View Article

view the latest news articles
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
Tuesday, May 26th 2009, 7:57 PM UTC
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Updated below from Gregory F Fegel at ClimateRealists.Com

Article continues below this advert:

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

Gregory F. Fegel

Updated from Gregory F Fegel at ClimateRealists.Com

Dear ClimateRealists.Com (CO2sceptics.Com)

Thank you for posting my article from Pravda, "Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age." When I look at the accumulated data regarding the past history of the Ice Age cycle, I see a repeating pattern of Ice Age maximums and Interglacials that have recurred with considerable regularity of timing and intensity going back more than a million years.

I see no reason to assume, based on dubious evidence such as AGW and other unknowns, like anthropogenic global cooling or changes in solar output, that anything will interrupt the Ice Age cycle as it has been performing for the past million years and more.

When I look at the data and the graphs, it appears obvious to me that the earth should be near the end of the current Interglacial and ready to begin the next Ice Age return. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but quite possibly within the next 1000 years. And I see no reason to assume that the return of the Ice Age won't begin within our lifetimes.

No one has shown me any data that proves that the next Ice Age has been postponed. Until I see some believable 'postponement data', I shall assume that the Ice Age shall keep to its usual schedule.

By way of analogy, if the annual frosts normally begin in a certain region around a known date, based on the historic record for that region, why should anyone expect some unproven factor (such as AGW or solar flares) to make an untimely intervention and postpone the annual onset of the frosts?

I don't see why my acceptance of the Ice Age cycle as we know it should inspire others to brand me as an 'alarmist', when most of the evidence we have for the known cycle of Ice Ages shows that our current Interglacial should indeed be near to its end. We also know that dramatic changes in climate can happen in a relatively short period of time.

It seems to me that instead of wasting so much 'hot air' on the dubious idea of AGW, human society would be wiser to at least develop some contingency plans for how the world's nations will respond to the onset of the next Ice Age, an event which is both inevitable and potentially imminent according to the data.

Cheers, and "Keep on the sunny side of life!"

Gregory Fegel

Additional Comments from Gregory Fegel

My goal in writing "Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age" for Pravda was to alert readers to the fact that the known pattern and timing of the Ice Age cycle is still highly relevant to any discussion of long-term or extreme climate change, and that the unsubstantiated theory of AGW does not, and should not, supersede what we know about the Ice Age cycle.

My opinion is that CO2 levels are not likely to have a major impact on global climate, that variations in solar output likely influence climate on the scale of tens to hundreds of years, and that the larger Ice Age cycle is caused by variations in insolation due to the cycles of the earth's orbit and tilt.

I certainly cannot predict exactly when the return of the next Ice Age Glacial will begin, but it appears to me that, based on the previous pattern of Ice Age Glacials and Interglacials, we should be near the termination of the current Interglacial. I assumed that most readers would understand that I didn't specifically state when the next Ice Age Glacial would begin because I don't know precisely when it will begin -- and neither does anyone else.

I tried to keep my Pravda article brief and focused on the issue of well-established climatology versus the very restricted view of the AGW theorists. It was not my goal to provide an alternate explanation for short term climate change outside of the context of the Ice Age cycle.

Some opponents of the AGW theory have criticized my Pravda article for not addressing the issue of variations in solar output as a plausible cause for short term climate change that explains the warming and cooling of our current era more reasonably than the theory of AGW. In hindsight, I agree with those critics, and in any future articles I write on this topic, I shall make a point of addressing that issue.

Perhaps I should have mentioned in my article that variations in solar output may play a part in climate change on the level of the Lesser Dryas; the Medieval Warm Period; the 'Little Ice Age'; the recent late-20th century Solar Maximum, aka 'Global Warming'; and other relatively short-term climate variations, while the variations of the earth's orbit and tilt and resultant changes in insolation described by the Milankovitch cycles are the likely cause of the larger Ice Age cycle.

Gregory Fegel
Source Link:
Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

Useful links
  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Site Details
  • » Launched 15 May 2009
  • » Website Design by Mr Zippy
Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error