widespread use of automobiles, trains, ships, airplanes, and other means of self-propelled transportation. Also, he could not have predicted the substantial improvements in sanitation and public health that led to the population explosion of the 20th century. Yet, within his limited perspective, he still concluded that large variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide were indeed probable. Still, he could not have predicted that humans would soon thereafter engage in an experiment [with our Earth, the quintessential prototype] of wide-ranging proportions and global impact: the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels to support the sustained economic activity that characterized the 20th century.”
I have problems with this post. While it is a nice change from the we are all going to fry crowd I still question it. He doesn’t come right out and say CO2 is going to save us he implies it. My understanding is that CO2 has warmed the planet nearly as much as it can. What little effect it has left isn’t going to save us from the natural forces that will determine when and if we enter a new glaciation.