What ended the Ice Age?

26 Jun 2010

www.physorg.com/print196687173.html June 25th ... scientists know the consensus theory is inadequate - which may come as a surprise to some. All  the textbooks are emphatic - it happened this way and they go on to describe in detail the consensus model of how it came about. The trigger was an orbital shift known as the Milankovitch Cycle. It caused more sunlight to fall across the northern half of the earth where the great ice sheets lay. Herein lies the pig in a cow shed, the disquiet in the scientific camp, misgivings that are never aired in full public view. Basically, the big question is if the Milankovitch Cycle drives the climate how come the southern hemisphere warmed up at exactly the same point in time? This is the conundrum. You can go to the abstract of the article and read the official version or you can bear with me for awhile - and adopt a suspicious line of thought. Even more disconcerting to the consensus model is the swiftness of the change - undeniable as they have ice cores to show it really did happen extremely quickly. I emphasise the word 'quickly' - as in a few years, or less (ice cores are no more specific than that). In a paper in Science researchers point a finger at winds - part of a procession of events. Its an add-on to an already difficult sequence of events that is increasingly the more difficult to unravel. The sheer complication of the consensus model provides an illusion of well laid theory - but is it? Whilst the underlying Milankovitch Cycle can be seen as a background feature scientists have become more desperate to fine tune the model so that climate responds in other ways - and they all hinge on the Ocean Conveyor Belt system, the current bones of the consensus model. In other words, what had been thought to be an 'effect' of climate change has become the 'driver' of climate change - the kick start necessary to take the earth out of the cold Ice Age into the relative warmth of the Holocene. The goal posts are constantly on the move - you get your head around one thing and along comes another bit of research that contradicts everything you had absorbed. For example, the Ice Age was reputed to have come to an end at something like seventeen or eighteen thousand years ago. In this paper we are told that the ice sheets began to melt as early as 20,000 years ago - which previously had been deep in the coldest phase of the Ice Age. Presumably, the models are tuned into the Milankovitch Cycle - which is slow. However, by beginning the melt a bit earlier it obviously allows time for their theory to run - but is there any evidence that ice melt really occurred as early as 20,000 years ago. I suspect this is not the case and it is all about jiggling with numbers and adjusting this to achieve that, etc. Computer simulation is the name of the game nowadays - but is it perverse to tweak a computer to produce melt during the Late Glacial Maximum? Basically, melting ice reconfigured the planet's wind belts, it is alleged, and this produced warm air and in the south it plucked C02 out of the deep ocean into the atmosphere - which was really what caused the climate to heat up. A clever conclusion considering the research was funded by AGW environmentalism as it provides a role in the process for C02 which it did not have previously - which is suspicious to begin with. Very very suspicious - almost to the point of it being a blatant piece of propaganda. However, on reflection one realises that the original warming that caused the wind belts to change has still to be explained - and that does not happen (quite apart from the fact is is supposed to have happened during one of the coldest phases of the last Ice Age). The paper claims that warming in the north triggered by the Milankovitch effect caused the south to warm up and the Ice Age came to an end - almost instantly? The difficulty in accepting this idea are manifest to anyone - scientist or layman. Then we have a caveat - in the ocean conveyor belt theory melting ice in the northern hemisphere as a result of the Milankovitch warming caused cold glacial waters to enter the Atlantic which sparked the Younger Dryas cold period. Hence, we have melting ice creating the opposite situation to what this study is proclaiming. In order to get around this obstacle palaeo-climate scientists claimed that the southern ocean warmed up before the North Atlantic - and actually found evidence that locations such as the South Georgia islands and New Zealand's South Island were actually warmer 3000 years before the warming took place in the north. I don't know if this idea was devised to fool other scientists or the public at large but the end of the Ice Age, in the north, was asscociated with the Oldest Dryas event (now called the Heinrich One event) and that lasted a whopping 3000 years (or two times the magical 1500 year cycle so popular with computer buffs at one time). Puzzle solved. The Ice Age ended at shall we say 18,000 years ago but Heinrich One kicked in until around 15,000 years ago - but meanwhile in the southern hemisphere there is evidence of warming in certain locations at the onset of Heinrich One. Now, the older name of Heinrich One says it all, the Oldest Dryas event, in other words, a similar period to the Younger Dryas event which is currently a matter of debate - one body of maverick scientists claiming that a comet or a cometary stream of dust and debris was responsible while the orthodox scientists maintain the ocean conveyor belt system had switched mode as a result of an inrush of cold glacial waters into the North Atlantic where it had been bottled up since the end of the Ice Age - but precisely where is unknown. This occurred at 12,900 years ago, bringing the warming phase to an abrupt end - but which kicked back in some 1300 years later (originally the magic computer sum of 1500 years). Hence, it is clear that both the Oldest and Younger Dryas events could be accounted for by the Clube and Napier theory in which the earth periodically encountered dense streams of meteoric material from a comet with a short orbit - and periodically that material dissipated into further space - or the earth's orbit took it away into a clean area of space where the atmosphere was not overloaded by dust and debris resulting in an opaque sky and a Sun that was less capable of heating the surface of the world.

The beauty of astronomical models is they can't be proved - one way or the other, in spite of protestations by either side of the debate. Secondly, they give rise to a whole genre of computer simulations - but we don't want to go down that route. Thirdly, they provide the trigger mechanism to switch the wind systems, the ocean conveyor belt system, and so on - but they don't really explain why the south warmed when the north did not (apart from the fact that it is possible the atmosphere in the north was loaded to a greater degree than the south - but that is very unlikely). This suggests physicist Peter Warlow's talk at the last SIS Cambridge Conference might have some mileage - but don't expect mainstream science to give an inch. They really don't like the idea of pole shift or axial change. It is given very short shrift. However, it appears to be a much simpler method to achieve sudden warming - within a year. It explains why certain locations in the south warmed up before the Oldest Dryas event ran its course - South Georgia and New Zealand were instantly moved to a different latitude. In addition, it explains why ice sheets existed in NW Europe and North America in places where they do not now exist - as a result of a different Polar Circle with an epicentre somewhere near the Davis Straits (see the Proceedings). Further, such a change would cause a shift in wind systems - and ocean circulation. The warm ocean currents would be able to penetrate into the far north of the Atlantic whereas before, during the last glacial, this would not have been possible. In addition, it accounts for the rapid changes in sea level around the world - as a result of a changing geoid - the waters of the oceans readjusting themselves to the new pole or tilt in the axis of rotation.