Getting Your Ice Age On and Off

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Identical with Randall Carlson's theory regarding Atlantis, he proposes that the initiation and termination of Ice Ages are triggered by high energy cosmic impact events that switch the Earth's equilibrium into a different climatic paradigm. The presence (or lack thereof) of massive pole centric glacial sheets act as the key feedback impediments to alternate between the two states. As he discusses about this subject, the amount of energy differential needed to transition is not available from either terrestrial and/or solar sources, while discoveries of impact craters upon the Earth in only the last few decades reveal that we ignorantly live on a virtual cosmic shooting gallery.

Carlson proposes that such as a dual (or multi-strike) strike phenomenon can initiate an Ice Age, via one strike raising massive amounts of particulates into the atmosphere, while a separate ocean strike launches massive amounts of water into the air. The combination of the two leading to prolonged massive precipitations, importantly in polar regions. This massive precipitation as snow converts to ice and changes the albedo of the Earth such that subsequent years' snow will not melt and thus an Ice Age is launched.

The reverse happens when a sufficient impact event happens upon the ice sheets and releases meltwater pulses sufficient to undo the prior change in albedo.

This discusses the proposed main impact for ending the last ice age, a site at Lake Nipigon, an 650 mile shoreline oval lake, 550 feet deep, north of Lake Superior.

639

This discusses a proposed impact site in British Columbia, responsible for creating the massive flood erosion events in the Pacific Northwest:

This discusses that not even Milankovich Cycles are sufficient to

http://geocosmicrex.com/global-change/iceage-shift/

While not an impact event that caused an ice age, this one is illustrative of the many impacts sites being discovered, and thus play a role in human development). This discusses the Burckle Crater 12,000 feet under the Indian Ocean, as possibly being responsible for the phenomenon described for Noah's Flood, and the massive mud flows observed by the archaeologists in Mesopotamia:

The paper shown on the 'cover', of the video discusses an impact in Iraq that likely destroyed Sumeria and the IVC.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following is a video from the late 1970's (or 80's) with Leonard Nimoy discussing the scientific concern then that we were descending into a new ice age. This did not happen, of course, and now the concern is over warming.

As Carlson discusses in some of his talks, mentioned was the massive growth of the global glaciers during the centuries of the Little Ice Age, from which they have been receding for over 150 years now. Carlson shows 19th century woodcuts of European glaciers' near maximum extents and then compares these with photographs from today. Most of the modern recessions occurred before the 1970's and the bulk of the added CO2 BTW.

All of this was before scientists understood the thermohaline cycle (I believe) and it was incorrectly believed that Earth was no longer a shooting gallery for comets and asteroids.

One scientist understands part of the problem (or solution rather) is suggesting to dump a lot of soot onto a nascent expanding ice age ice cap. But, of course, this is an insane amount of soot needed, on a cataclysmic scale.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Carlson proposes that such as a dual (or multi-strike) strike phenomenon can initiate an Ice Age... The reverse happens when a sufficient impact event happens upon the ice sheets and releases meltwater pulses sufficient to undo the prior change in albedo.
Carlson seems to be on to something here. He presents a convincing case that there may be more asteroid and comet strikes than we're aware of, and that they could be the cause of abrupt climate change.

He talks about the abruptness of historical climate change episodes in the past. Gary Rondeau's Squash Practice blog made the same point. In a way it's almost comforting that rapid changes are not really new, because part of the panic about MMGW is the idea that it's happening more abruptly than anything that ever happened in the geological record. If the vast majority of life forms (including humanity) have survived past events of abrupt climate change caused be meteor impacts, then perhaps we'll make it through the current episode too.

I'm not convinced that Carlson has ruled out any of the other proposed causes for rapid climate change. Even with a short impulse like an asteroid adding a lot of energy at once, the energy accumulated through an imbalance between solar insolation and thermal radiation is potentially enormous. It's generally believed that a slow change in energy imbalance, accompanied by feedback effects, should be more than enough to drive changes in the climate.

Ellis's theory is that as CO2 is slowly depleted due to carbonate formation, eventually terrestrial vegetation either burns or dies off, causing enormous dust storms that change the albedo of the planet and reverse the climate change trend. I don't see how this can be ruled out by Carlson's theory.

Large volcanic events are another conventionally accepted cause of climate change. Enormous quantities of CO2, as well as vast quantities of particulates, can be belched into the atmosphere in a very short time. Following a well-placed volcanic eruption, one might expect effects on a similar scale as a small asteroid impact.

It seems plausible enough that the Milankovich cycles, as modest in impact as they are compared to asteroid strikes, volcanoes or planet-wide dust storms, nevertheless could pack enough punch to start a climate change cycle. If this is the case, the vast majority of energy from the transition would come from the sun, reinforced by positive feedbacks. Only a very minor part of the energy required for a climate phase transition, would come from the Milankovich effect.

And of course I don't see any reason to doubt that human carbon emissions could also be a trigger to abrupt climate change. A particularly dangerous aspect of the currently playing experiment, is that the new temperature range seems to be hotter than anything the planet has experienced for millions of years, since the current cycle of ice ages and balmy interglacial periods got started.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following 7 year old lecture at the bottom of the post is by geologist Dan Britt, who advances the argument that we should now be long into the next normal ice age but for MMGW which began many thousands of years ago with the launch of early Holocene agriculture such as rice production, domesticated livestock, and other human generated causes. The red line below is the Milankovitch Cycle predicted trendline.

644

645

Furthermore, he shows that Earth is in a very long term cooling trend, with concomitant wider short term extremes. And so MMGW has saved us from returning to a time of massive ice caps, and keeping beach front properties near the beaches.

642

Note the brief duration of the prior interglacial periods, which were warmer than our current one. And note, from the top graph how the temperature trend is getting cooler and with greater extreme swings, of which he claims the bulk is Milankovitch Cycle driven, ... till the early Holcene global warming deviation (thus the long peak on the right extreme of the graph below).

But, especially note the rapid temperature transitions, none of which are thought to be human caused. Today's hockey stick is but a blip.

643

Not discussed by Britt: the challenges then, are for contemporary humankind to regulate between too much CO2 and too little CO2, if we want to maintain our current shorelines that is. Also not discussed by Britt: .... is to prevent significant asteroid and comet impacts that act to flip the albedo regimes like a switch, the higher impact frequency of which is slowly dawning on the science community.

He discusses that the (literal) tectonic battle between China and India is what has placed Earth in its current (on a geological time scale), low CO2 regime, compared to the known previous 500 million years much higher levels. It is in this reduced level regime that makes CO2 levels more sensitive in its otherwise logarithmic response curve.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Also not discussed by Britt: .... is to prevent significant asteroid and comet impacts that act to flip the albedo regimes like a switch, the higher impact frequency of which is slowly dawning on the science community.
I would say on the contrary, that Britt is implicitly denying that asteroid and comet impacts are important, when he says that the Milankovitch cycles are the dominant driving factor of the climate.

But, here's a graph showing the Milankovitch insolation calculation, along with Vostok ice core temperature data. It's not so obvious to me, that Milankovitch is as all-important as Britt says.



But, especially note the rapid temperature transitions, none of which are thought to be human caused. Today's hockey stick is but a blip.
I'm not sure Britt would agree with this either. The CO2 hockey stick graph is not just a blip. The rise in CO2 because of agriculture is 20 ppm over 8000 years, which is 0.0025 ppm per year. Since 1850 we've gone from 280 ppm to 415 ppm, which is 135 ppm in 170 years. The recent rate of CO2 increase is about 2.5 ppm per year, or 1000 times faster than the pre-industrial rate of increase.

Also, the ice core data represents polar temperatures. As Britt discusses in the video, climate changes express themselves in the most extreme changes at the polar regions of the globe. Average air temperatures over the Arctic are now 4 degrees C above the 1979-2000 average, which is already half of the full swing in the above graph from the deepest glaciation to the warmest interglacial.

Starting at about 45:00, Britt says he's just floored that MMGW is a political discussion. Of course the planet is warming because of human actions, he says.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I would say on the contrary, that Britt is implicitly denying that asteroid and comet impacts are important, when he says that the Milankovitch cycles are the dominant driving factor of the climate.
Yes, he is likely of the old school that believes we are past the age of such impacts.
Of course the planet is warming because of human actions, he says.
Yes, I didn't say he didn't.

But you do agree that the Holocene is abnormally long right (hence the book title The Long Summer)? And that humans could not have caused such massive historical swings in climate right? Or, do you believe that humans, or perhaps saber-tooth tigers indeed did such?

The big problem is, that no matter how much kvetching the IPCC does, the data shows that the climate will change, and dramatically so, and we need to address what that means ... if we can't or wont understand all the factors. In fact, it seems to me that such people are the real Climate Change Deniers, and they have cleverly framed themselves otherwise.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But you do agree that the Holocene is abnormally long right (hence the book title The Long Summer)?
Of course, and I agree that human agriculture and forestry is a contributing factor in lengthening the Holocene.

And that humans could not have caused such massive historical swings in climate right?
Right, not before 8000 BC; although it's possible that there was an advanced human civilization before that time, capable of effecting the climate.

no matter how much kvetching the IPCC does
IPCC "kvetching" is addressing climate change that could be happening, abruptly and very soon, because of industrial activity. What is it about that concern, that contradicts or negates the view that the climate could change anyhow, unpredictably, on its own? Although James Hansen argued that MMGW is sufficient to prevent any new ice age coming soon.
 
Now that is certainly true...
No doubt the oceans' thermohaline cycle was not understood at the time he said that.
… but it is also true that MMGW causes a dilution and diminution of the thermohaline cycle as the warmed ocean water is less likely to sink down to the depths.

The really good side here is that the ocean is becoming more receptive to absorbing the worlds CO2 if it can be fertilized at the surface. Such fertilization would lead to increased algae and fish (including food for humans). One way to ensure a steady nutrient supply would be to gather up the plastic garbage in the ocean and use it as floats for slow-release nutrient material. This needs research now!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Top