I’m about to save the government $29 billion/year in climate research.
Earth’s climate is driven by changes in Earth’s orbit. Because of eccentricity and axial wobble, the length of different seasons varies over time. That is why we have ice ages and inter-glacials.
Solubility of CO2 in seawater varies with temperature. When temperatures increase, the oceans outgas CO2 – and vice-versa. That is the first thing freshman geology students learn, and is why the CO2 curve follows the temperature curve. It is also why a warm beer bubbles over when opened. Only a complete moron or a climate scientist would confuse that relationship. But I repeat myself.
Is there a good reference work on “axial wobble” to share? (I’m going for my do-it-yourself, study-at-home Masters in climate science).
https://archive.org/stream/causeofaniceage028508mbp#page/n7/mode/2up
Thanks! I will study for any tests to come. 🙂
The BBC made a good doc about monsoons and earth tilt, no mention of climate change on the programme!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/23degrees/2011/06/will_monsoons_once_again_retur.html
“It’s all down to our planets orientation to the Sun and how that changes over time. This orientation, which dictates the amount of sunlight we receive, is controlled by three main factors, Tilt, Precession and Orbit. 8000 years ago when the Sahara was green, these factors were different to what they are today. The science of this is very complex but here’s a simple summary of what was going on.
Currently the earth tilts at an angle of 23.4 degrees. But over a 41,000 year period it changes, wobbling between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Back when the Sahara was green, the tilt was close to its largest possible angle, 24.2 degrees. Which meant that 8000 years ago the Sun shone more directly, more intensely over the Northern hemisphere”
This is I dont understand why climate scientist keep on publishing C02 sensitivity papers (now its “down” to 1.6C/century, according to Curry and Crock), when Co2 ALWAYS follows temperature. These papers must be all crock. Basically C02 most likely in the earths atmosphere has ZERO effect of Temp
D I N G .. D I N G .. D I N G
And we have a winner!
Yes, CO2 concentration has followed temperature. However now CO2 isn’t following temperature due to yada yada yada.
Yes, CO2 does demonstrate the “green house” effect. How much? NFI.
This is why…
Is there an explanation for the “sideways” temperature following the most recent peak in temperature, roughly the last ~10,000 years? If you look at previous peaks, temperature falls “quickly” following the peak. However, the pattern is different following the most recent peak.
Earth is closest to the sun now during January, so there won’t be an ice age for a long time.
And yet the grant-sucking tax parasites haven’t figured-out that tiny detail as a possible “explanation” for the rise in the Antarctic sea ice.
Arctic and Antarctic tend to move opposite each other, but that is probably due to some other effect – likely related.
That seems to be a major point of contention among quaternary scientists. (Forget the CO2 bafflegab needed to get published.)
Another:
Lisiecki and Raymo (Paleooceanography, 2005) came to much the same conclusion.
This is the perspective. The summer solstice insulation minimum during MIS-11 at 65N was 489 Watt/m2 and it was 474 Watt/m2 in ~2005 (Lisiecki and Raymo, 2005). You need 15 Watt/m2 to get to the insolation minimum in MIS-11. I am not familiar with any CO2 estimates which correlate with a 15 Watt/m2 rise in atmospheric forcing.
Chronis Tzedakis (2010) did an exhaustive look at the MIS-1/MIS-11/MIS-19 conundrum. http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
Even during the only post-MPT interglacial to make it past about half a precession cycle it still got awfully cold between MIS-11?s two insolation peaks and the climate was a wee bit rocky. So no matter how you slice it the one thing we can be sure is NOT going to happen is CAGW.
For those who want to dig deep into the subject of glacial inception here is a starting point but be aware you are looking at hours of reading – mostly direct quotes from the literature.
link
The science is decidedly NOT settled, however perparing for colder weather makes a lot more sense that the idiocy we are seeing now. (It is also fun to rub the warmist noses into the possibility of glaciation and have the pee-reviewed papers they so love to back you up.)
It is not a question of insolation – it is length of the seasons.
Steve, that is why I said there is a bit of controversy on the subject going on.
Bits and pieces from various sites:
It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the seasonality and location of solar energy around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons. – link
This is why the amount of solar energy on 21st of June at 65? N is calculated and compared in all the different papers. MIS-19 which occurred somewhere within or at the Mid Pleistocene Transition, MIS-11 (the Holsteinian) and MIS-1 (the Holocene) all occurred at a 400kyr eccentricity minimum cycle, that is why they are considered analogs and have been studied closely.
………………..
Eccentriticy: currently, we are in an orbit of low eccentricity
At year 2007 AD, Spring = about 92+3/4 days and getting shorter, Summer = about 93+2/3 days and getting longer, Autumn = about 89+5/6 days and getting longer, Winter = slightly less than 89 days and getting shorter, with an average season length in this data set of about 91 days 7h 27m 15s. The significance of the changing season lengths will become obvious in chart #2, next below.
(Spring + Autumn = Summer + Winter) link
So the difference in season length between Summer and Winter is ~ 4 days.
………………………..
axial tilt: currently, the axis of rotation for the earth is tilted at 23.5°
However, this value changes from a minimum of 22.5° to a maximum of 24.5° and takes 41,000 years to complete one cycle less tilt also increases the difference in radiation receipts between the equatorial and polar regions.
One hypothesis for Earth’s reaction to a smaller degree of axial tilt is that it would promote the growth of ice sheets. This response would be due to a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter’s accumulation. At present, axial tilt is in the middle of its range.
……………………….
Precession: currently this means that the Northern Hemisphere will experience winter when the Earth is closest from the Sun and summer when the Earth is furthest to the Sun.
I would think the comment about “….a warmer winter, in which warmer air would be able to hold more moisture, and subsequently produce a greater amount of snowfall. In addition, summer temperatures would be cooler, resulting in less melting of the winter’s accumulation….” would again apply. It is not the cold, it is the warm wet winters and cool summers that are the ‘I Gotchas.’
It is interesting to note the possible analog for the Holocene, MIS 11 was warmer than during the Holocene according to pollen records from Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand and America.
There is the one tiny point that most everyone seems to miss — 65 million years of cooling
The Holocene is a lot cooler than the Holsteinian (MIS-11) as mentioned above and I have no idea if that lower temperature starting point is taken into account or would have any effect.
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
Gail, if I’m not mistaken, the current axial tilt is 23.4 degrees and declining.
Here is a link to orbital parameters, with code: http://www.jhu.edu/~lhinnov1/hinnovresearch/earthsorbitalparameters.htm. I have not checked the code for accuracy or precision.
Does this mean that the earth, via the SH oceans, intakes more solar energy (due to the heat capacity of the oceans) then if the more intense solar energy was striking the NH?
Yes. At closest distance to the Sun, the increase in solar irradiance is about 6% more than when the Earth is farthest.
The theory is that ice ages occur when Northern Hemisphere summers are short and receive the brightest sunshine, while winters are long and dark.
stevengoddard says:
The theory is that ice ages occur when Northern Hemisphere summers are short and receive the brightest sunshine, while winters are long and dark.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry Steve the data says different:
Loutre and Berger’s 2003 paper was based on an astronomical model and looked at orbital mechanics and model results (therory.) It was at the time, considered a landmark paper and a widely quoted and discussed. That paper predicted that the current interglacial, the Holocene, might last another 50,000 years, particularly if CO2 were factored in.
However that paper was followed in 2005 by another paper by Lisieki and Raymo. This paper was not based on theory and models but instead took an exhaustive look at 57 globally distributed deep ocean cores. They concluded:
A fall 2012 paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? “ gives the solar insolation on 21st of June at 65? N (The summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere) for termination of several interglacials
Current value – insolation = 479 W m?2,
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m?2,
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m?2,
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m?2,
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m?2,
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m?2,
NOAA also gives calculated values:
Holocene peak insolation: 522.5 Wm-2
depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm?2
NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2
Will an extra two days of summer and two days less of winter make the difference? Will something else like a couple of nasty volcanos tip the balance the other way? Will the sea ice building in the Antarctic reflect enough energy to cause a difference? Will the solar minimum we may be heading into along with the increase in volcanic activity that seems to accompany it be a tipping point? Heck if I know but I think we are near enough the ‘balance point’ between glacial and interglacial that this is what scientists should be looking at instead of chasing a harmless plant food.
At peak eccentricity, there is nearly a month difference between glacial winter length and interglacial winter length.
“The theory is that ice ages occur when Northern Hemisphere summers are short and receive the brightest sunshine, while winters are long and dark”
==============================================
Yet precession makes a complete cycle every 24000 to 25000 years. So, according to the data, we only kick into a full blown glacial advance every fourth time or so we complete the cycle.
60,000 years, more or less
http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/03/next-peak-of-ice-age-year-60000-ad.html
Now, about this cold water and CO2 thing:
Why, when I drop and ice cube into a class of already cold soda, does it fizz? Maybe this is an optical illusion and I’m seeing CO2 from the air in the room being violently taken into the liquid. One of life’s little mysteries!
Two entirely different reactions/reasons for CO2 leaving the liquid. The CO2 out gassing in a can of warm soda or beer causes the pressure in the container to build, which when opened causes the violent reaction.
The ice cube, or any solid object, especially one with many pores and cavities on the surface, causes the CO2 to rapidly leave the liquid due to nucleation.
The results can be the same…but the processes are vastly different.
If your claim is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, then the implication is that the earth was not closest to sun in January immediately following the last 4 peaks that are visible in your graph. There is no ~ 10,000 year “pause” 😉 in temperature decline following the last 4 peaks. Does anyone know if it’s true that the earth was not closest to sun in January immediately following the last 4 peaks? Is there an app for that? 🙂
Strictly speaking, Tony, we are in an Ice Age now, living in an interglacial (meaning slightly less ice, especially on land at the ‘mid’ latitudes); unless they’ve changed the definition again. Ice Age = large amounts of perennial ice anywhere on the planet, back when I was introduced to the concept.
That’s still the definition…but, it probably won’t be for long.
These believers in a static climate can’t have anything that shows there were past changes that weren’t caused by human intervention.
All the current discussion re climate sensitivity is a complete waste of time and effort.
The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations. For a complete discussion of this see Essex:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4
Models are often tuned by running them backwards against several decades of observation, this is
much too short a period to correlate outputs with observation when the controlling natural quasi-periodicities of most interest are in the centennial and especially in the key millennial range. Tuning to these longer periodicities is beyond any computing capacity when using reductionist models with a large number of variables unless these long wave natural periodicities are somehow built into the model structure ab initio.
Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths combined with endogenous secular earth processes such as, for example, plate tectonics. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of the relation of the climate of the present time to the current phases of these different interacting natural quasi-periodicities which fall into two main categories.
a) The orbital long wave Milankovitch eccentricity,obliquity and precessional cycles which are modulated by
b) Solar “activity” cycles with possibly multi-millennial, millennial, centennial and decadal time scales.
The convolution of the a and b drivers is mediated through the great oceanic current and atmospheric pressure systems to produce the earth’s climate and weather.
After establishing where we are relative to the long wave periodicities, to help forecast decadal changes, we can then look at where earth is in time relative to the periodicities of the PDO, AMO and NAO and ENSO indices and based on past patterns make reasonable forecasts for future decadal periods.
In addition to these quasi-periodic processes we must also be aware of endogenous earth changes in geomagnetic field strength, volcanic activity and at really long time scales the plate tectonic movements and disposition of the land masses.
For forecasts of the probable coming cooling based on the natural 1000 and 60 year periodicities in the temperature data and using the neutron count and 10 Be data as the best proxy for solar “activity” see the series of posts at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Thank you Dr Page.
In other words. we’ve barely scratched the surface of knowing the known variables…let alone knowing exactly how many variables there are.
Or…we just don’t know enough to make anything less than a wild guess.
You got it! We do not even know the unknowns we don’t know.
For example the Dansgaard-Oeschger/bond events are pretty much a complete mystery with some guesses thrown at them.
Thank you. It is one of the sore spots for me that we are trying to use such a short period to label the entire history.
That was GREEEEEAT! Thanks!
if only the climate scientists that direct policy would pay heed to the work of dr norman page . i am fairly certain there are many who would agree with this in private ,but in todays world it seems even scientists have to toe the party line.
Amen, look at the large energy systems and their interrelationships and periodicity.
(And we’ll get a whole lot further along if we quit concentrating on the mix of trace gasses in our atmosphere… especially on CO2, whose only significant effect comes from the fact that it’s needed for plant growth and the amount of vegetation in the seas and on the surface can change with it’s concentration.)
“…The modelling approach is inherently of no value for predicting future temperature with any calculable certainty because of the difficulty of specifying the initial conditions of a sufficiently fine grained spatio-temporal grid of a large number of variables with sufficient precision prior to multiple iterations…”
This has always been in my mind, number one criticism of climate modeling – computer climate modeling is an exercise in futility. It is impossible to even start the model since we don’t have enough real-time climate data to capture the starting state of the atmosphere. So I’m sure modelers just guess – they must plug in some values to get the model run started.
The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:
“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ – I 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774
So, you’re talking about nutation and precession? Definitely makes more sense than 0.04% CO2.
Because of the Earth’s eccentricity, some seasons are longer than others. Because of precession, the length of seasons changes over time.
Don’t forget the position of the Continents. They change the water circulation patters and have a big effect on climate.
Tony – $2.6 billion per year spent by the U.S. on climate research in FY2014.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43227.pdf
Where do you get your number?
Perhaps you are referring to the total money spent on “clean tech”:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/4/18%20clean%20investments%20muro/0418_clean_investments_final%20paper_PDF.PDF
p. 13 – $150 billion spending 2009-2014
Climate facts are not going to stop the government spending $29 billion on research. Instead, the government will double spending because it is very expensive to obfuscate and propagandize.
India tells the UN to buzz off…
http://twitchy.com/2014/09/26/global-warming-pfft-india-says-it-wont-cut-co2-emissions-for-30-years-declares-poverty-the-bigger-issue/
It looks like that climate wise India and Brazil would make good substitutes for the UK & France as new members of the UN’s …”permanent”… 5 member Security Council.
The chart is consistent with the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle.
Has anyone calculated how much bicarbonate there is dissolved in the world’s oceans, relative to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Since CO2 dissolved in water is in equilibrium with carbonic acid/bicarbonate, I think it would be reasonable to view the oceans as both a carbon sink AND a CO2 source.
Mankind only contributes a tiny fraction of CO2 release into the atmosphere as it is. I think putting it as a ratio to the potential CO2 reservoirs of the ocean would make it seem even more vanishingly insignificant.
This brings up another key problem with the hockey stick graphs for CO2. They show that CO2 goes up and down through the paleo record, then they past the most recent measurement data onto it with a massive hockey stick. But how do we know that actual atmospheric CO2 levels weren’t as high or higher in the past than they are today, but the various proxies do not accurately reflect that? I have no problem with saying that variation within a proxy is a reasonable estimation of some variables, but pasting an instrumental record onto the end without knowing exactly how that would be recorded in the proxy record, or changing over time within the proxy record, is asking for trouble.
The CO2 ‘data’ is as compromised as the temperature data. It just isn’t mentioned as much.
For links on the subject see:
Comment 1
Comment 2
Long discussion: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/
Pay attention to Anna V and Richard Courtneyespecially.
The 180 reading at the peak of the ice advances is very serious depletion of CO2. A reading that low should be reflected in the types of plants that grow and their relative abundance. Does anybody know about this? If the plant growth does not reflect the very low readings, then perhaps the CO2 proxy record is somehow muted to below what it actually was.
David A.
You are correct. C3 plant growth stops or slows significantly @ 200 ppm. That means no growth and NO SEEDS. One commenter at the above links mentioned that what the ice cores represent is an average of long time perids. Also CO2 does not stay put in the ice bubbles (Think about how flat soda becomes after a year in a plastic bottle.) If the entire sample is crushed and analysed the CO2 readings are much higher but that does not suit the Con men so earlier studies on ice cores using the whole sample have been pretty much ignored after 1985. Dr Jaworowski did quite a bit of work on this.
I list a lot of links in Comment 1 above. Dr Jaworowski and Dr. Glassman did a lot of work on the subject.
In comment 2 (actually the comment folloing that one) I list studies on plants. One open field study shows a more realistic lower limit of ~300 ppm can be deduced from readings taken 6 feet above a field study of wheat (C3). Greenhouse studies showed “…photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… “