CO2, Water Vapor, Ice Cores Part 4.
posted April 3, 2009 - 12:45pmCO2, Water Vapor, Ice Cores Part 4.
CO2, Climate Science,AGW, Ice Cores,Milankovitch Cycles, Sun, Water Vapor,
This is the "FINAL" segment of that single original posting, that vanished. There is not supposed to be a limit to Xombyte length, but there is, and as Nick, et al., changed and improved software, got new programming help, or what-have-you, the original post ran up against that limit, and vanished. So I made it into 4 parts to be sure it was not "wiped out."
Original Posting.
Part 1
http://www.xomba.com/ice_core_record_shows_co2_rise_happens_after_warming_air_part_i
Part 2
http://www.xomba.com/ice_cores_part_ii_co2_rises_after_warming_water_vapor_not_ignored
Part 3
http://www.xomba.com/ice_cores_co2_and_water_vapor_part_iii
Part 4
That is what you are reading below. Good Luck!
\
Xomba's new code transition has currently made it impossible to include "tables." Further, there is no easy way to place the data in meaningful juxtaposition with words or numbers on a white page so they won't get messed around, moved out of line etc.. Nick says he will someday get around to the tables problem that the new software wiped out. The images are supposed to be easier now, but I've gotten used to the hard way because I wanted to display the images as these were incorporated within the original posting.
==================part 4=====================
Sun past, present, and future:1100 million years from now. (revised a bit, 10-13-07)
Most of the world takes this seriously: Links
Agassiz, Orbital Cycle, James Croll, Milankovitch, USNO (revised a bit 10-13-07)
A conclusion of sorts (created and added 10-5-07)
A little about the Sun's past and future.
Today's Sun from NASA:
Images: NASA, SOHO, Virtually "Live"
Left image: NASA Text---"The MDI (Michelson Doppler Imager) images shown here are taken in the continuum near the Ni I 6768 Angstrom line. The most prominent features are the sunspots. This is very much how the Sun looks like in the visible range of the spectrum (for example, looking at it using special 'eclipse' glasses: Remember, do not ever look directly at the Sun!)" ---NASA text
Right Image: NASA text --- "In the image taken at 304 Angstrom [wavelength] the bright material is at 60,000 to 80,000 degrees Kelvin.
To learn more about SOHO (SOHO scientists, with the SOHO instrument have discovered more comets than anyone.)
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/explore/
Those contrarians and deniers of anthropogenic climate forcing trying to use the warming of the Sun as the source of current climate change are wrong. And they are not doing real science, but they are well funded by interests who wish to continue business as usual and escape both responsibility and penalties for their actions.
An intelligent social species would prepare them and their devices for correction and reparation. I hope to live long enough to see that begin.
Of course, the Sun is a slightly variable star. There is NO evidence that the variability has ever terminated life on Earth, to have been called an extinction event. From fusion-ignition, 4.567 billion years ago, the increasing luminosity has been about as linear as a beam of light. From a "turn-on" value of about 70% of current luminosity -- the Sun just warms away. That said. Be advised.
Real warming will occur. It will be a slow, steady warming; it will be irrevocable.
A belch of energy of any significance from the Sun would easily bring a quick end to life as we know it upon the Earth. Without engineering the Earth's orbit to move gradually and significantly farther from our Sun -- life of carbon, water, and hydrogen on Earth will be over in less than 3 billion years. The Sun itself, "our" star, like Earth is "Our Planet" will persevere for about 6 billion more years -- then Earth will be consumed in the red giant our Sun will become.
If you read the fictional segment I wrote to illustrate the length of Earth time, (A movie played at 30,000 years per second) even one billion years is an incredibly long time period -- geologically. The next billion years is thought to be a time when the Sun's output, that increasing energy reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere will be "not quite" sufficient to initiate the runaway greenhouse. But it is almost enough.
That is to state: the next billion years or so are going to see the Sun brighten -- but not quite enough to provide -- at the top of the atmosphere -- sufficient energy from the Sun forthe runaway greenhouse. It is going to be very close to beginning at the end of that billion year period ahead of us.
This billion years or so ahead should see a steady fluctuation of temperatures driven more by the orbital cycles and the moderation of the ocean circulation than the atmospheric gases shielding life from the ravages of solar radiation at levels not to be reached for nearly or more than a billion years. We expect a few percent increase in solar output in a billion plus years.
In other words, without our "CO2-polluting," and mining the carbon to burn for energy which we then are putting into the air -- the time Earth-life really has ahead of it, in the life-as-we-know-it guise, is about a billion years. In two billion years the oceans will be really warm and the runaway greenhouse of Earth will be well on its way to making the Earth like Venus. According to most conclusions I have seen calculated and published, it takes about 10% more solar energy at the top of the Earth's atmosphere to cause water vapor to become the largest "runaway" forcing greenhouse gas. When water vapor is pushed by warmer temperatures from the ocean into the air, it eventually reaches high into the atmosphere and the intense UV will break the hydrogen-oxygen bond. What hydrogen is not then captured in some other combination chemistry, is lost to space. It takes perhaps a billion years to lose the oceans and all the hydrates and water bonds in the surface rocks. Concluding in that time, all the limestone's CO2 is released once the water is lofted to space. Any free carbon or carbon containing molecule is likely to be reacted with oxygen and become hot CO2. Free nitrogen and free oxygen no longer dominate the atmosphere. CO2 does.
The legitimate worry is that humanity could somehow tip or cross a threshold, that the system can't recover from -- in our lively presence. That is, most of the complex life, and a great many of the plants evolved to balance the Earth's climate within the allowable limits for life, can, by us be temporarily stressed and driven to extinction. If we do not control the emissions of CO2, for perhaps a couple of million years into the future, we can cause the extinction of life like us, and a lot of similarly sized and adapted life forms. Once we are gone, it takes a long time for the remaining life and weathering, to remove the CO2 -- If it can.
I do not think we should be screwing around with the warming of the climate to even begin the process -- or flirt with it-- much sooner than the inevitable runaway water-CO2 greenhouse the Sun will inevitably drive. And realize, the vast oceans just won't exist any longer.
What do you know of the Sun?
From the beginning of Earth's time and that of the Sun's fusion ignition, Earth has been in relatively the same orbit about our star -- including resonances and perturbations -- for 4,567,000,000 orbits around it. During this 4.567 billion years, the Sun and planets have orbited the center of mass of the Milky Way Galaxy -- probably 18 times. It is thought that when the Sun formed, it was 10,000 light years closer to the galactic center than it is now. . .
I. Julianna Sackmann, A. Boothroyd, and K. Kraemer published a paper which has had a remarkable effect on the entire scientific community with respect to what is ahead for planet Earth. I wrote a brief review of this landmark paper available here at:
http://www.xomba.com/the_suns_future_a_brief_outline
From their paper and their figures, I calculate and build these tables.
[Note: This was in an attractive table; Xomba has removed the ability to do html tables.]
This concerns the Sun and Earth, and the Sun's brightness increase over time.
===================================
Stage -----------------Time--------Mass----Luminosity------Temp.K ---Radius
1-protostar-----------0Gyr ---------1 sol -----19.95 --------- 4400------- 7.71 R sol
2-Sun ignition
main-sequence-- 0.048Gyr------ 1 ---------0.7015---------5586-------0.897
3-Sun-Present ---4.567 Gyr------ 1-----------1 ---------------5780--------1
4-Earth Moist
Greenhouse ----5.66 Gyr ------- 1 ----------1.10-----------5793---------1.05
5-Earth's Oceans
Boiled -----------7.56 Gyr-------- 1 ---------- 1.33-----------5843---------1.13
===================================
---------ProtoSun through Earth's Ocean's BoilOff---------
Stage
Time
Mass
Luminosity
Temp. K
Radius
1-ProtoStar
0 Gyr
1sol
19.95 Lsol
4400
7.71 Rsol
2-Ignition-Main Sequence
0.048 Gyr
1
0.7015
5586
0.897
3-Sun Present
4.567Gyr
1
1
5780
1
4-Earth moist Greenhouse
5.66 Gyr
1
1.10
5793
1.05
5-Earth's Oceans Boiled
7.56 Gyr
1
1.33
5843
1.13
The following table is for those who do not accept the 70% ignition brightness of the Sun as it is computed in the best model humanity has of how the sun reached it's current state and luminosity. -- Some people think a much cooler Sun would allow life to have started on Venus, by allowing "oceans" for a time. - - To that I simply point out that even at 60% of current luminosity of the Sun, the solar wattage was so high Venus's water would have begun to boil immediatey, and the Sun just gets brighter and hotter over time.
[Again this table capability was removed by The Wizards of Xomba. Someday, Xomba-CEO, Nick says -- they might fix this. So, what I have done is to place the values in text rows and columns to communicate Two Ideas.]
TWO IDEAS
Idea 1. If the Sun was cooler, is it possible life could have gotten a start on Venus? Below, I show this is more than just doubtful; if the life were carbon, water-based -- no way.
Idea 2. After life on Earth has ended, Mars warms almost enough to provide "early" Earth-like solar insolation. Mars might be shirtsleeve if enough CO2 could be added to counteract what would be lost on account of Mars' insufficient mass. Would Flourocarbons play a part in climate on a terra-formed Mars? It takes a long time for this to develop; it might be better to move Venus out to Mars' orbit and collide them and after a few million years, go to work making a habitabe planet. Ultimately, nothing can save humanity as we now exist from the Sun's future.
Selected Terrestrial Planetary Insolation Past and Future
---------------------------------------- INSOLATION W/m2
Luminosity% of present ---------- Venus -------- Earth -------- Mars
Sun 4.567Gya-------60% --------1568.6 --------820.6 ------- 353.5
Sun 4.567Gya-------70% --------1833.7 --------959.4 ------- 412.4
Sun Present---------100% --------2613.9 -----1367.6 --------589.2
Sun 1.1Gy-ahead--110% --------2875.3 -----1504.4 ------- 648.1
Sun 3.2Gy-ahead--133% --------3476.5 -----1818.9 ------- 783.6
Planetary Insolation Past and Future
Sun's Luminosity % of present
Venus W/m^2
Earth W/m^2
Mars W/m^2
Sun 4.567 Gya 60%
1568.3
820.6
353.5
Sun 4.567 Gya 70%
1833.7
959.4
412.4
Sun Present 100%
2613.9
1367.6
589.2
Sun 1.1Gy 110%
2875.3
1504.4
648.1
Sun 3.2Gy 133%
3476.5
1818.9
783.6
For the above calculations:
Mass (M =1.9891x 1033 g), Luminosity (L (sol) = 3.854x1033 ergs), Radius (R = 695980 km), and age (4.55 billion years), with gross physical elemental composition of the Sun at present. This fit uses a beginning value of 27.4% helium by mass, and 1.95% by mass elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, and the model has a central core temperature of 15,430,000 degrees Kelvin, a central core density of 145.7 grams per cubic centimeter, and a core pressure of 2.269 x 1017 ergs per cubic centimeter.
==========================================
=========================
======================
Boston University Lecture! Excellent!
http://cybele.bu.edu/courses/gg312fall02/chap02/chap02.html
============
University of Michigan: Introduction to Global Change 1 [kind of soft pedaling twixt Global Warming and Climate Change] [This is excellent too! but study orbital mechanics at jpl.]
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/global_warming_potential/
================
This small one is very very good! By Prof. Jordi Miralda-Escudé, in Spain.
http://www.ice.csic.es/personal/miralda/fsgw/lect7.html
================================
These are all excellent sources of information.
http://faculty.washington.edu/battisti/589paleo2005/Notes/Lecture1_slides.pdf
==============================
One of the links to many many climate related data sets and images!
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/
Explore!
======================
http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/WeighingWater/
DO NOT MISS THIS On Milankovitch Cycle. It did me in.
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos462/21climastro.html
==========================================================
Folks, you need to see this page: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
[Go to the site above and explore! At the site, to the right of the graph is a revealing group of numbers you can scroll through! Also a link to The Carbon Tracker!]
IMAGE: NOAA
---------------==============
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslowski.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Karen Bice's work referenced above in this posting is here:
http://www.whoi.edu/science/GG/people/kbice/Bice_etal_2006.pdf
\================================================
Orbital Cycles, yes, no, likely so.
Thanks for reading, I will not get much better organized than I am not at the moment. Possibly (hopefully) no worse.
STUFF. I removed notes to pub here, but may update and return them later.
I AM now convinced THAT the Milankovitch descriptions of the Earth's orbital cycles describing the "basic parameters of insolation and eccentricity" are weakly but positively at the root of "most" of the ice ages. That is, the cycles are the forcing part of what initiates interglacials and Ice Ages. But there is strong coupling to the land and oceans and those items contribute to the final state in no small manner. I also think that ocean circulation plays a strong role in initially moderating the over all effect and that the actual conversion to a water-locking-up ice age greatly depends on the absolutely overwhelming force of one or more of the constituents.
Meaning, there is a convergence of components, not simply resonances.
Again meaning: Many, many factors detail the beginning and ending of "Ice Ages", and possibly the largest factor for the current arrangement of oceans and continents ARE the orbital elements -- astronomical characteristics -- residuals, periodically converging to effect an increase or decrease of planetary thermal conditions.
Of course, in human hands, now, is the power to "design" the future climate. We are on the verge of climate control. But get the picture!
Imagine no equator straddling continents or archipelagos or nothing but continental land masses north or south of 30 degrees latitude. And no equatorial landmasses at all.
Clearly, though, the complexity of such new or different arrangements might be hard to characterize in a brief comment. Life would face whole new problems of adaptation.
Perhaps with nearly equivalent area landmasses astride both poles, and a planet girdling equatorial ocean -- the Ages of Ice would be millions of years in length with little chance of melting the polar ice locked to the land and only minor seasonal variations of sea level. (I'm not suggesting anything but a seasonal variation to and fro of polar, arctic, and temperate ice. Over all, not too exciting.)
Any complete grasp of the "episodicity" versus the "periodicity" of ice ages must go beyond the Milankovich Cycles to an understanding of hydrosphere modulation and moderation of climate, as well as the punctuated equilibriums or near equilibriums of continents tectonically wandering around the surface. Geologically, the erosion of the land masses and their long-term thermal dynamics needs to be coupled with where the oceans for any era are located with respect to the land masses, the equator and the poles.
All of these things are in flux. And of course, when the Sun began steadily cooking and shining it was 70% as bright as now. The luminosity increase is vey nearly linear over time, until the Sun's core depletes of fuel.
On the Sun -- changes occur over hundreds of millions and billions of years. Don't fall for the fake science -- or at least look at it as good stuff that is meaningless in the face of the anthropogenic forcing. Sure it is ALL of us at fault, but it has been marketed deceitfully, intentionally, and at the hands of a very few for their individual profit.
Back to Milankovich:
Some of the very best data we have directly contradicts the Milankovich cycle predictions:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr97-792/
The contradictions are more than minor problems. This is a very tightly constrained and widely examined climate record. As a time-resolved construction, it is not quite as fine a resolution as the ice core data but very strong and with multiple correspondent and independent validations, including strong ice core correlations.
To me, the view this lends to the discussion is that numerous factors contribute to the glaciation/ice-free long term climate of the planet. It would be folly (and ignorant) of any scientist to deny that orbital characteristics and cyclical variations of eccentricity, obliquity, precession do not play a part in climate. They are a vaery important factor, of course. But they alone are not the whole story. Currently, the challenge is to determine what other dynamic factors and variables lead a sensitive system to which direction.
From the data, the problems as described here are relevant:
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/devils.html
I quote--
a. the timing of the penultimate glacial-interglacial transition;
b. the duration of the interglacial climates;
c. the apparent non-stationarity of paleoclimatic time series; and
d. the occurrence of a well-developed glacial-interglacial cycle at a time (450,000-350,000 years ago) when orbital theory indicates that none should occur
[Les Porter's note: Continental placements are possibly at the level of minor forcing on short time scales (tens of millions of years, but not on these half-million-year time s cales) but, thermohaline ocean circulation changes could be material in the establishment of a cycle not clearly hooked to orbital forcing.]
-----
From the astronomical standpoint, although we may see the orbital resonances appearing fundamental to the discussion, with significant anthropogenic contributions we could likely see a modification of even the long term climate events we might expect. There appear to have been great periods of times when the existence of ice was seasonally terminated. Likewise, there appear extended times with no ice at all. The idea of a Snowball Earth as coincidentally episodic with orbital variations and the positions of the continents with respect to the polar latitudes seems to have also been convergently coupled with solar luminosity. (Of course, over the long-haul, solar luminosity increases. And it is a very long-haul, though minor variations do occur in our variable "star", the Sun, their effects remain to be proven at all significant in the short-term of less than hundreds to thousands of years.)
For the next 100,000 years if orbital/ice formation scenarios are correct, we shall be without an ice age. What we do on GHG is significant. Continuing to fill the air with CO2, on a scale beyond the living equilibrium that exists adds a never-before-tried version of climate for the planet.
Life does resist and change things as long as it can. So far life's response to some of the overwhelming external circumstances is comparable to Indiana banning Sunspots. New evidence, (see below) indicates even the Amazon has seasons, and life contributes to effecting those seasons.
Elsewhere, www.xomba.com/be_very_very_careful_where_you_plant_that_tree -- I have touched slightly on the planetary response. This does not alter the fact the tailpipe emissions are dangerously at fault, second only to fossil fuel power plant emissions in the current warming.
Just thought I should clear that up, here. I present alternative views held by others, mainstream.
----------
• Agassiz (1840)
– Summarized geologic evidence for an ice age
• Adhemar (1842)
– First to attribute ice age to orbital changes of Earth
around Sun
– Highlighted precession and # of hours of daylight
• Croll (1864)
– Postulated winter was key: high eccentricity & winter
hemisphere near aphelion promoted ice accumulation
– Theory dropped when prediction of timing of glacial
conditions didn’t match evidence
• Milankovitch (1911)
- Koppen suggested to M. that summer insolation
was the key to the ice ages
– Winter: too cold to get much accumulation
– Summer: low-insolation summers produce less melt in
Fall and Spring, allowing winter snow to persist.
• M. calculated summer insolation at 65N vs time
• At the time, proxy data did not support predicted
timing of glacial vs interglacial conditions
• In the 1970’s, new data from ocean sediment cores
(and new dating methods, e.g. U/Th) clearly
showed the ice ages went in cycles, and matched
"pretty well" with summer insolation at 65N
Adhemar's theory was seriously flawed.
Nevertheless it contained the seed of a theory developed in the 1860's and '70s by Scottish scientist James Croll, shown here.
There were three major points to Croll's theory.
1- Croll argued that while the total amount of "insolation" received at a given latitude did not vary from year to year, the amount received in a given season for a given latitude could vary significantly from year to year because of changes in the earth's orbit.
2- Croll claimed that these seasonal variations were caused by two orbital phenomena known as "precession" and "eccentricity". He was also aware that the tilt of the earth's axis changed, but he was unable to include "obliquity" into his calculations because the mathematical relationship for this aspect of the Earth's orbit had yet to be developed.
3- Croll suggested that while the initial climatic effect of changes in the earth's orbit might be rather small, but that these changes were amplified significantly by "climatic feedback mechanisms" in the Earth's "climate" system.
To better understand Croll's ideas, it is helpful to learn more about the Earth's orbit and how it changes through time.
JAMES CROLL.
Image from NOAA website: Photo Credits: Contributed by John Imbrie; Brown University
Croll's arguments electrified the scientific community and provoked a great deal of debate and research. Geologists scoured Europe and the Americas in search of evidence to support or refute Croll's astronomical theory.
Initially, the theory seemed to square well with the geologic evidence, but by the 1890s terrestrial field research raised serious questions about its accuracy. Croll's calculations predicted that the end of the last glacial period occurred some 80,000 years ago and yet reasonable estimates placed the age of two North American waterfalls that had formed after the great ice sheets retreated at 6,000-32,000 years (Niagara on the U.S.-Canada border) and 6,000-10,000 years (the Falls of St. Anthony in Minnesota).
Clearly, something was wrong with Croll's theory. At the dawn of the twentieth century, few reasonable persons believed that variations in eccentricity and precession caused the ice ages.
Milutin Milankovitch -- Courtesy of Vasko Milankovitch
Image from NOAA website: Photo Credits: Contributed by John Imbrie; Brown University
About 1910 the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch, embarked on a series of calculations that would eventually revive the orbital theory of climate change. Milankovitch's main contributions are threefold.
1. -- he used new astronomical calculations by the German scientist Ludwig Pilgrim that took into account a third cyclical variation in the earth's orbit, that of obliquity or tilt.
2. -- he reasoned that summer rather than winter temperatures were the main contributors of ice sheet growth and decline.
3. -- he calculated summer radiation curves for the key latitudes of 55, 60, and 65 degrees N that seemed to correlate well with evidence then available from the geologic record.
----------------------------------------
The Milankovitch Cycle
All note the graphic's cyclical appearance. This indicates the onsets are likely caused by the periodic orbital cycles.
I want to point out that the variations in orbital characteristics are well defined and very well understood. (and I refer to the USNO statement below.)
The lack of a prescise correlation of ice advance and retreat to the orbital cycle over long periods owes itself to many factors, not least of which is climate changes occurring as a result of plate tectonics over large stretches of time. In the last 2 million years however, the cycle quit the ~ 40,000 year period and went to roughly 100,000 years.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html
Excerpt from U. S. Naval Observaory.
"Although the Malankovitch theory is well-grounded astronomically, it remains controversial. The theory predicts different effects at different latitudes, and thus its use as a predictor of global (or at least hemispheric) climate change is not unambiguous. The exact mechanisms by which the relatively modest variations in the Earth's orbit and axis direction might result in such large effects as the ice ages are not well established. The theory's popularity has tended to vary depending on the type of long-term climatological data that has been available and the method used to establish a time scale for the data. The 21,000-year perihelion cycle and the 41,000-year obliquity cycle do in fact appear to be present in the climatological record. But the dominant climate cycle that is seen has a period of about 100,000 years. Although this coincides with the period of change in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, the theory outlined above does not predict that we should see this period directly - the effect of eccentricity should appear only as a modulation of the 21,000-year perihelion cycle. The mechanism by which the Earth's orbital eccentricity could affect the climate in such a direct and important way is not known, and some researchers believe that the 100,000-year climate cycle is not due to orbital variations at all. Thus, many questions remain about long-term climate variations and their relationship, if any, to astronomical causes."
Image: http://mb-soft.com/public2/extinct2.html
With thanks to C Johnson, Physics degree from University of Chicago.
That is not purely a Milankovitch theory expression; far from it. From a purely scientific standpoint it is not truthful to say the Milankovitch theory expresses the coincidence, of orbit and Ice Age, because it does not. Many students are, of course, attempting to interpret a more strongly coupled orbital periodicity to climate coupling (Milankovitch effect) and some students are convinced we should be headed into the next ice age.
And maybe we should be. And after another 100,000 years maybe we will be. Nobody knows for certain, but some students say "nope," we are in a "hot one" for a long time. And this hot one is OUR doing. And we can change it, at least moderate it.
(Yes. Unless, as Hansen and many others warn -- we are fast approaching -- if we have not passed -- the tipping point.)
What does The Milankovitch Theory say about future climate change?
Orbital changes occur over thousands of years, and the climate system may also take thousands of years to respond to orbital forcing. Theory suggests that the primary driver of ice ages is the total summer radiation received in northern latitude zones where major ice sheets have formed in the past, near 65 degrees north. The Arctic Ocean, as an oceanic hole surrounded by landmasses is both a moderator and driving contributor to the Ice Ages. Past ice ages correlate well to 65N summer insolation (Imbrie 1982).
(But it goes much further than that. Again. Think about the consequences of an Arctic Ocean astraddle the north pole, but with all the landmasses moved tectonically southward by 10 degrees of latitude. Put the subduction zones wherever you need to for the configuration. . . what thickness of ice could build over a pole dissociated with a land mass? Under the current solar output?)
Astronomical calculations show that 65N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years, and that no 65N summer insolation declines sufficient to cause an ice age are expected in the next 50,000 - 100,000 years ( Hollan 2000, Berger 2002).
Read these: Both excellent work.( I especially enjoyed Hollans phrasing; as well as Berger's)
http://amper.ped.muni.cz/gw/articles/html.format/orb_forc.html (Hollan)
The main result is, that the mid-summer insolation of relevant northern latitudes will be not as low as at the onset of the last glaciation (110 ka before) another 0.6 Ma. The first ever pronounced fall of summer insolation happens some 130 thousands years from now, but it is not at all so deep as those ones that started the last two Ice Ages. So, we can say there is no conceivable cause for another glaciation for at least those 130 ka. Quite probably, another glaciation cannot come sooner that 620 thousand years from now.
To be worried that ice sheets will spread soon is really a queer attitude. We should be more concerned with the possibility of a runoff ["runaway"] greenhouse effect which could turn our Earth to another Venus before that half-a-million years!
[The above statement may have more truth than I like.]
Increased solar luminosity won't get us there naturally for 800 to 1.1 billion years. But all of us are concerned about pushing the situation with tailpipe CO2. K. Bice has solid data, too. And personally, even with all the stops on CO2 pulled and pollute pollute we can sure hurt a lot of critters and a lot of people -- but I do not think we can yet force water to become globally forcing. We might make the equatorial part of Earth a hell hole, and in the north we lose things we should not have lost. I doubt that prayer will do much but soothe the psyche of those who pray, but for that -- pray we don't screw it up any more.)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/297/5585/1287 (Berger)
=========================
Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
J. D. Hays , John Imbrie , and N. J. Shackleton
ABSTRACT:
1-) Three indices of global climate have been monitored in the record of the past 450,000 years in Southern Hemisphere ocean-floor sediments.
2-) Over the frequency range 10–4 to 10–5 cycle per year, climatic variance of these records is concentrated in three discrete spectral peaks at periods of 23,000, 42,000, and approximately 100,000 years. These peaks correspond to the periods of the earth's solar orbit, where the dominant factors from orbital forcing occurs and contain respectively about 10, 25, and 50 percent of the climatic variance.
3-) The 42,000-year climatic component has the same period as variations in the obliquity of the earth's axis and retains a constant phase relationship with it.
4-) The 23,000-year portion of the variance displays the same periods (about 23,000 and 19,000 years) as the quasi-periodic precession index.
5) The dominant, 100,000-year climatic component has an average period close to, and is in phase with, orbital eccentricity. Unlike the correlations between climate and the higher-frequency orbital variations (which can be explained on the assumption that the climate system responds linearly to orbital forcing), an explanation of the correlation between climate and eccentricity probably requires an assumption of nonlinearity. [Les Porter's note: U.S.N.O does not see it the same way. According to USNO, orbital perihelion observations of change do not support the cycle at 100,000 years seen here or in the fourier analysis from C Johnson U of Chicago.]
6) It is concluded that changes in the earth's orbital geometry are the fundamental cause of the succession of Quaternary ice ages.
7) A model of future climate based on the observed orbital-climate relationships, but ignoring anthropogenic effects, predicts that the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.
==========================================
The magnitude of the "Milankovich effect" depends on the difference between largest and smallest distances from the Sun. That, in its turn, depends on the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, which varies with a 100,000-year cycle, on which a 413,000-year cycle is superposed. J. Rial (Univ. of North Carolina) found signatures of those cycles in the oxygen isotope content of deep-sea sediments, in full agreement with the Milankovich theory.
His work is in "Science," vol. 285, p. 564, 23 July 1999; a non-technical explanation "Why the Ice Ages Don't Keep Time " is on pages 503-504 of the same issue."
=================================
=
Contact me through Xomba if you do not agree or if you wish to contribute:
http://www.xomba.com/referral/77777d6e
You may not at all agree with my conclusions of sorts, and you are welcome to quibble. But, I say to you this: Because of the polarization in this country, we are risking the future of millions and of species and the viability of humanity by the allowance, indeed, toleration of the stupidity of our leadership. But it goes further than that. It goes to a recognition of the difference between an intelligent direction for the planet as a whole in as much as we can influence it -- or the choice of allowing and tolerating without consequence, both personal and general for those who have stolen your future and put it in their pockets . Severe remedial action is warranted. Severe punishments are in order. Emergency planetary-scale efforts need to be undertaken. Soon, or better: Now.
=
=
An intelligent species would (and I hope, will, if we are intelligent) confront these condidtions, the sources and the lies and denials -- and exact severe penalties. The environmental crimes committed and created by the wanton destruction and exploitation of this world, have to do with something far, far more heinous than genocide, than murder, than any crime against humanity we have seen perpetuated.
Our species is not yet mature enough to recognize it's place at the table of living things, this table of life, this place we have grown recklessly and irresponsibly into. We have not yet even conceived of a structure of behavior which includes this place we occupy with respect to the world around us. We DO have very bad memes espoused by both religious and governmental entities we have either created or allowed to exist despite their non-value for the entire species or the planet filled with life around us.
Who are those voicing the seeds and consecrating the fatal memes that diminish the potential future of humanity, and the future of our species as a part of the planet's living future? Who are these speakers and advocates of the real "evil empire" and the dominion of man? They include national "leaders"; they include presidents, and they include the directorship and shareholders of multinational corporations as well as religious leaders, and philosophies that continue to elevate our single species above all others without a recognition of what this elevation entails to the planet and the life we are kin to upon it. This meme is especially heinous as the true nature of the anthropogenic forcing becomes manifest in the deaths of millions and of the biosphere losses due to their behavior which we need to governmentally evolve to the level of criminal malfeasance.
What does an intelligent species under the conditions I describe and allude to above need to do to mature? The maturity I point to is what an intelligence must accept to survive, let alone the maturity that makes our survival possible. Certain responsibiities must be recognized. Real responsibilities.
It is a definite social adjustment that needs to be made. Nothing less then the recognition of our place in the environment and our part in shaping it for good or ill -- with "profit" via exploitation of the commons for the benefit of only a few removed from the equation. In a simple sense, the legal concept of a corporation and its responsibilities to species, environment, stockholders, and directors must be completely transformed -- changed. This change is a transformation into an entity which serves society and the planet -- not just a few individuals or investors. Charters and other legal instruments of formation should be restructured or the entity excised and its resources returned to the general commons from which they issued.
For life on Earth -- mankind must begin the steps necessary to remove the Carbon mankind placed into the atmosphere. It needs to be done at 50 to 100 times faster than nature can do it.
None of you reading this will live to see the worst of that which is in store for our species (and all species) as a result of our corporately guided lifestyles, or more properly stated, lifestyles and functions built on one concept only: greed and exploitation of the planet, not for worldly benefit.
Certainly, technology will change many aspects, but one thing is certain: To end the destruction and extinctions anthropogenic climate forcing via the consumptive use of fossil fuels is causing a wholesale change is needed in the way Mankind interacts with the world. The most important change must be the removal of the 100 ppmv CO2 we have added to the atmosphere. That is nearly 800 billion tons of CO2 (780,396,144,578 tons) we have added to the air to make the 383+ ppm CO2 we have today.
Unless we remove this volume of CO2, you won't believe how much sea level will rise, and how many species will become extinct. If you are now in your teens, you may live to see some of this. Your children and their children will see it -- and not all of it, but enough for them to realize where the problem began -- the last quarter of the 20th Century.
How much carbon is in that CO2? How much have we humans pumped into the air over and above what the 650,000 year average maximum value of 283 ppm CO2?
100 ppm CO2 =780,396,144,578.313 tons
100 ppm pure carbon is 780 billion tons times (12/44.01) to get it to pure carbon, by release of the O2 from the Carbon to give us 212,786,951,486.929 tons of pure carbon.
Diamond weighs 3.52 tons per cubic meter. 212,786,951,486.929 / 3.52 = yields a volume of 60,450,838,490.605 cubic meters of diamond.
If we make the diamond into a big cubic crystal -- that crystalline perfect cubic diamond is 3924.648 meters on side.
That means the diamond we could make from the 100 ppm CO2 we humans have added to the air is enough to make a pure cube of diamond 12,876.118 feet, tall, wide and deep.
Somehow, if we want to return the Earth to a climate that supports the multitude of species we share the planet with we must remove that much pure Carbon (huge rock as a diamond) from what we breathe. Of course, that alone will not prevent a burgeoning human population from destroying itself.
================================
Use these links to reach Parts 1, 2, and 3.
Part 1
http://www.xomba.com/ice_core_record_shows_co2_rise_happens_after_warming_air_part_i
Part 2
http://www.xomba.com/ice_cores_part_ii_co2_rises_after_warming_water_vapor_not_ignored
Part 3
http://www.xomba.com/ice_cores_co2_and_water_vapor_part_iii
There are comments on the original posting at the original Posting Site
Join Xomba Today
Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member
