Replies

On the basis of Milankovitch forcing factors, the next Ice Age is not expected to commence for about 50,000 years.

There are of course many unanswered problems with the Milankovich forcing factors, most of which are related to the fact that those factors are out of phase with actual ice ages, with insufficient variation in radiant flux to account for ice ages and only have a frequency similar to more significant orbital parameters which are in appropriate phase as well as being much closer in cyclical period to the observed ~100k deep ice age cycle.

It is not suprizing at all that Milankovitch factors are not expected to initate another ice age, they are simply based a wrong assumption that eccentricity and variation in distance from the sun is the driver to begin with.

You and the UN/IPCC modelers really should start paying attention to what the astro and geophysics are trying to tell you. Unfortunately the "not invented here" syndrome seem to be operating overtime while climate change hypothesis are concerned.

A little review of the problems involved with the Milankovich forcing factors and a long over due but very necessary relook at the basics.

Spectrum of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity
Richard A. Muller^* and Gordon J. MacDonald

Figure 2. Spectral fingerprints in the vicinity of the 100 kyr peak: (a) for data from Site 607; (b) for data of the SPECMAP stack; (c) for a model with linear response to eccentricity, calculated from the results of Quinn et al. (ref 6); (d) for the nonlinear ice-sheet model of Imbrie and Imbrie (ref 22); and (e) for a model with linear response to the inclination of the Earth's orbit (measured with respect to the invariable plane). All calculations are for the period 0-600 ka. The 100 kyr peak in the data in (a) and (b) do not fit the fingerprints from the theories (c) and (d), but are a good match to the prediction from inclination in (e). return to beginning

Far more important to our present analysis, however, is the fact that the predicted 100 kyr "eccentricity line" is actually split into 95 and 125 kyr components, in serious conflict with the single narrow line seen in the climate data. The splitting of this peak into a doublet is well known theoretically (see, e.g., ref 5), but in comparisons with data the two peaks in the eccentricity were merged into a single broad peak by the poor resolution of the Blackman-Tukey algorithm (as was done, for example, in ref 8). The single narrow peak in the climate data was likewise broadened, and it appeared to match the broad eccentricity feature.
***
Figure 3. Variations of the inclination vector of the Earth's orbit. The inclination i is the angle between this vector and the vector of the reference frame; Omega is the azimuthal angle = the angle of the ascending node (in astronomical jargon).. In (A), (B), and (C) the measurements are made with respect to the zodiacal (or ecliptic) frame, i.e. the frame of the current orbit of the Earth. In (D), (E), and (F) the motion has been trasformed to the invariable frame, i.e. the frame of the total angular momentum of the solar system. Note that the primary period of oscillation in the zodiacal frame (A) is 70 kyr, but in the invariable plane (D) it is 100 kyr.

There is evidence from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (ref 39) of a narrow dust band extending only two degrees from the invariable plane. The precise location of these bands is uncertain; they may be orbiting in resonant lock with the Earth (ref 40, 41). It is not clear that these bands contain sufficient material to cause the observed climate effects. We note, however, that even small levels of accretion can scavenge greenhouse gases from the stratosphere, and cool the Earth's climate through the mechanism proposed by Hoyle (ref 30). The dust could also affect climate by seeding the formation of much larger ice crystals. The accreting material could be meteoric, originating as particles too large to give detectable infrared radiation.

Data on noctilucent clouds (mesospheric clouds strongly associated with the effects of high meteors and high altitude dust) supports the hypothesis that accretion increase significantly when the Earth passes through the invariable plane. As shown in Figure 6, a strong peak in the number of observed noctilucent clouds occurs on about July 9 in the northern hemisphere (ref 41, 42) within about a day of the date when the Earth passes through the invariable plane (indicated with an arrow). In the southern hemisphere the peak is approximately on January 9, also consistent with the invariable plane passage, but the data are sparse. The coincidence of the peaks of the clouds with the passage through the invariable plane had not previously been noticed, and it supports the contention that there is a peak in accretion at these times. On about the same date there is a similarly narrow peak is observed in the number of polar mesospheric clouds (ref43) and there is a broad peak in total meteoric flux (ref 44). It is therefore possible that it is the trail of meteors in the upper atmosphere, rather than dust, that is responsible for the climate effects.

Fig 6. Frequency of noctilucent clouds vs. day of year, in (A) the northern hemisphere, and in (B) the sourthern hemisphere (ref 41, 42). The arrows indicate the dates when the earth passes through the invariable plane. The coincidence of these dates with the maxima in the noctilucent clouds suggests the presence of a thin ring around the sun. Peaks on the same dates are seen in Polar mesospheric clouds (ref 44) and in radar counts of meteors.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html
Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006
High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

Increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are expected to enhance/prolong the interglacial conditions.

LOL, and you call attempting to reverse that trend the least risky in your view? That certainly is not my assessment of the situation.

Because our nation's (and the Western world's) fossil fuel energy dependence is critical to the economy and national security, my choice of preferred action is one that shifts us to alternate sources of energy with a correspondingly reduced climate impact. I believe that this is the best course of action, and will yield the most benefits for the economy, national security, and the environment. I believe that there is sufficient justification (on multiple fronts) to pursue this course of action while climate change science addresses the current uncertainties.

Hyping global warming and very ill understood and ill based non-science is hardly conducive to achieving such goals, infact can be quite counter productive in terms of actually turning good science and good policy away for lack of credibility in the "Global Warming" alarmists camp.

If your concerns are actually "our nation's (and the Western world's) fossil fuel energy dependence is critical to the economy and national security," that concern I can share and work toward correcting such through utilization of real energy alternatives such as nuclear power taking the place of fossil fuel energy dependence. In fact such can be supported without any hype from the global warming, world crisis folks of the UN.

I wholly subscribe to the idea that nuclear energy should have been implemented yesterday, and lacking such having been done, it is all the more important to do so now to relieve our dependancing on foreign sources of fossil fuels which impact both our economy and security in our dependance of foreign souces. In the mean time, until broad implementation of nuclear power can be brought on line, we should be turning to alternatives to or current sources of fuel for maintaining and growing our economy in shale oil, oil sand technologies as well as developing our Alaskan and offshore resouces of oil and gas. Going domestic should be the primary goal for the economy as well as national security.

Global Warming hype through the UN/IPCC however is not the way to achieve either of the above for the reasons stated as well as many others involving national sovereignty and independance from foreign entanglements and global government generally.