It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Glacial-Interglacial Cycles - Is it, like punk, just a phase?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 08:23 AM
We as a people have a proclivity to point fingers and assume that we are capable of destroying just about everything we touch. While true; in some cases it is more warranted than others.

I've been on the fence about global warming/climate change for a long time. And for those of you already preparing to angrily type at me, being a "Denier" isn't about saying it is, or isn't happening. Being a "denier" is about mankind's indelible, primary role in it's happening.

So, to begin-

Just about everything on Earth happens in cycles. It has been doing its own thing for a very, very long time- and has gotten pretty practiced at it. Among these cycles is something termed Glaciation. In layman's terms, it's the result of the Earth heating and cooling, largely due to CO2, solar radiation, and Thermohaline circulation

So looking back hundreds of thousands of years at datasheets showing levels of CO2, there is a lot of fluctuation. Mostly due to CO2 being trapped in ice during ice ages, which eventually melt with a build up of solar radiation, and THC (thermohaline circulation), and are released en masse, increasing the greenhouse effect and so on.

This is all pretty well understood.

What I come to you to discuss today is- Are we on the cusp of a global cooling? The Younger Dryas period was about twelve thousand years ago, and the periods in between cooling cycles are around 23,000 years long (also called the Precession of the Equinoxes^)

During these warming cycles, throughout history, the Earth's temperature has grown incredible amounts, which might explain what we've seen throughout our recorded time.

In the end; the question remains- Are we smack dab in the middle of a warming cycle? Will it continue to get hotter, due to the glacial/interglacial cycle? Are we 5, 10 thousand years from the next ice age?

And what does it mean for our distant relatives? Does humanity have only this small window of time to flourish?

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 08:52 AM

The Younger Dryas period was about twelve thousand years ago, and the periods in between cooling cycles are around 23,000 years long (also called the Precession of the Equinoxes^)

What is called Precession of the Equinoxes?

In astronomy, axial precession is a gravity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of an astronomical body's rotational axis. In particular, it can refer to the gradual shift in the orientation of Earth's axis of rotation in a cycle of approximately 25,772 years. Earth's precession was historically called the precession of the equinoxes,

Lol, Dry-ass Period.

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 08:58 AM
a reply to: RickOShea

Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”).

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: Iconic

Your source is incorrect there. But yeah, climate change is obviously cyclic and I dont buy that humans have a large effect on it. For instance, sea levels have been steadily rising by the same small amount for over a century, invalidating the idea that it is due to human caused release of co2.
edit on 31-7-2019 by RickOShea because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:12 AM
a reply to: RickOShea

The precession of the equinoxes refers to the observable phenomena of the rotation of the heavens, a cycle which spans a period of (approximately) 25,920 years, over which time the constellations appear to slowly rotate around the earth, taking turns at rising behind the rising sun on the vernal equinox.

The time period being roughly 23-26k years, is the precession of the equinoxes.

It seems you're mistaken. Quibbling semantics is not what this thread is about, though. Welcome to ATS.

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:18 AM
a reply to: Iconic

being roughly 23-26k years,


approximately 25,772 years

It seems you're mistaken.


Quibbling semantics is not what this thread is about,

You mean getting your facts straight?

Welcome to ATS


posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:23 AM
a reply to: RickOShea

Oh, I'm sure you'll fit right in.

The difference of +-1.5 thousand years when talking that time range, and when by definition the time range is approximate, I fail to see what your point is, as it is insignificant.

Using a term that means ROUGHLY the same time range is also,


Now please- do you have anything to add to the discussion I'm proposing? Or do you want to talk about word choice when referencing some extremely small detail of one of my links?

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:25 AM
Ehhhh Emmm!

PUNK was most definitely NOT a phase!!

I live it daily and have since I was 12 or 13. Didn't fit well with the Army but, hey, Punk Rock, bitches!!

Global Warming/Cooling/Whatever. I'm skeptical but, punk rock? Not a phase!!

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:27 AM
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

The vandals, Dead Milkmen, Casualties, Kennedies, Bouncing Souls etc all still have their place on my playlists

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: Iconic

The difference of +-1.5 thousand years when talking that time range, and when by definition the time range is approximate, I fail to see what your point is, as it is insignificant.

Sigh. If you think there is a 1500(2772 actually......) year uncertainty to that "approximately 25,772 year" number, I dont know what to tell you.....the axial precession of Earth is an approximately 25,772 year cycle. Not 23,000. This is not a debate.

Now please- do you have anything to add to the discussion I'm proposing?

I did.

Or do you want to talk about word choice when referencing some extremely small detail of one of my links?

If you just acknowledged the correction there would be no need to discuss this further.

edit on 31-7-2019 by RickOShea because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 12:18 PM
Crustal displacement makes more sense as far as glaciation, unfortunately for us.

Punk is still around in its offspring.

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: Baddogma

how so?

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 01:00 PM
a reply to: Iconic

how so?

As to crustal displacement or punk's dna infusing bits of music?

As to crustal displacement, the bands of tropical coral remains found in the polar regions is a biggie; as is the mapping of prior glaciations looking like displaced polar ice caps. Add in the temperate flora and fauna piled up in the arctic regions and the crustal displacement ideas seem to fit better.

posted on Jul, 31 2019 @ 10:13 PM
When it comes to the weather the only constant is change. There are many factors to our environment that we are still learning about and influences beyond our control. It has been very helpful to identify and measure many of the variables involved for a clearer picture and more accurate forecast.

Finding the link between SO2 and acid rain helped get some deforestation under control. CFC's have declined in production but still an economic issue for some. This is a longer term issue and will be with Earth for some time as it's UV shield gets damage.

How Earth orbits the Sun as its ages is also a factor in long term weather forecasts.

posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 07:17 AM
The Neoglacial began around 5-6,000 years ago. The Earth has been cooling since then due to declining axial tilt. This is most noticeable at the poles. The phase will continue for a couple of thousand or so more years. But it won't be enough to trigger a new Glacial.

Or, at least, that was the case. Something seems to have gone wrong and over the past few decades, instead of polar ice sheets increasing, they are very rapidly decreasing as temperatures rise instead of fall - even though axial tilt is still declining. There is no known natural explanation for this unexpected turn of events ......

posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:29 PM
a reply to: Iconic
Some sources have said we were about due for another ice age, ending the current interglacial period. The Earth seems to spend more time covered in glaciers than in the warmer periods like we have now.

One cause of the glaciation cycles is thought to be Milankovich cycles, which very likely have a lot to do with it, but I'm not sure the glaciation cycles are fully understood or fully explained by Milankovich cycles.

Though they are consistent with the Milankovitch hypothesis, there are still several observations that the hypothesis does not explain.

Anyway if a cold glacial period was coming, we've probably delayed it at least some thousands of years by increasing the atmospheric CO2 which will keep the planet warmer for some time. However when all the fossil fuels are expended, then we will no longer be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, and after some time the CO2 levels will normalize to more natural levels, and glaciation cycles will return.

This article explains one point of view about this. It could be right.

Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age

Will the greenhouse effect prevent the return of glaciers?
The article discusses the effects of man-made increases in CO2 levels, then explains the expected warming effects from that, followed by return of glaciation.

average temperatures might well rise by about 5 degrees C–with devastating effects for us earthlings, such as rising sea levels and dramatic changes in weather patterns.

But even that warming will not stave off the eventual return of huge glaciers, because ice ages last for millennia and fossil fuels will not.In about 300 years, all available fossil fuels may well have been consumed.Over the following centuries, excess carbon dioxide will naturally dissolve into the oceans or get trapped by the formation of carbonate minerals. Such processes won’t be offset by the industrial emissions we see today, and atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline toward preindustrial levels. In about 2,000 years, when the types of planetary motions that can induce polar cooling start to coincide again, the current warming trend will be a distant memory.

This means that humanity will be hit by a one-two punch the likes of which we have never seen. Nature is as unforgiving to men as it was to dinosaurs; advanced civilization will not survive unless we develop energy sources that curb the carbon emissions heating the planet today and help us fend off the cold when the ice age comes.
I don't know if man can "fend off the cold when the ice age comes". New York City was under a mile thick ice sheet during the last glacier so it's not a matter of turning up the heater in your apartment, and the world can't feed 9 billion people if much of our current farmland becomes glaciers.

So long term I think humanity will likely suffer a lot more from not being able to feed everyone when the next glaciers come, than from global warming, but it's likely none of us will live to see the next glaciation period because of the high CO2 levels now. It's something people should think about when planning for the future though.

The question I have is, if man is unable to prevent the next glaciation, how many humans can the planet feed with the glaciers in place? Whatever that number is, should be a population goal for the future, through families having fewer children which is already happening to some extent in some first world countries, like I think the population of Japan is expected to stop growing and start shrinking. They think it's a bad thing but it might be a good thing if there aren't too many mouths to feed when the next glacier is in full force.

Here's a blast from the past, a show about the coming ace age, but since this show was made the CO2 increase has meant this will be delayed...but not prevented completely.

In Search Of... The Coming Ice Age

posted on Aug, 1 2019 @ 08:56 PM
Just want to toss this into the fray.

A new study by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) clarifies what influence major currents in the North Atlantic have on sea level along the northeastern United States. The study, published June 13 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, examined both the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—a conveyor belt of currents that move warmer waters north and cooler waters south in the Atlantic—and historical records of sea level in coastal New England.

So what you say? Well sew buttons there's more.
Also from:

Nick Balascio explained that the Gulf Stream/Deep Water system is known as the AMOC, or Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Balascio, an assistant professor in William & Mary's Department of Geology, is a member of a group of scientists that found evidence that changes in the strength of AMOC can serve as an precursor to massive future climate changes.
Their findings were published in the journal Nature Communications in a paper "Deep-water circulation changes lead North Atlantic climate during deglaciation." Deglaciation, or the widespread melting of glaciers, have triggered massive shifts in climate. Balascio explains that the team's evidence shows that a strengthening in the AMOC flow was a precursor to a sudden warming trend about 11,000 years ago.
Conversely, a weakening AMOC was followed by what is known as the Younger Dryas stadial, a major cooling period about 13,000 years ago. Balascio pointed out that each shift in AMOC strength preceded the climactic shift by the same amount of time—around 400 years.

So in other words;
"raising sea levels means colder temps in the northern hemisphere"

Since we all know that the sea levels are raising (since we all keep being told about it), are we going to accept that it's the first step of a new glacial period?

posted on Aug, 13 2019 @ 02:40 AM
Sorry but i can't help myself:


top topics


log in