Skip to comments.The Ice Age Cometh?
Posted on 09/27/2003 7:50:35 AM PDT by Forgiven_Sinner
Do abrupt climate shifts occur as part of a natural cycle? Despite growing evidence that humans affect climate via urbanization and greenhouse gas emissions, the natural climate cycle may have the final say.
Research from Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf at Germany`s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research suggests that the earth`s climate is characterized by an extraordinarily regular cycle of about 1470 years.
He found that the five most recent cycles had a standard deviation of only 32 years.
Rahmstorf examined ice cores from Greenland. Going back before the 20th century, when weather stations were nonexistent or widely dispersed, ice cores and tree rings provide the most objective and reliable climate record.
Rahmstorf also found that the most recent cold period of the cycle was most likely the "Little Ice Age" of the 16th to 18th Centuries.
These findings suggest that the warming of the past century or so is probably nothing more than the next phase of this repeating pattern of cyclical warming and cooling.
Recent observations and forecast models suggest that the current warming may be the engine to spur rapid global cooling.
Ocean scientists have found that some of the largest rivers in the world are dumping 7% less fresh water into the Arctic Ocean than they did in the 1930s.
According to scientists at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, decreased fresh water flow has the potential to shut down a global water flow pattern called the thermohaline circulation.
In its current state, the thermohaline circulation brings cold, deep, salty water south from the poles, while warm surface water moves from the tropics toward the poles. If the circulation were to shut off, abrupt cooling would likely spread through much of the northern Hemisphere, including Europe and the U.S.
This scenario has caused temperatures to plummet an average of 5 to 10 degrees in 20 years in the past. 11,000 years ago, such global cooling occurred and glaciers were seen in much of the northern U.S.
Photo Credit: NOAA Photo Library. The Ross Ice Shelf looms over the Bay of Whales. It was here that Roald Amundsen staged the first successful assault on the South Pole.
What do you think of this story?
Follow the link and add WeatherBug software for free to comment on the story at the Weatherbug site.
When we need the fuel to keep us warm it will be too late.
The fable of the ants and the grasshopper is as relevent today than ever.
50 years from now, half of the people in Canada will begin migrating south.
Those of you young enough might remember my prediction.
We are all going to die at any second!
From what I can gather, we are in a short-term warming trend in a cycle that has the earth on the edge of a new Ice Age, which as this author says, could unfold in a 20-year time-frame.
Twenty years! And it could 'start' tomorrow.
Oh wait, none of their dire predictions regarding global warming for the past 15 years have come true? So its back to crying ice age.
It is so hard to keep up which what doom and gloom prediction is in fad.
In another dozen years the 'environmental experts' will be whining about something new --maybe global rounding or some such thing. And if you dare to mention Kyoto they'll stare blankly as they do now when you remind them how they used to accuse Ronald Reagan of plunging us into an ice age.
Finally, an explanation why they already live close to the border.
Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice
" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of All Greenhouse Gases
Water vapor 95.000%
0.001% Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618%
0.117% Methane (CH4) 0.360%
0.066% Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950%
0.047% Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072%
0.047% Total 100.00%
The reality is a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration over current levels, that the IPCC "story line" pretends, even if were true, could not induce significant temperature change whatever its source.
"It is hardly to be expected that for CO2 doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.
The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2  over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.
If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO2 (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book The Global Climate ), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m2, we get a similar value of 0.015 degC."
A Lukewarm Greenhouse
"The average warming predicted by the six methods for a doubling of CO2, is only +0.2 degC."
I love how these throw-away lines are slipped into these articles...as if this "evidence" is unquestionable.
But scientists have found evidence of tropical climates at the poles. When do we get that part of the cycle?
The antarctic has not always been where it is located today, at one time that landmass was much closer to the equator, it moves due to continental drift to the southern pole, hence no tropical climate for that land mass anymore.
If you want to guess on a world wide heat up with no or little polar ice, figure on at least a few million years to get through the current series of ice ages.
We have got anywhere from 10 to 50 million years before another real heatup to global tropical temps if ever.
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese
Perhaps during the ice age in the Temperate Zone.
The television station I work for is one of its sponsors in this area and boy do we ever get complaints.
Think twice before downloading and installing it!
It's way too high a price to pay for no more usefulness than you get from it.
Weatherbug is loaded with spy-ware and ad-ware. It causes pop-ups and like "E.T." it "phones home" about your internet activities.
When you remove the spyware with something like "Adaware" or "Spybot Search & Destroy" the Weatherbug software stops working.
You wouldn't believe the number of complaints on it.
What do you think of this story?
Never mind Mexico. Put a fence up on the Canadian border!
The chart you posted shows the frequency dropping. What explanation is given for that?
The frequency is not dropping the interval we are outside of the mean solarsystem plane varies.
The mean plane of solarsystem is offset from the orbit of the earth. We pass through that plane at irregular intervals with a fixed overall periodicity of 100krs
Read the hyperlinked article: Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle for a graphical representation of what is happening.
The eath's orbit precesses at a 100kry period, in the same way as the earth precesses in its tilt with respect to the sun on a 27kry period. Ear'ts orbit is only outside the mean plane of the solarsystem a small fraction of total time at unequal intervals. When we are in the mean solarsystem debri plane throughout most of the solar year, we experience the deepest portion of ice ages lasting approx 90 kyrs in duration with 10krys in warmer periods.
There are additional periods related to where we are with respect to the Galactic plane and cosmic ray flux.
South... from the poleS??? Morons shouldn't write on science issues.
I was just warning potential downloaders of what they would be getting into.
It steals machine cycles while it is "idling" in the system tray. On my son's dual processor (hot rod) gaming machine, it's unnoticeable unless you are in a cycl-intensive game, but in lesser machines it's a real drag-down.
All the pop-up stoppers in the world can't stop it from it's spyware mission of sending out reports of your internet activities and it doesn't need cookies to carry out its dirty work.
It performs its evil in the registry and when you pull its little "spy gremlins" out of there, the "Weatherbug" becomes disabled.
I'd settle for one on the Mason-Dixon line.
We are talking about the intersection of two planes with independant precession of a 100kyr period. The earth in not within the mean solarplane all the time as it's orbit is offset from the solarplane precessing in and out of that plane.
As far as periodicity, the 100kyr period is extremely sharp and clean.
Read the paper don't just look at the temp graphs. The temp graphs don't explain how, just that temp varies periodically and spend more time in ice age than warmer periods under current geologic/astronomic conditions.
The sunrise cometh?
Every once in a while, I can't help wondering what is the point of stating the obvious.
If something has been happening cyclically for hundreds of millions of years, why does a repeat warrant any kind of a discussion?
Well then we'd all better start burning more fossil fuels to slow down the next ice age.
Makes more sense than selling off your parka :)
get some gas for my riding lawn mower then go home and cut the heads off of some grass
Grass grows better if you increase the CO2 concetration with your riding mower, kinda self defeating isn't it. ;O) I prefer to grow rocks instead.
And no y'all can't come stay with me in San Antonio. I've have a wife, two daughters and their husbands and maybe their kids in my two bedroom apartment, along with assorted dogs, rats and other critters. :)
Thus periods of 88k,83k,93k, and 130k to present.
One thing for you to think about, the other planets have a great deal of gravitational influence over the orbital plane of the earth. Time we spend within the mean solarplane gathering cometary debris varies even though the periodicity of the orbital precession/wobble is quite stable. The actual track of the earth through space in relation to the mean solarplane and debris in it is not a smooth nor symetrical function of time.
Read the paper: Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle
How certain of that are we? Not very, and some stars not unlike the sun do evidence fairly rapid changes.
The only thing that cannot be adjusted over this time frame is the attitude of certain "environmentalists" who lack even rudimentary knowledge of how the planetary system operates.
The evidence indicates that the temperature of the earth *has* undergone rapid changes in the past, and there is no evidence to indicate that it cannot do so again in the future. Whether that means starting next year, or next century, it's hard to say, although there is some evidence to indicate that it's already started, that is to say their are changes observed that could lead to the start of the next ice age, even though right now temperatures are rising very very slightly.
I tried WB several yrs ago and it installed a spy program called Gator. That program devoured my machine. I wrote them a nasty e-mail about it.
Some months later I started getting e-mails from 'Stephanie' advising me that Gator was no longer packaged with WB and to try it again.
I was thinking about trying it of late but you just convinced me otherwise.
I was unable to access the figures and charts with that link.
What am I doing wrong?
I have copied some of the main graphs to my own website to assure display here. Here's the crux of the paper:
Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning
Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.
Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.
I love using that one on 'em too except I preface it with "Do you really want something to worry about that you, as a tiny human, have NO control over?". Even my 11 and 13 year old KNOW this. They also understand why it works.