When paleoclimatologists met in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm climate would end, termination seemed imminent and it was expected that rapid cooling would lead to the coming ice age.
These ideas were based on the 1M year analogue for climate transitions first proposed by M Milankovitch over 60 years ago which has been demonstrated to show the correlation of glacial and interglacial climate with solar insolation as it is modulated by our changing distance from the sun.
These data may be used to serve as a signal for the coming ice age.
Orbital geometry was approaching similar conditions to those of the previous transitions to ice.
But soon it was observed that global temperature was increasing and at about this time Global Climate Modeling (GCM) received more attention and the Milankovitch analogue was forgotten. There has been little further discussion about the coming ice age.
Perhaps underwriting the idea that our consumption of carbon and production of CO2 was contributing to climate warming was the work of Loutre and Berger and a paper by Loutre in 2000 claimed that the Holocene (the current warm period) would extend for at least another 30,000 (KY) years because of the effect of CO2 concentration as a greenhouse gas.
It was acknowledged in this paper that the orbital geometry 400KY which featured muted amplitude, was the “best and closest analogue to our near future climate”, but inexplicably the Global Climate Model LLN2-D NH was “tuned” to replicate the past 200KY climate transitions when insolation amplitude was at it’s highest level over the 400KY cycle and quite unlike present conditions. Using different values for CO2 it was found that “best agreement with SPECMAP is obtained near 210 ppmv CO2 ”.
Then using a modeled Holocene they projected climate using a range of CO2 forcing, and they reported that there was no transition to ice for at least 30KY into the future.
The algorithm for this process is not disclosed but the authors rightly list the limitations of the model in which CO2 is considered as an external forcing i.e. the carbon cycle is not simulated by the model. Clouds and the hydrological cycle are simplified and so is the heat transport to middle and deep ocean. In addition regional changes such as the North Atlantic and over Europe are not simulated “and might depart from the global trend”.
It is unfortunate that these limitations appear to have been ignored and the AGW hypothesis was born and has occupied science and the media ever since.
The Milankovich analogue has been forgotten.
But the reality is that CO2 is not driving temperature up , in fact the data below suggests that global temperature may be cooling since 1998 and CO2 continues to climb.
Remote Sensing Systems Advanced Microwave Sounding Units. Satellite Temperature data analysis here: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/feb-2008-rss-global-temperature-anomaly-near-zero-and-in-good-agreement-with-uah/
There is further detailed material in a paper by Dr Willie Soon which shows that there is no evidence to support global warming by CO2.
The concentration of CO2 varies according to the temperature of the ocean and CO2 follows temperature. If the present decline in temperature continues we can expect to see a decline in the rate of CO2 as more is dissolved in a cooler sea.
The climate trends during the Holocene, and also the regular sudden climate transitions between the ice ages and the interglacial climate over the past 1M years are better explained by reference to the great external driver, the Sun.
There is abundant archeological evidence to show that global temperature is closely correlated with solar activity.
The following chart shows how solar activity has correlated with climate during the Holocene. The data is based on analysis of Carbon 14 which varies in concentration according to the level of solar activity.
Solar activity over the past 70 years has been greatest for 8000 years and is the most likely cause of the recent temperature trend through 1998 that has been wrongly attributed to CO2 warming.
The evidence for the solar insolation signal for the ice ages is contained in the Milankovitch analogue which has been overlooked for many years.
The following data was compiled by the mathematicians Quinn and Levine (Quinn et al 1991, A 3 Million year Integration of Earths Orbit, The Astronomical Journal Vol 101 pp 2287-2305). Insolation values due to Precession, Obliquity and Eccentricity as well as total insolation or Solar Forcing are charted on the same time scale as Stages of Glaciation representing climate. This climate data was provided by Lisieckie and Raymo and is based on sediment proxies. The climate data shows close agreement with Ice core data based on a different proxy.
This chart confirms the correlation of climate transitions with insolation which is modulated by earth’s position in orbit and was first proposed by Milutin Milankovitch over 60 years ago.
Milankovich Analogue Data, from Quinn et al. 1991
The signal for each transition to ice can be found by careful inspection of the data and projections.
In studying the analogue there is no use of a GCM (general circulation model) which is subject to limitations and interpretation. Use of the analogue is based on simple observation of clear empirical data and the archeological record of temperature. The data and the correlation are sound.
The interglacial stages are shaded grey by the authors, and the glacial stages are clear.
By reference to this chart we can make the following observations:
* Every interglacial (shaded grey) survives for a single half cycle maximum in Solar Forcing or total insolation, (yellow) and expires when insolation is in rapid decline and we are near that position now. The interglacials at 200 and 600KY are split because Precession (red) and Obliquity (green) combine in opposite phase to defeat Eccentricity and the interglacial temporarily returns to ice. Conversely total insolation at 400KY is forced into a second half cycle and the interglacial is extended to 28,000 years. Because muted Eccentricity at 400KY is considered a precedent for present conditions, the 28KY interglacial has been widely misreported as evidence for an extended Holocene. From the data we can see we have no such additional insolation half cycle. Insolation now is in rapid decline from a single peak.
* Each of the “Ice Ages” over the past 1M years corresponds with the minimum half cycle of Eccentricity (blue) which is the predominant orbital factor. We are close to the eccentricity half cycle minimum now.
* Counter intuitively every transition occurs from peak global T ;We may have a decline in T since a peak in 1998 .
* It follows that every transition occurs when polar ice melt has peaked. We have ice rebuilding in some regions now.
* Last transition to ice occurred about 120KY ago when T was 5 degC hotter than now and polar ice melt was greater than now. The average cycle is 100KY and the coming transition is overdue.
* By inspection we can see that all of the transitions have occurred when Solar Forcing ie total Insolation was very close to the present level.
* In addititon to the above which relates to the Milankovitch cycles we have a coincident decline in solar activity.
Solar activity is dormant now and cycle 24 is delayed.
The variations in Insolation seen in the data are not sufficient alone to explain the sudden climate transitions from interglacial to ice and reverse. The data provides a template for timing the changes based on the extended correlation but there must be an internal mechanism to explain the rapid process.
At the tipping point for each transition, global T has peaked. This follows from the fact that Earth has been receiving peak insolation throughout the interglacial for about 10,000 years. Polar ice melt has peaked and the polar seas are freshened which may affect circulation of the MOC and interrupt heat exchange with the equator leading to sudden NH cooling.
In addition it has been proposed by William Kininmonth, meteorologist and former head of Australia’s National Climate centre, that atmospheric heat and humidity transport to the NH would offer a larger contribution to variations in heat budget if it could be shown to respond to the 100KY cycle.
I think that this factor which is driven by equatorial SST will indeed have a 100KY signature because the transitions correspond to T max. which follows the 100KY cycle. SST will also peak near T max in accordance with the 100KY cycle.
This proposal offers the further advantage that it would provide a faster response which helps to explain the rapid climate change observed in the transitions.
It is significant to note that at this tipping point, energy transport to the northern hemisphere is at a peak and there is abundant humidity transported to the NH at a critical time when insolation is in rapid decline.
These are the conditions which favour maximum precipitation in the northern hemisphere winter.
These are the conditions now.
I think that the rapid decline to ice conditions will occur by the following process:
As temprature declines the precipitation will increasingly be snow and as albedo increases more heat will be reflected. Initially cloud cover will insulate the snow from summer insolation. Insolation continues to decline.
As temperature further declines water vapour in the northern hemisphere will be reduced and at T zero deg C it will practically disappear leading to a sudden elimination of water vapour GHG .
Then positive feedback due to this process will lead to a rapidly widening region of sub zero T and glaciation will begin to expand.
There will be a decrease in cloud cover allowing more heat to escape in winter.
In this way the sudden transition to ice has commenced.
The geological record shows that the transitions are sudden, long term and extreme.
All of the Milankovitch parameters for a transition are satisfied by the present orbital position. We have already seen extreme northern hemisphere winter conditions and temperature appears to be declining in the short term. The decline will continue under rapidly declining insolation and the coincident effect of reduced solar activity which has also been correlated with temperature in the past.
It is possible that we may have already entered the sudden stage of the transition.
I would challenge: is there a good reason why the analogue will not apply now?
It is overdue time for engineers and scientists to reconsider the Milankovitch analogue and to plan for the contingency of an imminent transition to ice.
I think that the AGW hypothesis has proven to be a costly diversion of resources .
Peter Harris
Retired Engineer
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, so how would you falsify this argument?
It all looks very fancy, but it is no more than speculation. You need to assume
1) that solar variability is about to decline
2) that this decline will trigger an ice age
3) that the Milankovitch cycle is “due” for ice age aconditions
As far as I am aware you can’t assume any of these.
Also this post has some unjustifiable comments:
“But soon it was observed that global temperature was increasing and at about this time Global Climate Modeling (GCM) received more attention and the Milankovitch analogue was forgotten.”
This is rubbish. The Milankovitch cycles haven’t been forgotten. They are used in paleo-reconstructions. The Milankovitch Cycle variations are too small to see over a 120 year period. Also note that the Milankovitch Cycles are not ‘predictable’.
“Solar activity over the past 70 years has been greatest for 8000 years and is the most likely cause of the recent temperature trend through 1998 that has been wrongly attributed to CO2 warming.”
This is something he just made up. He has no reference, nor any evidence. He has actually ignored the recent studies that demonstrate that the increase in sloar activity is unable to account for the increase in temp.
“Every interglacial (shaded grey) survives for a single half cycle maximum in Solar Forcing or total insolation, (yellow) and expires when insolation is in rapid decline and we are near that position now.”
No they don’t, ‘eyeballing’ this graph is not enough. When I look at it, the start of each interglacial can’t be correlated with any paticular phase in the yellow line. Sometimes it starts near the max, sometimes on an upswing, sometimes on a downswing. The length of the cycle doesn’t vary with the length or size of the cycle in the yellow line. Also, the yellow line doesn’t show any predictability, you can’t say that the line will continue down. The past gives no clue to the future trend.
“* Counter intuitively every transition occurs from peak global T ;We may have a decline in T since a peak in 1998 .
* It follows that every transition occurs when polar ice melt has peaked. We have ice rebuilding in some regions now.
”
Neither of these are conter intuitive. They are obvious. What he fails to consider is that all these pocesses occured with CO2 between 180 and 280 ppm. We now have 380ppm, a substantial deviation.
“* Last transition to ice occurred about 120KY ago when T was 5 degC hotter than now and polar ice melt was greater than now.”
Where’s his refernce for 5 degrees? Sounds too high to me.
The rest is similar speculation.
Question: How cold does it have to get to be an ‘ice age’?
Why doesn’t any evidence back up his claims?
Of course, it is speculation – no one knows for sure when the next great ice age will come, but it is a case of looking for potential signs.
jennifer this becoming a bit of a concern
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
especially since its only autumm
Mr T.,
I agree it is all speculation, a bit like the IPCC climate models?
Mr T
You might gain some credibility if your posts were based on honesty.
The geological record documents past bioloical species extinctions.
These seem to be related to ice ages.
So what might be the cause of these previous events, and why do climate alarmists propose future extinctions based on their theory of non in the past?
Is this another meaning for hypocrisy?
“I agree it is all speculation, a bit like the IPCC climate models? ”
No, nothing like that at all. You’re contempt for fellow scientists is amazing. I met my friend who is a climate modeler for the CSIRO tonight. He is highly intelligent, and very hard working and more than upfront about what the models can tell us and their limitations. With the sun, we have no idea at all what will come. The models give us some idea of what to expect.
Yes. Climate models give us a “seed crystal” to precipitate upon. With models we can have a true consensus, with all of our brains oscillating in marvelous synchrony. No reason to doubt. All is well. All is well.
“a decline in summer and mean annual insolation at middle and high northern latitudes during the last 11,000 years (e.g., by 48, 40 & 36 W/m2 at 65°, 45°, & 20°N, respectively, during summer, and by 9, 8 & 7% in the annual mean (Berger, 1978)) to levels last reached during the Last Glacial Maximum provides a direct radiative mechanism for cooling North Atlantic surface waters (Renssen et al., 2005).” “perhaps cooling of the northwest Atlantic slope waters is a harbinger of climate deterioration preceding the next glacial period,”
Sachs, J.P. 2007. Cooling of Northwest Atlantic slope waters during the Holocene. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2006GL028495.
Abstract
Climate of the last 11,000 years, the Holocene, is usually described as warm and stable. Benchmark temperature records from central Greenland ice cores show none of the large, abrupt variations that characterized the prior 100,000 years of glacial climate. Nor do they show any substantial trend, indicating at most 1°-3°C of cooling. Here we show that the slope waters east of the United States and Canada cooled 4°-10°C during the Holocene. Declining insolation, increasing convection in the Labrador Sea, and equatorward shifting of the Gulf Stream path may have caused the cooling.
Haven’t we been over this before?
Sigh.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002336.html
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002368.html
SJT,
No offense intended to the IPCC or Peter Harris with reference to ‘speculation’. It is a good starting point for a scientist/group of scientists.
Then one should formulate an hypothesis. The IPCC has done this.
Then one should try and falsify it. The IPCC won’t go here.
Jennifer
the IPCC does not make hypothesis or falsify them, the IPCC takes the research, collates and summarises it. The hypothesis and falsification are done at the level of the research it is built on.
Paul oh my !
Not quite the same. Since that post we have a clearer picture that AGW is a fallacy, and I have dealt with the paper by Loutre and Berger which may have been at the root of it all.
I have raised the subject again because I see abundant evidence that we are close to the orbital conditions that have applied with every transition for the past 1M years.
This time I proposed (for discussion) an internal mechanism for the sudden change.
Since then we have lost another 12 months.
Seems as if it is very hard to contemplate the possibility a sudden climate change beyond human experience. Easier to just carry on and argue about AGW.
I would like to see a coordinated effort made to at least find an early warning of the transition.
And it would make sense to fund projects like the seeding of ocean desert regions for algae, and other means for food production.
There are food riots already.
Mr T
When you say I should prove solar variability is declining I am not sure if you mean solar activity or insolation.
At the present time both are declining and so is T. That cannot be due to a decline in CO2?
I showed how solar activity has affected climate.
When I say that the Milankovich analogue for climate transitions is forgotten I mean that no one is using the Milankovich correlation to predict climate transitions. Instead they have GCMs which they feed with CO2.
The regular saw tooth pattern of the stages of glaciation have long been associated with insolation as it varies with orbital position over a 100KY cycle and this can be seen by inspection of the data.Every transition to ice occurs during a minimum half cycle of eccentricity when solar forcing is in rapid decline like conditions now.The average cycle is 100KY and the transition is overdue.
In that sense the cycles are predictable.
The yellow line is predictable, it is calculated from a summation of insolation due to Precession Obliquity and Eccentricity.
I say it is counter intuitive to expect a sudden transition to ice when global T is at a peak.
For sensible discussion I have suggested how this may in fact contribute to the sudden change from a relatively stable interglacial to a relatively stable glacial climate.
It was 4 – 5 deg hotter and MSL was higher at the end of the LIG.
How cold for an ice age?
Just cold enough to allow glaciers to grow most of the way down to the equator.
Just cold enough to cover London with 1KM of ice.
Peter
Apologies Paul the post I addressed to you was meant for Luke.
Peter
Peter – we have been over this before ad nauseum Nothing has changed. Scientists who professionally study Milankovitch mechanisms totally disagree with your assessment. We are yonks from an orbital induced ice age IMO. You of course will disagree.
If you’re serious get some support and peer review from Berger and Hollan. If you are serious you would getting on with this and getting international science agreement or at least documenting where any critique is misplaced.
Luke,
You have an opinion we are yonks from an orbital induced ice age.
What is your argument? Is it original?
I hope you have not been at those CO2 fed GCM’s again?
Peter
The argument was previously discussed and links tabled above. Insolation does not get down to levels to cause onset of glaciation on the Milankovitch orbital simulations listed. If anything it’s the opposite. Argue it out with Hollan and Berger and report back their advice and why they’re wrong. No use telling us – this blog is unlikely to change anything and we are unlikely to agree unless there is something new. If you seriously believe and think it’s a serious as you suggest – you should be chasing down the critics and getting this worked through.
Computer models of the sun assume the Standard model, that of a thermonuclear fusion generator at its core. This then requires that temperature decreases according to the inverse square law outward . It doesn’t.
Height above photosphere:Temperature (Kelvin)
Sunspot interior:~3000K
Photosphere:~5800K
500km:4400K
2000km:20,000K
2200km:500,000K
Lower corona:2,000,000 K
2 Solar Diameters O2 molecule:200,000,000 K
Scientific American, June 1, 2001, “The Paradox of the Sun’s Hot Corona” by Bhola N. Dwivedi and Kenneth J. H. Phillips.
Practically these data mean that you get hotter the further away you walked from a fireplace.
These data cannot be explained by the Standard nuclear fusion model. Further it cannot explain sunspots either but there they are.
And just how do we get a temperature minimum just above its hot photosphere? And of course if a sunspot is a peep into the suns interior then being closer to the assumed source of energy, the temperature must be even higher. It isn’t.
So the solar standard model is wrong but its used for all the climate models.
This is why the AGW computer models have problems – they don’t model measured physical reality at all.
“Peter Harris
Retired Engineer”
Unbelievable.
Louis – sigh – what we’re talking about doesn’t involve climate models. Thanks for playing though.
I can’t see a clear signal for a coming ice age from Peter’s post. But I wouldn’t mind a bit more explaination from both Peter and Luke as to their respective positions on the issue of ‘insolation’ and Milankovich cycles.
“Peter Harris
Retired Engineer”
“Unbelievable.”
Al Gore – No scientific qualifications whatsoever.
Jen – it’s all been said before – read the posts on this blog on these issues previously.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002336.html
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002368.html
I guess in summary it’s about whether you think the 3 Milankovitch mechanisms line up to reduce solar forcing and onset glaciation or major cooling. http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/graphs/ins-5-2.png Alas you need to read the references to work it through. Peter and I have different interpretations.
Luke, sigh, and another point missed – the Milankovitch ideas assume the standard model of the sun, apart from others, and if that is wrong, then what else could be wrong.
If the sun doesn’t behave as a gradually decreasing source of energy over time, then the Milankovitch theory might have some difficulties.
“Al Gore – No scientific qualifications whatsoever.”
Absolutely right. Which is why I never use Al Gore as a scientific reference.
What else could be wrong – you could be talking through your hat. So Louis don’t keep us hanging – how will your model of the Sun help us in this case or are you just filling time with irrelevant factoids.
Sorry Peter looks like Louis has disproved all that paleo evidence on Milankovitch as being wrong. Dang Louis is good. 🙂
Luke,
It is not my model of the sun at all – and I have not disproved Milankovitch at all – especially as I have not offered any evidence to support that, so how you then conclude that I have must mean that I am hatless and you not.
The warming an cooling may not having anything to with the mechanics of the solar system but on the basic forces which operate in it. The standard solar model fits a classical mechanical system.
It isn’t, and you know the reaons for it, well in your incarnation as Phil Done you gave the impression you looked at the Plasma-cosmology literature, but as the Artful deductionist you are, nothing will sway you from your belief in AGW and a mechanical gravity based pseudo-universe.
Louis – all vacuous gobblygook – this has nothing to do with AGW. The end. Get focussed on the topic with some relevant information or ping off and spare us the ad homs.
Phil sends hugs but can’t come to the keyboard after the accident with the blender. You know that. And he wouldn’t be caught dead reading plasma-cosmological pseudo-science.
Luke,
Perhaps Luke you might consider practicing what you preach?
Incidentally don’t attend any meetings of the Institute of Physics – they have decided that The Plasma Universe is now an official area of study – you might find they take exception to being called pseudoscience, especially from from a climate charlatan.
Yes yes … all very fascinating Louis – now back to ice ages. Do you have anything to add except confusion?
P.S. Try to not to bite on every single stray bait.
Luke,
You have been basing your argument on the work by Loutre Berger et al but you have not allowed for the limitations which were quite properly listed by the authors. I suggest you read pp 85 and 86 of the paper I attached. The conclusions are based entirely on the LLN2-D NH GCM simulation which is limited to NH simulations in 2D. It does not simulate the carbon cycle, CO2 is considered an external forcing. The algorithm for this application is not disclosed. It does not allow for other GHG or dust. “in this model clouds and the hydrological cycle are simplified, and the heat transport to the middle and deep oceans should be improved ” “Also regional changes such as in the North Atlantic and over Europe are not simulated and might depart from the global trend.”
luke accepting this finding without reading the limitations is like taking medicine without reading the lable.
There is in fact no GCM capable of simulating these climate transitions for the simple reason that the process of the transitions is not understood. We don’t know what is involved. There are many more cyclic emissions from the Sun apart from Insolation.
The only means we have to forecast transitions is the Milankovich analogue.It has performed for 1M years, why not now?
I think it will be found reckless and naive to accept an extended Holocene based on such a conditional GCM simulation at a time when the Milankovich parameters all conform with conditions for each of the previous transitions to ice, and the 1M year record of the 100KY cycle is overdue .
You claim we have not sufficient variation in insolation. This is not supported by the data that you posted. Insolation now is very close to the level at which the 400KY transition to ice occurred. Check it out.
Peter
Nope – Hollan actually. Who says “-400 ka summer insolation minimum was some 10 W/m2 lower than that one we have almost reached already. No pronounced decline of solar orbital summer forcing at 65° N is ahead of us next 50 ka. ”
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/graphs/ins-5-2.png
Nope – Hollan actually. Who says “-400 ka summer insolation minimum was some 10 W/m2 lower than that one we have almost reached already. No pronounced decline of solar orbital summer forcing at 65° N is ahead of us next 50 ka. ”
Jan Hollan suggests we should not extrapolate past trends (like decline in summer insolation, or the shape of the past glaciation cycles). We should look at reliably computed past, current and future forcings instead (see Laskar et al for the mathematics involved http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/graphs/ins-5-2.png
).
i.e. a formal calculation of the insolation from mathematics
Hollan states that it is evident we have almost reached the near-future insolation minimum already. Before the atmosphere returns to normal (thousands of years), we will be on the increasing part of the insolation curve again.
Which all implies – no Milankovitch based ice age predicted for 50,000 years and more likely 130,000 years hence according to Jan Hollan.
Sorry last link should have been
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1993A%26A…270..522L&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf
Luke according to the data that you posted which was used by Hollan, insolation today is equal to the insolation 400KA which resulted in the transition to ice. The transition did not occur at the insolation minmimum it occurred at 400KY when insolation was at a level of approx 468W/M2 and in rapid decline as it is today.Each of the other transitions at 490, 310, 198 and 110KY occurred when insolation was just less than 470W/M@ as it is today.
It is unsafe to forecast an extended Holocene based on insolation minima because the transitions all occur near 470W/M2.
You have not adressed the issue of unsafe predictions from a heavily conditioned GCM.nor the fallacy of CO2 warming.
Peter
Well Peter insolation is NOT in rapid decline. Where is the major trend in solar radiation? If anything solar forcing has trended up on a scale of the last 100 years. You are nowhere near glaciation onset. The Arctic again is still near record levels of melt. You don’t need a GCM to work that out. The insolation levels in a geological time scale sense will soon increase not decrease based on Milankovitch theory as simulated and graphed by Hollan using Laskar et al.
To get glaciation you need to get cold conditions started and maintain them. As an aside – Berger found in his simulations which you distrust, that they could simulate glacial interglacial cycles with variable insolation but only if CO2 was low. But in any case the GCM work isn’t the main issue here. You can work out the Milankovitch insolation curves without GCMs.
If you seriously believe that your ice age concern is major threat to the planet you should be corresponding with Hollan, Berger and Loutre and getting the best science debated out and documented. Telling Jen’s blog won’t achieve anything.
As for the “fallacy” of CO2 warming – well that’s just your very biased opinion. You have a pet ice age theory – get some peer review. Only then have you gone through the hoops. Divining wisdom in graph shapes and not making formal calculations is in itself an unsafe method of prediction.
We had snow and subfreezing temps this weekend at the 45 parallel North. Happy to see you’re sharing some of this, if only at altitude.
I’m going to love watching the Mauna Loa stall going forward as it seems clear the Southern Ocean heating is driving the signal.
Climotards, your paychecks are in jeopardy.
Luke,
Insolation IS declining and close to a minimum. The Charts by Quinn and Hollan show that.
The work by Laskar exactly confirms the Quinn data which was published 6 months earlier.
As shown in the data Insolation now is close to the level when each interglacial made transition to ice. Hollen has assumed an insolation minimum is required, clearly that is not the case. The transitions have been occurring near 470W/M2. Once glaciation has started Insolation during the glacial phase may be above 500W/M2 while T continues to decline.
Please don’t continue to quote CO2 fed GCM studies but read the conditions which were properly listed by the authors.
Gulrud – well make your prediction – don’t just make asides? Is this the start of an ice age or what? No fence sitting now. Paychecks are in jeopardy – what a dickhead.
Peter – CO2 GCM studies are irrelevant to the main point here. Try not to be too obsessed.
Where are the solar forcing measurements for the last century or longer showing any rapid decline in radiation ???????????
In fact http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html
The long term insolation is about to increase if anything !
You would have run the same story in the 1970s and you would have been wrong then too.
However – you’re not serious about any of this in the slightest – if this is an ice age apocalypse telling Jen won’t help ! So what are you doing about it then?
Luke or creep whatever,
The link you have posted is about solar luminosity not insolation. It is about solar activity which was highest for 8000 years during the past 70 years when rising global T was wrongly attributed to CO2 through to 1998. This solar activity is the probable cause of the trend in T during that period. Since 2006 and most recently solar activity has also declioned rapidly in fact sun spot activity solar cycle 24 has been delayed and co incidentally now we have a decline in T (while CO2 continues to climb).
Solar insolation as charted by Quinn et al is not solar activity. 1t is a measure of the energy we receive based on our distance from the sun and that is also declining rapidly.That is the signal for transitions.
So we have two factors leading to a decline in T.
All the more reason to make a careful assessment of the Milankovich analogue.
There is no other way to predict a transition and the transition to ice is overdue.
Peter
Post a solar radiation time series for the last 100 years that shows measured radiation is declining.
Quinn’s chart is not measurement.
Luke
Quinns chart of insolation was perfectly confirmed by Laskar. The data was integrated over 3M years taking into account orbital movements caused by the interplay of gravity from all 8 members of the solar system.
But you have confused insolation with solar activity.
Now both are in rapid decline.
Do you know why T is in rapid decline? It is not due to CO2 which is still increasing.
Peter
Yes who cares if confirmed by Laskar.
(a) Post the time series for solar activity that shows rapid decline over a reasonable period.
(b) Post the time series that shows insolation at the top of the atmosphere that shows rapid decline over a reasonable period.
That is NOT satisfied with orbital calculations which are accurate to how many hundred years and still only a calculation ?
We need confirming measurement by an instrument, satellite – whatever …. shouldn’t be that hard?
The convincing solar radiation time series are what ….?????
T is not in rapid decline. Consider the last 100 years of global temperature – a relevant time scale – where is the rapid decline? A cold outbreak in a La Nina year is NOT a trend in a time series. It’s a point on a graph.
Luke re: Peter’s insolation:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/?s=albedo+earthshine
And this without plinian volcanism.
Note as well:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-solar-cycle-24-goalpost-established/#comments
So you want a prediction?
Corn is already a week late and farmers are yet to till; this year’s planting will be 6% off of last years total. I predict harvest will be more than 10% down from last year and Ethanol will become a scourge in the USA.
The PDO is currently flipping negative and La Nina will regain strength towards our fall and last nearly to 2010. The AMO will turn negative in a decade and corn belt drought will reign for a period of years.
The cycle 24 minimum will arrive March 2009 +/- 3 months and maximum will come in first half of 2013 at an SSN of roughly 50. Cycle 25 minimum will come no earlier than the end of 2021 and its max will be lower still.
A major plinian eruption of 6 on the explosivity index will occur before the end of cycle 25 and Lake Superior will freeze over during the winter in January and February.
The earth’s geomagnetic field will continue its decline throughout the remainder of the millenium.
A nuclear war will occur, begun in the Middle East but spreading East, before the end of 2032.
Luke will be known to surviving acquaintences and relatives as ‘Luke the Unlucky’ and ‘Luckless Lukey’.
Wow ! I At last someone who fessed up with a prediction !
I’ve archived for validation.
But although quite interesting, earthshine doesn’t give you an incoming radiation figure as might be produced by Milankovitch mechanisms – Peter’s thesis – albedo is affected with clouds, aerosols, land use etc.
Luke,
You are the one to raise the Laskar calcs for insolation as an example. If you read his paper you would see he confirmed the Quinn data which I used.
Your (a) and (b) are irrelevant to my article. You post them and then tell me why.Be sure not to confuse insolation with solar activity.
The Milankovich analogue is an insolation series calc by Quinn and confirmed by Laskar, correlated with geological data evidence of the climate transitions and the parameters now are similar to those for each transition to ice.
Your measurements are irrelevant.
Peter
So do YOU have a time series that shows radiation at the top of the atmosphere declining … it’s not up to me.
I suggest not – we could have a large debate on PMOD, ACRIM, VIRGO etc but there is no downward trend in incoming radiation above the Earth.
Calculated insolation based on Milankovitch is NOT an actual radiation measurment of the real world. Indeed what accuracy would you even put on the calculations – plus or minus years, decades, centuries or millenia? As I said before you could run your article quite strongly in the 1970s too and you would have been wrong. It warmed again.
Luke:
One prediction came in within hours:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/nasa-pdo-flip-to-cool-phase-confirmed-cooler-times-ahead/
Yeah, pretty pedestrian, but it’s a start.
Luke,
You still don’t get it.That could be my fault.
Please read this slowly.
The insolation data was calculated very accurately by Quinn et al and independantly cinfirmed within 6 months by Laskar.
The data is calulated not measured. It is based on our position in orbit.
This data is posted by Quinn et al together with climate data from the geological record which data is also confiurmed by ice core data.
A strong corelation between the insolataion data and the geological climate data is observed over 1M year record.
So we have a very sound construction of data, partly calculated and partly gelogical, that
can be used as an analogue for climate .It can be used like a template to predict future transitions provided that the future insolation pattern is known. Based on the history demonstrated by this data we can reasonably expect future climate to follow the same pattern.
Close examination of this analogue shows that the orbital parameters now are similar to those when transitions to ice occurred before.
At it’s simplest level, the ice ages are seen to correspond with the negative half cycles in Eccentricity. We are near that position now. The interglacials last for one positive half cycle of Solar Forcing. We are near the end of that cycle. See the chart.
Unrelated to the analogue signal described above it is a coincidence that actual measurable solar activity is also recently declining as cycle 24 has been delayed and I showed how past climate is affected by the level of solar activity.It would be reasonable to assume that the short term decline in T may possibly (but not necessarily) be associated with the reduced solar activity.
It is too early to say if the decline in T will continue but the analogue data suggests that this could indeed be the beginning of rapid climate change to ice.
Peter
Peter I think I have listened carefully. But you are also not responding or listening to me.
But there are some serious issues that I have to restate –
1) how accurate are the Milankovitch calculations – decades, centuries, millenia? Why would you be sure we’re here “now” at some departure point. “Very accurate” to how much error ??
(2) my take on the satellite solar observations of incoming radiation is that cycle adjusted there is NO trend downwards or upwards. If our orbital position was shifting that much, would not the satellites measuring radiation at the top of the atmosphere be showing an insolation trend downwards ??? Are they?
(3) personally I’d go on calculated insolation more than exactly what cycle position we’re “at” or think we’re “at”. That calculated insolation does not go as low as other episodes. Is it enough -? who knows you’d need a climate model to do a proper assessment.
If you are seriously concerned I’d be corresponding with Hollan and Berger and getting into this as much as you can. Get the peer review comments now and get published. If you’re not published then governments will ignore you.
Luke
(1) The Milankovitch analogue is based on CALCULATED data confirmed independantly, corelated with climate from the geological record. The math for the insolation series is shown in detail by Laskar. It is as accurate as astronomical calcs can be . There is no error tolerance shown.
My point is that this analogue should be revisited because it shows we have similar parameters to the previous transitions to ice.We also have similar conditions to past transitions ie possibly peak T and max melt of polar ice. The transition will be sudden and we have a recent short term unexpected and so far unexplained downturn in T.
(2) Yes top of atmosphere does reflect a downturn in T. The satellite T trends posted by RSS have shown a downturn in Lower Stratosphere T for some years. The decadal average is – .314K
The troposphere readings now reflect the recent global T down turn.I have not seen an explanation for these trends, but insolation (by Quinn and Laskar) is declining fast and solar activity is recently arrested.
(3) Based on the insolation data in the analogue all of the transitions have ocurred near our present level of about 468W/M2 and we have some further decline ahead . We bottom out at about 460W/M2 ie based on the history that is well below the insolation levels required for a transition.
(4) I have no intention of getting into an argument with Loutre and berger, their work is quite properly qualified in their paper but the qualification has been overlooked.
I think that time will prove their claim for an extended Holocene based on such a qualified GCM.
The paper by Hollan correctly shows that insolation will not go so low in the forecast but he has overlooked that he transitions occur at about 470W/M2 well above the forecast minimums.
As a lay person I do not have the resources or the inclination to dispute their work.
If you can now see what I see maybe you can help to encourage others to take a closer look at the Milankovich analogue.
Regards
Peter
RSS satellite T trends – yes but could be could be clouds, decadal variability, aerosols – correlation is not cause and effect – we need to look at the TOA (top of the atmosphere) incoming solar radiation – this is what the fundamentals are. I can’t see anything in it in terms of a trend (yet). I’m told the calibration wars on MSU temperatures are also still not over. Top of troposphere is confounded with the stratosphere – it’s a mess.
Here’s just one view on aerosols ….
(not saying it’s right)
http://www.csiro.au/news/HumanGeneratedAerosols.html
or look at cloud time series work here
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/ watch the realplayer video for a quick summary
We have no serious error limits on the precision of the geological data – could we be out by 10, 100 or several 1,000 years on Milankovitch and not know?
I wasn’t suggesting you “argue” with Berger of Hollan but sometimes exposing one’s own ideas to other viewpoints can be refreshing and most informative. Many of these guys will respond to emails and isn’t it wonderful to be in the internet age and have such access.
So to me we have a mess of Milankovitch, seasonal variation – EL Nino, La Nina, IOD, NAO and then decadal variability (IPO, PDO, AMO, SAM, AO), solar variability of various types, cloud feedbacks, aerosols and greenhouse … quite an entanglement of effects.
Do not mistake my obstinacy here as a lack of interest or appreciation for your contribution and I do thank you for the debate. You have my ongoing interest.
Luke,
Now you are getting into the internal processes of climate which are interactive and higly compleex. I suggested an over simplified internal process involving water vapour and clouds to explain the progress of the expected rapid change involving positive feedback.
It will be useful to understand the internal process so that early changes can be identified.
I have suggested that maybe those early changes have already started.
But the first priority issue is the external trigger for the transition and its timing.Stay with that question and solve it first.
Dont confuse the Milankovich analogue with any of the internal processes.
The analogue is a theoretical device which can be used to forecast climate. It is the ONLY tool we have to predict climate transitions.
The transition will be sudden , extreme and long term, it can happen at the present level of insolation and it is overdue.
If you have a link to TOA incoming solar radiation I will take a look at it.
Peter
Yes absolutely we shouldn’t confuse any internal process with Milankovitch hence what I wrote. The RSS T data are confounded with too many other issues.
On TOA
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/pmod-vs-acrim-part-2/
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.acrim.com/
Luke,
Reconfirming that my article is about the simple Milankovich analogue based on calculated orbital data which is predicting a transition soon to ice. It is not about the actual measurement of solar irradiance.
We can look at TSI and many other factors in an attempt to get actual evidence of the coming change but as the transition process is not understood we really do not know what to look for.
The chnage in insolation due to orbital movement as published by Quinn et al will present a relatively slow decline in irradiance compared to the changes by sun spot activity, but the final transition will be a rapid climate change.
However the PMOD and ACRIM data that you have linked shows the down trend in irradiance since 1998 and is consistent with the RSS T data that I used.
It could possibly indicate that the transition has started if the trend continues.
It is interesting also to note that the TSI data peaked corresponding to the T peak which was attributed to El Nino 1998. it is not clear if TSI is driving the El Nino/ La Nina cycle.
Peter – myself I see no trend in those data at all. Nothing significant. But you should continue to watch these data series for some movement.
Very hopeful though looking at the end of the graph – but nowhere near enough data yet IMO.
Alarmist Creep (AKA Luke?)
Restating that my article is about the simple Milankovich analogue which shows that because of the orbital parameters we are close to the glacial transition. It is not about measured TSI.
There are many climate factors that can be monitored to identify the coming sudden transition. The TSI links refer only to solar irradiance. A recent paper by Troshichev et al shows how Interplanetary Magnetic Field is correlated with the El Nino and climate change.
The TSI data history limited to 28 years is manipulated for trend and continuity. The “OPEN MIND” blog is conducted by one Tamino who refuses to identify. He has manipulated trends to present a result favourable to the AWG hypothesis and he treats any opposing argument with denialist abuse.
Based on the more plausible ACRIM data there is an up trend to 1998 and a down trend from 1998 to now and that is consistent with the RSS data and shows corelation of climate with solar activity which is consistent with the geological record.
Yes we need more data but according to the analogue it is already too late for effective preparation for a sudden long term cooling.
We need to get scientists and engineers to figure out how these sudden transitions work.
Peter
“more plausible ACRIM data” why Peter – because that’s just what you would like?
There is no trend IMO – they are just mapping the solar cycles.
Of course the data are modified – the series are different – and not continuous. The usual problem with all satellite data. On what basis can you assert the data have been modified to suit a particular hypothesis.
You can go to Lockwood and Frolich instead. http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/fulltext.pdf
Peter – you need some error estimates – you could be hundreds of years out in Milankovitch calculations and you wouldn’t know. We simply don’t know the accuracy.
As for Troshichev – however anything with cycles is likely to be a statistical nightmare. In other words there is so much seeming semi-periodic behaviour going on with climate – one can have one’s self on big time. You can find cycle patterns that suddenly break down and have no forecast skill. The great problem with droughts and sun spots for example. Anyway will look at link if you provide it.
from Lance Endersbee
I want to caution against suggestions that the predicted cooling of the
earth may lead to a return to the Ice Ages.
It is evident that the present dynamic system driving climate is radically
different to that of the recent ice ages.
I attach a chart of temperature changes for last 50,000 years.
It is taken from the excellent paper by Bob to AusIMM last year, also
attached.
Note the dramatic drop in the range of the variations in temperature which
occurred about 10,000 years ago.
In my book I explain that the dramatic change was due to the acquisition of
the moon into orbit around the earth.
Prior to the capture into orbit around the earth, the moon had been captured
by the earth into synchronous orbit around the sun.
During the Ice Ages, the dynamic system driving climate was the sun, earth,
other planets and the cosmos.
For the past 10,000 years, the dynamic system has been all of these plus the
moon.
I describe the evidence for this in my book.
The capture of the moon caused a great increase in diurnal tides, and
created the Gulf Stream.
It modified geotectonic activity.
It certainly modified climate.
During the ice ages, the climate changes relate well to the Malenkovich
cycles.
Malenkovich was interested in variations in solar radiation.
But the solar radiation cycles are also an indicator of variations in
gravitational attraction.
Thus the Malenkovich cycles can also be used for gravity variations, and for
geotectonic analyses.
I think gravity effects are evident in the stick-slip behavior during the
ice ages.
The record suggests a gradual accumulation of strain with major geotectonic
convulsions at 100k intervals.
With the capture of the moon into orbit the geotectonic response of the
earth was modified.
The much stronger lunar tides led to more frequent and smaller geotectonic
events.
Thus the Malenkovich cycles are still with us, but the impact is modified.
There is wonderful historical evidence about the capture of the moon.
The ancient Greeks had a word for their early predecessors- they were the
people before the moon.
Yes, we are most certainly entering uncharted territory, but there are basic principles still being ovlerlooked. Ultramicroparticular pollution in the upper atmosphere that doesn’t resemble anything volcanic, has to be brought into the newer models. There may be evidence for a decrease in temp. over say 10ky, but the exponential effect of light scattering in the troposphere could potentially accelerate this cooling. By how much you may well ask???
Alarmist creep aka Luke
Your references to the measured solar data by ACRIM and other means are irrelevent as I have explained before.
My article is about the Milankovich analogue which shows that the climate transitions correlate with CALCULATED insolation based on orbital position and it shows that sudden transitions to ice have ocurred EVERY time when orbital parameters are similar to now. Based only on the 1M year record we can say with 100% certainty the there will be a transition to ice whenever Eccentricity approaches a minmimum.
It is approaching a minimum now.
The interglacials survive only one positive half cycle of Solar Forcing.
We are near that position now.
I have challenged anyone to explain why the transition will NOT occur this time.
Only Prof Lance Endersbee has offered a reason which would cancel the Milankovich analogue if he is right about the recent arrival of the Moon in Earth orbit but that hypotheis is the subject of a friendly argument.
The insolation data calculated by Quinn et al was confirmed in detail by Laskar. There is no tolerance given.
The transition will be rapid. The process is not known and is not even being studied as most scientific resources are now devoted to GCM simulation funded to investigate GW. The transition cannot be simulated as the process is not known.
I will be travelling for a month and will only be able to respond periodically.
Peter
Dear Lance,
I am not comfortable with your hypothesis about the very recent arrival of the Moon in Earth orbit and I have seen your evidential chart based on a dramtic change seen in the rate of T variations as we emerged from the last ice age.
I believe that the rapid and dramatic changes in T observed during the glacial phase are an unexplained characteristic of each of the ice ages.
We have two different relatively stable stages of quite different climate equilibrium ie glacial and interglacial. However the glacial phase is characterised by these rapid changes in T.These changes have been referred as Dansgaard Oescher events and are most evident in the NH.
The processes behind the T variations are not understood although closely related to Heinrich events which correlate with interruption to the MOC. Bond et al showed evidence that the Dansgaard Oescher evemts were globally synchronous.
Changes in albedo are thought to play a role.
I think that there should be more work done to understand the role of cloud cover which can instantaneously make dramatic changes to heat reflection or entrapment.
Rahmsdorf (Potsdam 2003) observed a 1470 year cycle in these T variations but could not find a matching Lunar cycle.The regularity of the cycle suggests an inter planetary beat.
I agree with your comment that we should consider all of the Solar influences which are modulated by distance including gravity, and recent work by Russians Troshichev (2005) have also shown a correlation between the Interplanetary Magnetic Force with extreme Antarctic winds which affect the Lan Nina/ El Nino systems.
I think the Earth sciences have been neglected with the obsession to simulate by GCM and it seems that there is little exploratory thinking in this neglected field.
Lance beware of the wiles of Jennifer or you too could be sucked into a blogging.
Regards
Peter
Jeez Peter
(1) you have no idea of the accuracy of the Milankovitch stuff at a decadal or even centennial level. You could be out by 100 years and not know.
Zilch. If so – table it with some dates. Actually where are we today in terms of distance to the trough or peak – how many days Peter ?
This business of “no tolerance” is totally spurious.
(2) and we’re going to have a change in insolation and the radiation at the top of the atmosphere will be unchanged will it?
(3) the regularity of past cycles is no guide to the future as Hollan has shown
Really …
If you’re going to drop references a url link would be good.
I don’t think we’ve progressed on iota.
We would face a much greater disaster with a new ice age than with global warming. There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause any global warming. Predictions of global warming are based only on computer models which do not hold up to honest scientific analysis. There is no provable evedence of a coorelation between increased Co2 and warming. Of many scientific papers on this topic one of the best; www:jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600pdf. The ecconomies of both Australia and Europe are rapidly being destroyed by buying in to the greatest scam ever which will destroy civilization as we know it. Proof? Just read some of the blogs in these countries.
luke,
I have been travelling.
Sorry to hear that you have not progressed one iota.
Maybe you should read the article again.
It is really very very simple
1.Milankovich proposed that climate transitions were timed by orbital variations which affect insolation in a cyclic predictable pattern. With laborious calculations he proved his hypothesis which was accepted. More recent data by Quinn et al confirms the relationship between the ice ages and orbital geometry as proposed by Milankovich.
2. It remains for you to inspect the data and find similarities now with the orbital parameters when each of the previous interglacials made sudden transition to ice and that is explained in my article.
You seem to be insisting that there should be some evidence to be found in TOA radiation but I expect this to pattern Qinns insolation data further modulated by solar activity. There will be no sudden major decline at TOA. The reality is that we do not know or understand the process that will cause the interglacial to collapse and that is why I wrote the article. I have suggested changes in state of H2O leading to a transition from interglacial to glacial.
You keep referring to Hollan and his claim that insolation will be too high for a transition in the forecast period but as I have explained before he has overlooked the fact that the transitions have occurred well before minimum at levels similar to now.
Peter