Arctic sea ice volume now one-fifth its 1979 level

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 2:52 AM GMT on February 19, 2013

Share this Blog
59
+

The stunning loss of Arctic sea ice extent in recent years is undeniable--satellite measurements have conclusively shown that half of the Arctic sea ice went missing in September 2012, compared to the average September during 1979 - 2000. But the extent of ice cover is not the best measure of how the fire raging in Earth's attic is affecting sea ice--the total volume of the ice is more important. But up until 2010, we didn't have the measurements needed to say how the total volume of ice in the Arctic might be changing. Scientists relied on the University of Washington PIOMAS model, which suggested that the loss of Arctic sea ice volume during September might be approaching 75% - 80%. The model results were widely criticized by climate change skeptics as being unrealistic. However, in April 2010, a new satellite called Cryostat-2 was launched, which can measure ice volume by beaming pulses of microwave energy off of the ice. With two years of data to Cryosat-2 data to analyze, the results of the PIOMAS model have now been confirmed by a study published on-line in February 2013 in Geophysical Research Letters. In a University of Washington news release, co-author Axel Schweiger said, "people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive. What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid." The U.K.'s Natural Environmental Research Council reported that the team of scientists found that from 2003 to 2012, the volume of Arctic sea ice declined 36% in the autumn and 9% in the winter. The measure of sea ice volume is a good indicator of how the Arctic's most stable, "multi-year" ice is fairing. As the multi-year ice declines, sea ice extent, the total area covered by sea ice, in an "Arctic death spiral". The new study shows that thick, multi-year ice has disappeared in areas north of Greenland, around the Canadian Archipelago, and to the northeast of Svalbard, Norway.


Figure 1. Arctic sea ice volume in thousands of cubic kilometers during the September minimum in 1979 compared to 2012, as estimated by the University of Washington PIOMAS model. Arctic seas ice volume has declined by more than a factor of five. Image credit; Andy Lee Robinson.


Figure 2. The Polar-5 aircraft, carrying the EM instrument that was used to validate Cryosat-2 sea ice thickness measurements, flying over the validation site. Image credit: R. Willatt.

Why care about Arctic sea ice loss?
If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the contiguous U.S. from the ocean, like occurred in September 2012, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. The record sea ice loss in 2012 also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Sea ice loss will also continue to crank up the thermostat over Arctic permafrost regions. This will potentially release a significant fraction of the vast amounts of carbon currently locked in the permafrost, further accelerating global warming.

Related Posts
Earth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low (September 2012)
Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog post
Wunderground's Sea Ice page
Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed by Joe Romm at climateprogress.org.

Jeff Masters and Angela Fritz

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 397 - 347

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25Blog Index

Looks like we will be seeing a pattern the leads to very beneficial rain for the southeast, including here in the FL panhandle as well as north and central Florida even by late week/next week.

We'll watch it for trends. On another note, we saw beneficial rain today, although nothing special, it was more rain actually then what we had with the last front which ironically was supposed to be a huge rain maker.

Member Since: August 21, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7302
Quoting 1911maker:
BY GERALD E. MARSH
Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.


The last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is during the Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago.

I guess Gerald Marsh considers 125,000 years to be the same thing as the last few thousand years.

It is also worth noting that most of the heat attributed to global warming is not going into the air, it is going into the water.



This chart indicates that the heat content of the ocean has increased by a factor of 10 from 1994 to 2005. That's a little hard to believe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:


For the first 50 Ft. She still needs alot of time to be good in Stock Cars.
Don't make me come over there Pedley
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
Quoting VR46L:


My Main man on the bikes has been in a three year slump but now he is back on the Yamaha I have some hopes


GP Bikes and GP cars are the best.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Ya think Danica has a chance?


For the first 50 Ft. She still needs alot of time to be good in Stock Cars.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
392. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Good Choice, its all about the numbers of tires, he is in a slump too.


My Main man on the bikes has been in a three year slump but now he is back on the Yamaha I have some hopes
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6842
Quoting wxchaser97:

Duels on Thursday, 500 on Sunday, I can't wait. Johnson is my favorite and Gordon my second. The weather should be good there, besides a chance of a shower on Sunday.
Ya think Danica has a chance?
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
Quoting VR46L:


Edwards is Very good looking Guy , but I prefer JJ . Its a handle that is named after my favourite Motorsports star


Good Choice, its all about the numbers of tires, he is in a slump too.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
Quoting PedleyCA:

Duels on Thursday, 500 on Sunday, I can't wait. Johnson is my favorite and Gordon my second. The weather should be good there, besides a chance of a shower on Sunday.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7928
The four stages of climate change denial.
1. Nothing is happening
2. Something is happening, but man isn't causing it.
3. Something is happening, and man is causing it, but it will be beneficial.
4. It's too late to fix it.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Once again, 90% + of climate scientists agree man driven climate change is happening. (global warming) The Arctic Ocean melting in spectacular fashion is a red light indeed. We will run that light, not look both ways; and the crash will be spectacular. Denial is ridiculous on the face of indisputable scientific research and evidence. Deny it all y'all want, you don't do it with an open mind to the facts and what's glaringly obvious all around us; it's Chamberlain II and the stakes are just as high. The leader of the "Bad Guys" is the corporate/political machine itself and it has way more power than "you know who" ever did. We can't stop it now, it's too late. All we can do is prepare for it. Ever tried talking to sheep? You get a real void stare back; as if they just don't understand. We're in trouble folks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
386. VR46L
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
I am south of Daytona 3 hours... I have invited JJ for an after party at my house...Think he will come??


That would be very cool ..But I dare say he probably will be busy ...But ya never know maybe for all I know you are a personal friend of his
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6842
@ WXChaser97..

I noticed that too, thanks... It's all fixed.

See post 360 again. I hope anyone would understand some of those abbreviations in the right column.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


Edwards is Very good looking Guy , but I prefer JJ . Its a handle that is named after my favourite Motorsports star
I am south of Daytona 3 hours... I have invited JJ for an after party at my house...Think he will come??
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
Quoting goosegirl1:


Oh, but it has: Link

Link

Link


I believe that Dr. Masters is referring to a small time interval. If you will look closely at the chart in your 1st link, you will see that the sea level has actually dropped recently.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
382. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Still trying to figure that one out. I posted that for the AARP reference.
I am a Carl Edwards fan.


Edwards is Very good looking Guy , but I prefer JJ . Its a handle that is named after my favourite Motorsports star
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6842
Quoting PedleyCA:


Still trying to figure that one out. I posted that for the AARP reference.
I am a Carl Edwards fan.
I once did a back flip off my boat in the Intracoastal Waterway... I had to partake of 4 Bud Lights to relieve the pain
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
BY GERALD E. MARSH
Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.


The last time the Arctic is believed to have been ice-free is during the Eemian period, about 125,000 years ago.

I guess Gerald Marsh considers 125,000 years to be the same thing as the last few thousand years.

It is also worth noting that most of the heat attributed to global warming is not going into the air, it is going into the water.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
HURRICANE SEASON 2012 RECAP... Now with all TCRs in...
________________________________

Here is it all, a costly and deadly hurricane season 2012...



Now that people here mention hurricanes I have made this graphic up some while ago, just waiting for the occasion. Let me know if there are any mistakes, there should not be any btw.

Click image for larger view..


Helene wasn't a 105mph 965mb hurricane, Helene was only had 45mph winds and 1004mb pressure. Other than that good job.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7928
Quoting OrchidGrower:
My real point here is, the increased CO2 is there, regardless of what you believe about inputs from nature. So if you have a pile of wood, and you add gasoline to it and throw a match to it, will you have a conflagration or won't you?


This link has the real story on the impact of increased CO2. If anyone has a link that disputes this, please provide it (including Dr. Masters).

https://twitter.com/BigJoeBastardi/status/2895143 30087641088/photo/1
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting VR46L:


Cool Ped .... My handle has to do with Motorsport too...


Still trying to figure that one out. I posted that for the AARP reference.
I am a Carl Edwards fan.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
Quoting DoctorDave1:
"If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the contiguous U.S. from the ocean, like occurred in September 2012, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter..."

Strange that it did not affect the sea level.


Oh, but it has: Link

Link

Link
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
371: Strange that it did not affect the sea level.

North Pole ice doesn't add to see level when it melts or very little.
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
374. VR46L
Quoting PedleyCA:


Cool Ped .... My handle has to do with Motorsport ...
Member Since: March 1, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6842
Quoting AGWcreationists:


Really.

Compare the correlation of the Maunder Minimum to the Little Ice Age.

And the increasing strength of sunspot cycles to warming temps over the last century - with a dip in both trends in the Seventies.

And also note documented recent warming on other planets.

And explain how that is not related to solar factors.


Yes, it really has been discussed. Here ya go:

Link
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
Quoting OrchidGrower:
It's already been discussed -- with citations -- on prior blogs, that the sun is not currently giving Earth increased solar output.


Really.

Compare the correlation of the Maunder Minimum to the Little Ice Age.

And the increasing strength of sunspot cycles to warming temps over the last century - with a dip in both trends in the Seventies.

And also note documented recent warming on other planets.

And explain how that is not related to solar factors.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the contiguous U.S. from the ocean, like occurred in September 2012, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter..."

Strange that it did not affect the sea level.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PlazaRed:
Noting:- A paragraph from 355. LargoFl
"Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years."

The amount of energy which has to be put into the surface and near surface of the planet to raise the temps by a bit over 1 degree is awesome.
The 1 degree thing is not the end of it, it might not even be the beginning of it but I would postulate that it might signal the beginning an irreversible changes as far as we and the near future of the planet are concerned.
I agree with you PlazaRed. I think we have already passed the point of no return as far as human interference is concerned. But what do I know, I'm a bean counter.LOL
Member Since: March 28, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 1532
Quoting MississippiWx:
Here are the final damage numbers from MEMA for the Hattiesburg EF-4 tornado:

Lamar: 134 homes destroyed, 169 homes major damage and 414 homes minor damage. Nine injuries.

Forrest: 192 homes destroyed, 338 homes major damage and 603 homes minor damage. 63 injuries.

No total cost number that I've seen yet.

Edit: Also, it is important to note that these numbers are just for homes.
It really is a blessing - and a credit to the warning lead time - that there were no fatalities.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:
Oh No...Tell me no
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
Re: #349, what's missing from this repeated argument is the fact that CO2 -- a greenhouse gas -- has shown stairstep rise in concert with human deforestation and industrial outputs.

Yes, of course there have been prior significant climate warmings in Earth's past. Besides the point that has been raised elsewhere here repeatedly about those warmings occurring over a longer period of time, and as many denialists like to point out, lots of things can contribute to planetary warming: Volcanic activity, continental drift, solar output all quickly come to mind.

It's already been discussed -- with citations -- on prior blogs, that the sun is not currently giving Earth increased solar output. Continental drift can't get the blame here over such a short timespan. But whether humans are to blame for this CO2 output or not (and, personally, I think you're hilarious if you don't think they are), it's there and it is fundamentally known to be a greenhouse gas. Cutting down forests, BTW, is DEFINITELY a known contributor to warming, because it removes carbon sequesterors (trees) and oxygen-(a cooling gas)producers.

European wine growers have observed such pronounced climate warming over the last 40 years that they've had to move to new locations or replace vineyards with warmer-climate grapes. Oyster- and clam-harvesters the world over are finding that increasingly acid seawater -- from increased CO2 -- is causing thinner bivalve shells and destruction of newly hatched juvenile mollusks (you can read about that by searching Slate.com for an article they published today).

My real point here is, the increased CO2 is there, regardless of what you believe about inputs from nature. So if you have a pile of wood, and you add gasoline to it and throw a match to it, will you have a conflagration or won't you? Asking whether we should expect any sorts of problems or not is, as far as I can tell, just about that stupid.

The heat of the sun is our match.

Whether you believe the warming inputs come from human activity or not, the time is here to stop playing games of denial and start doing things we can to counter growing CO2. Lighter pavement, reflective or garden-scaped roofs, more efficient use of (all) fuels, and tree planting, tree planting, tree planting need to be taking place.

A meaningful reduction in the amount of disinformation from the denialist camp would probably also be a big help.

Maybe I'm in for a ban today; I've not attacked any one person here specifically but I've really had enough of the disinformation of late. Planning to take a mini-vacay from this Blog for a while....

[Thank you, Nea, for your regular and well-worded commentaries on this important subject.]
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
Quoting GTcooliebai:
Great Job which software you use to make your charts?


photoshop... thanks btw
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
HURRICANE SEASON 2012 RECAP... Now with all TCRs in...
________________________________

Here is it all, a costly and deadly hurricane season 2012...



Now that people here mention hurricanes I have made this graphic up some while ago, just waiting for the occasion. Let me know if there are any mistakes, there should not be any btw.

Click image for larger view..
Great Job which software you use to make your charts?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting AGWcreationists:
Giving historical perspective to the current number of named storms - from before the satellite era.
Please slow down and say what you just posted so anyone that has an AARP card can understand
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
My point...I'm freekin' old, but that was way before my time
Giving historical perspective to the current number of named storms - from before the satellite era.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:


More like the Bell between rounds of a fight.
Not going where you were thinking.... lol
LOL
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
HURRICANE SEASON 2012 RECAP... Now with all TCRs in...
________________________________

Here is it all, a costly and deadly hurricane season 2012...



Now that people here mention hurricanes I have made this graphic up some while ago, just waiting for the occasion. Let me know if there are any mistakes, there should not be any btw.

Click image for larger view..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Noting:- A paragraph from 355. LargoFl
"Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years."

The amount of energy which has to be put into the surface and near surface of the planet to raise the temps by a bit over 1 degree is awesome.
The 1 degree thing is not the end of it, it might not even be the beginning of it but I would postulate that it might signal the beginning an irreversible changes as far as we and the near future of the planet are concerned.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PalmBeachWeather:
Once while swimming cross turtle creek
Slipped and fell


More like the Bell between rounds of a fight.
Not going where you were thinking.... lol
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690
Quoting PlazaRed:

If glaciers were going to scrape over islands, then there would be plenty of warning as they dont form in a few years to that extent.
If we have another Ice Age, human populations will rapidly fall back below a billion, long before glacial maximum, if the impact on humanity during the Little Ice Age is any indication. Just the onset of long-term colder temps would have a catastrophic impact on food production.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:
Ding...
Once while swimming cross turtle creek
Slipped and fell
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822
BY GERALD E. MARSH


CHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age.

What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended.

How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know.

Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years.

While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt.

Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization.

One has only to look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder.

The last “little” Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.

By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued flowering of modern civilization.

There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth’s climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial perioods, like the one we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earth’s history, it was far warmer than it is today.

Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth’s long history.

Five hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels drop to a little less than twice what they are today.

It is possible that moderately increased carbon dioxide concentrations could extend the current interglacial period. But we have not reached the level required yet, nor do we know the optimum level to reach.

So, rather than call for arbitrary limits on carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the climatology community in general could do is spend their efforts on determining the optimal range of carbon dioxide needed to extend the current interglacial period indefinitely.

NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth’s climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age?

We ought to carefully consider this possibility before we wipe out our current prosperity by spending trillions of dollars to combat a perceived global warming threat that may well prove to be only a will-o-the-wisp.



Gerald Marsh is a retired physicist from the Argonne National Laboratory and a former consultant to the Department of Defense on strategic nuclear technology and policy in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton Administration. Readers may e-mail him at gemarsh@uchicago.edu
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting PedleyCA:
Ding...
..its interesting to watch in here the discussions..on global warming..the govt can tax us to death to prevent global warming...can they tax us to death on global cooling?....people really need to be careful falling for this global warming stuff..the govt is more than 14 Trillion in the hole..be careful what you wish for.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Is Denial a pejorative term in any situation other then climate change?

None of the dictionary definitions I looked at listed the term as pejorative. Why is it that the people who claim there is no climate change, are so offended by being labeled as being in denial?

Mayo Clinic does have a good reputation. Mayo does not seem to consider the term pejorative. It is just another aspect of mental health to be addressed.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/denial/SR00043
Link

Denial: When it helps, when it hurts
Denial is a coping mechanism that gives you time to adjust to distressing situations — but staying in denial can interfere with treatment or your ability to tackle challenges.
By Mayo Clinic staff

If you're in denial, you're not being realistic about something that's happening in your life — something that might be obvious to those around you.

In some cases, a little denial can be a good thing. Being in denial for a short period can be a healthy coping mechanism, giving you time to adjust to a painful or stressful issue. It might also be a precursor to making some sort of change in your life. Still, denial has a dark side. Being in denial for too long can prevent you from effectively dealing with issues that require action, such as a health crisis or a financial situation.

Find out when denial can help — and when it can be a roadblock.

Understanding denial and its purpose

Refusing to acknowledge that something's wrong is a way of coping with emotional conflict, stress, painful thoughts, threatening information and anxiety.

When you're in denial, you:

Refuse to acknowledge a stressful problem or situation
Avoid facing the facts of the situation
Minimize the consequences of the situation


In its strictest sense, denial is an unconscious process. You don't generally decide to be in denial about something. But some research suggests that denial might have a conscious component — on some level, you might choose to be in denial.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Ding...
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 5690

Pages: 12






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.






Print version
Font Size
Send to friend

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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MrMixon:





LOL! I believe Yonzabam's point was that any suggestion that active tropical seasons are tied to climate change would be met with a "but year X was this active and we didn't have climate change back then so nyah"...

It's like Yonzabam can see into the future...
I was pointing out that you can look to pretty recent, measurable human history to make the same observation.

I guess AGW skeptics are damned if we point out history, but AGW proponents have a free ride to use similar current events as evidence of AGW.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Now, now, no need to sidetrack the cproceedings by Godwin-ning the discussion; after all the term "denial" was in use long before Der Fuhrer was born.

Now, I'm of the opinion that there are no true scientific climate change skeptics. Certainly there are those who fancy themselves as such, but when the veneer is scraped away, there's always nothing more than garden-variety denialism. For instance, reliance on tired tropes such as, "The climate has changed before, so what's the big deal?" and "Global warming is better than global cooling."

Sound familiar?


First of all, the attempt to disparage skeptics by calling them deniers is not elevated in any manner by saying others have done it in the past. It is clearly an attempt to compare AGW skeptics to slimeball Holocaust deniers. Yet it is freely allowed here. I guess some animals are more equal than others.

Second, you may want to pretend that applying the scientific method to approach AGW from a position of skepticism is not possible, but many scientists do just that.

Just as Clovis first used to be 'settled' science, AGW orthodoxy that relies on muscling aside contradictory opinions shows its own insecurity.

And third, as I have shown, there have been rapid rates of warming in the past. So can some or all of the recent warming be due to natural cyclical factors?

And I noticed you completely sidestepped human welfare in the Medieval Warm Period versus the Little Ice Age.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
What, you don't think it's possible for a popular internet forum to be frequented by multiple people who share both similar scientific points of view and somewhat similar writing styles?
Nea......You are absolutely correct... I was not naming or pinpointing anyone in particular.. Just a woman's thinking that you wouldn't understand, Dammit Jim
Member Since: October 3, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 5822

Viewing: 397 - 347

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
64 °F
Mostly Cloudy