Hi All,
Whilst looking around regarding absorbtion, emission, radiation, etc, etc, etc,.
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

I cam across this page,
http://www.nov55.com/iceage.html
Snappily titled.......
The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008

Excerpt,
" But global warming is not about temperature, it's about precipitation.
When oceans heat up, they cause more water to evaporate from them and into the air,
which gets carried around the globe and precipitates everywhere.
Snow has been accumulating over 90% of Antarctica due to the increase in precipitation,
which has totally stopped the rise in ocean levels. This is not good news.
The oceans have been rising for the past 10,000 years since the last ice age.
The end of that era means hard times for humans. "

Given most ice ages seem to start very abruptly...

Following on from the above page, lead me to,

http://www.nov55.com/icecause.html

Excerpt,
" 5. In today's time, as heat comes up from the earth's core,
it must now pass through hundreds of miles of hard, rocky material.
Passing through the hard material results in a very constant rate of heat flow.
As the geothermal heat enters the oceans, it accumulates and creates a water clock.
The oceans heating at a constant rate causes ice ages to occur at extremely precise intervals.
When the oceans get hot enough to put enough water vapor into the air, another cool-down is triggered in a precipitous manner.
The past ten ice ages have been occurring at exactly 100,000 year intervals.

6. The usual explanation for the precise interval of ice ages is the Milankovich cycles.
This means that variations in the earth's orbit have some repeating cycles to them.
A lot of scientists do not accept that explanation, because the yearly average exposure to the sun stays unchanged.
So rationalizers will say the orbital motion of the earth becomes asymmetrical due to influences from Jupiter and Saturn.
But those patterns only last a few months, which is not enough to explain ice ages.
Apart from the Milankovich cycles, scientists do not have an explanation for the precise cycling of ice ages.
The water clock caused by geothermal heat does explain the precise cycling of ice ages.
The reason why the cycles have been occurring in their present form for only one million years would be that
shifting tectonic plates change geology in such a way as to alter ocean currents and the way the water clock works.
It appears that Pacific ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait and melting Arctic ice is
a critical part of ice age cycles, which means ocean currents are critical. "

I'm not liking this possibility - we aren't talking about a "little ice age", this would be a big one.

The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008

That is a bold statement to be making since the data for the deep ocean is scanty.Here is his statement that I wonder about:

Quote:" 5. In today's time, as heat comes up from the earth's core,
it must now pass through hundreds of miles of hard, rocky material.
Passing through the hard material results in a very constant rate of heat flow.
As the geothermal heat enters the oceans, it accumulates and creates a water clock.
The oceans heating at a constant rate causes ice ages to occur at extremely precise intervals.
When the oceans get hot enough to put enough water vapor into the air, another cool-down is triggered in a precipitous manner.
The past ten ice ages have been occurring at exactly 100,000 year intervals.

I emphasized the red part because I thought it to be an overly confident statement to make.How does he know that what he claims is credible?

Quote:6. The usual explanation for the precise interval of ice ages is the Milankovich cycles.This means that variations in the earth's orbit have some repeating cycles to them.A lot of scientists do not accept that explanation, because the yearly average exposure to the sun stays unchanged.

The Milankovitch cycle DOES explain most of the puzzle,but not all of it and that is why it is not universally accepted.

The average exposure to the sun in the UPPER latitudes does change a little and is shown specifically in Milutin's calculations as explained in this LINK.Here is a quote from there:

Quote:REVIVAL OF Milankovitch Hypothesis:

* 1955 long records: C. Emiliani 18O/16O noted general correspondence to Milankovitch's curves
* 1956 accurate chronology: Erickson et al.(1956) Barbados raised beaches dated at 82, 105, and 125 K
* 1969 terrestrial conformation: Kukla (1970) published loess chronology dated by Uranium-Thorium the dates of for terminations match 45o N insolation
* 1969 paleomagnetic dating of long ocean cores confirms age of earlier cycles as predicted by the Theory
* 1974 J. Imbrie (e.g., Imbrie & Kipp 1971, Hays et al. 1974) publishes climatic model based on insolation for 45o which match oxygen isotope record for core V28-238 -- 95% variance 18O/16O explained by insolation at 45oN Imbrie's insolation curves
* 1978 A. Berger publishes recalculated, accurate formulae for insolation changes

There are too many predicted match ups to discount the Milankovitch hypothesis.

I have Imbrie's book where he explains in some detail the geologic record having a good match to many of Milutins calculations,as being credible enough to keep the hypothesis alive.

Gary's proposed deep ocean heating and disruptions as the cause of a specific periodicity of 100,000 years is too far fetched to me at this time.By the way it was once a 40,000 ice age cycle then it became 100,000 years.

Now we all know the continents positions have not changed all that much in last 2 million years or so to make that much difference.

So why did it shift from 40,000 to 100,000 years?

(01-31-2010 03:58 PM)JohnWho Wrote:  I'm not liking this possibility - we aren't talking about a "little ice age", this would be a big one.

We have been sliding slowly into the next ice age surge for over 7,500 years now,and due for that big drop to kick it into the cool down surge.That is all that is left and that is why when it happens,it will be fast!

The new ice sequence is already 95% done and waiting for the last step.I think the little ice was an aborted last step,since it was the coldest and most enduring of all the cold spells in this dying interglacial period.

When it happens there will be anarchy in a big way and it is because too many morons are so busy fearing the benign warmth we have enjoyed in the last 150 years.

I am inclined to agree with SSTs comments. I read that Gary Novak page some time ago and went looking for confirmation. Nothing found. Have seen videos of ocean ridge magma welling up and "black smokers" that they claim are at 400C etc. but no overall summary for ocean heating from the bottom.

As for water vapour, the current reports are of a DECREASE in upper tropospheric water vapour. I read in a Rorsch paper that could be due to CO2 improving the radiative ability of the upper air thus increasing the cooling. This should show up as a reduction in high level stratus cloud. Must go looking for info on that.

Now precipitation from low level clouds in the northern hemisphere does indeed seem to be up. Just check the snow reports. If the currently quiet sun fails to melt all this winter's snow cover we could indeed be heading for some cool years.

If the resultant food shortages lead to anarchy or not I am not sure, but we will certainly hear some bellicose claims from countries at the bottom of the global food chain.

I look on it as a necessary evolutionary process for humanity. A really deep ice age will put paid to rascism and greenies as nuclear will be the only option left to support the required technology.

(01-31-2010 09:10 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Now we all know the continents positions have not changed all that much in last 2 million years or so to make that much difference.

So why did it shift from 40,000 to 100,000 years?

In regard to your other well raised points I'll have a read about, there seems some agreement and some disagreement,
not conclusive either way, but possibly a combination of the differing schools.

I have quoted the above for a reason that I have raised before, Australia's northward drift.
Has this effected global oceanic currents, ? I would of thought it must have.
Could it explain the above quote, possibly.
I certainly wonder what will happen, (and when) when Australia's northward drift cuts off the flow (north of Australia) between the Pacific and the Indian ocean.
(That occurred to me quite forcefully when doing my tangerine projection of world oceans.)

Maybe the continuing restriction of the flow has delayed the onset of the forthcoming ice age. ?
or,
Possibly this "valve" for warm pacific water as is closes forces the Pacific to use the Bearing Straights. ?
And through the Arctic cooling mechanism Novak proposes, may now bring it on.
Because of Australia's continuing northward drift.


AND, Yes, nuclear is the only reasonable option.

(02-01-2010 03:27 AM)Derek Wrote:  

(01-31-2010 09:10 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  Now we all know the continents positions have not changed all that much in last 2 million years or so to make that much difference.

So why did it shift from 40,000 to 100,000 years?

In regard to your other well raised points I'll have a read about, there seems some agreement and some disagreement,
not conclusive either way, but possibly a combination of the differing schools.

I have quoted the above for a reason that I have raised before, Australia's northward drift.
Has this effected global oceanic currents, ? I would of thought it must have.
Could it explain the above quote, possibly.
I certainly wonder what will happen, (and when) when Australia's northward drift cuts off the flow (north of Australia) between the Pacific and the Indian ocean.
(That occurred to me quite forcefully when doing my tangerine projection of world oceans.)

Maybe the continuing restriction of the flow has delayed the onset of the forthcoming ice age. ?
or,
Possibly this "valve" for warm pacific water as is closes forces the Pacific to use the Bearing Straights. ?
And through the Arctic cooling mechanism Novak proposes, may now bring it on.
Because of Australia's continuing northward drift.


AND, Yes, nuclear is the only reasonable option.

I find Gary's website to be interesting,but sometimes he is a little bare on some of the details.That is why I am a little skeptical on some of his claims and want more information,such as his deep ocean heating and the upward movement of the heat comments.

Yes I agree that there is more to learn before we know for sure what is really going on.I am just being cautious about it all,needing more information.

Regarding Derek's comment on continental drift, I dragged out an old school atlas and checked out ocean currents north of Austrailia. My uneducated guess is the possible reduction of water flow from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean would have some impact on the monsoons causing possible severe droughts for India. Not good news but then this won't happen for quite some time.

We will know the effect of the current quiet sun over the next five years.

The return to glaciation started about 5000 years ago. Claims that the 100,000 yer cycles are fixed are based on guesses that are not supported. The average of the cycles are 100k but have ranged from 90 to 110 or there about as we can not accurately determine geologic time with that type of accuracy.
The end of the Holocene Optimum was the beginning of the return to glaciation. The geological evidence is available. The future can be seen by observing the past records from past glaciations. While there is no precise timeline the expected events will mirror those the globe has experienced before. I compare it to a ball being rolled down a slight incline with a rough surface. There will be warming and cooling with the long term trend towards cooling that is evident in the tree lines and the plant material found under the glaciers that formed after the HO period.
Plate Tectonics are driving India into the Asian plate and widening the Atlantic ocean while shrinking the Pacific ocean. The west coast of California will be part of Alaska in the future as the Pacific plate rotates counter clock wise. That is the feature that gives us the Ring of Fire.
Why 100k rather than 40k? If the sea level has not returned to the height it was during the 40K period it would have an effect on the circulation patterns. Also there is evidence that the 40k pattern still remains within the 100k pattern and the 40k cycles may have only been minor glaciations. Also it is possible that an even longer cycle overrides this 100k period that we can not recognize yet which may be related to galactic movement. That would be beyond what is being discussed.

My answer to the question is: The return to glaciation started approximately 5K years ago!
Of course the next Ice Age if we get out of this one might be about 250M years from the end of this Ice Age which began about 2 to 3 M years ago!