Sunspot Cycle Prediction vs Ice core Data

As announced on Tuesday the sun maybe going into an extended period of reduced activity. This got me thinking about the possible relationship between long term solar cycles and temperature fluctuations on earth. The following measurements were taken from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores as reported by Petit et al., 1999. The ice cores were analysed for temperature variation, CO2 concentration and dust concentration over the last 400000 years.



This graph seems to indicate that we are due for another ice age. The last major falls from maximum temperature to minimum occurred over a relatively short period of time, around 10000 years roughly. This time around our temperature has fallen much slower but the measurements indicate we are on the slippery slope.

Interesting the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

The current consensus is that the long term weather patterns responsible for ice ages are caused by Milankovitch cycles. Milankovitch cycles are cyclical changes of the earth’s axis; its precession,
elliptical orbit and obliquity.

What if there is more to the story? Is it possible that long term cyclical changes in Solar activity are a contributing factor? What if the period of reduced activity was 10000 years rather then a few decades?

That is very interesting. I still wonder how there appeared to be an almost instant freeze over large areas in history, One is the Woolly Mammoth that still had buttercups and other food from a summer field when he was frozen solid. It was found in Siberia I believe. Then I saw a History Channel or Science Channel documentary about glaciers and their retreat. There was a glacier down in South America, I think Peru but not positive, and as it retreated they were finding vegetation that was growing when it was suddenly frozen and buried in ice. I say suddenly because the leaves were still on the plants. Also, thinking about the Woolly Mammoth find, it appears a drop in temperatures was almost instant, probably over hours to a day. How could this be? There was a movie, the 'Day After Tomorrow" where huge storms were high enough that it brought upper atmosphere extremely cold air to the surface and froze everything almost instantly. I thought it was a good sci-fi movie at the time, but now I wonder if it was based on some science that hasn't been touted much in public. Perhaps trying to explain how these instant freezes have happened. I don't know any other way, except maybe a pole shift bringing polar ice down to tropical latitudes and catching the Mammoth and the plants covering them in snow and ice. The Woolly Mammoth did have a broken front leg, which could indicate a mechanical force such as ice and snow hit it at speed breaking the front leg. Regardless, with weather becoming more violent and less predictable across the globe, there could be something to these ideas.

reply to post by AusiAnarchist

Interesting the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

Regarding Vostok, not many folks have seen this..



"...suggests that CO@ increase Lagged Antarctic deglacial warming"...what? I'm pissed, Al Gore never told me that!

Great....I live in MN. What could possibly be colder than a Minnesota winter's night? Colder than that coming my way? Yikes...

reply to post by AusiAnarchist

So what you trying to say that there is a solar cycle of aprox 100.000 years?
I believe and scientists too i think, that the sun has more cycles than only the 11year sunspot cycle, but its hard to get evidence and data for this, they are still working on this, so maybe this new 'announcement' will bring more on this subject.
IMO from your graph there could be a 100.000year solar cycle, wouldn't it be more 'realistic, logic' that the trigger for the beginning and ending of this period comes from elswhere, from a larger scale or event? Lets say a more galactic cycle?
If this data is correct, you can easily see the pattern and we are heading for a new ice age, so whats the trigger?
Is there proof that sunspots affects earths temperature? What causes changes in solar activity,
little ice age wiki says:

NASA defines the term as a cold period between 1550 AD and 1850 AD and notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming

It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming

Yearly average sunspot numbers over the last four centuries
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb955ead82e5.gif[/atsimg]
Monthly average sunspot numbers from 1750 to 2005
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/499d65a51489.gif[/atsimg]
Any correlations here?

What i see in your graph, warm periods are rare, co2 doesnt cause major temp changes, but its the other way round(bad news for mr Gore and his believers) and the dust, i dont know, hotter temps, dryer surface brings more dust?

cseligman.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9bd92020dc96.png[/atsimg]

reply to post by intergalactic fire


Yes that is the suggestion I'm making that approximately every 100'000 years the sun goes into hibernation for about 10000 years. I believe however that it would be a combination of factors that produces an ice age, like a negative feedback situation. Like you suggest, maybe there is a galactic cycle that has influences of which we are not aware. However extended solar minimum at the right point in the Milankovitch cycle, would probably do it in my opinion.

Also I know the differences in scale between Earth, Moon and Sun are huge. However I have often wondered if the planets have some sort of tidal influence on the Sun, just as the Moon has on the Earth. If it is true that the Earth has some influence over solar activity, then moments in the Milankovitch cycle in which Earth has the least possible influence, might result in reduced solar activity.

I agree with you about CO2, clearly there are natural processes that occur that produce CO2 when the temperature rises. It's hard to argue that anthropogenic CO2 causes climate change when we have CO2 levels higher then today's, at points in time when humans are not even a factor.

Unless of course you believe that humans evolve advanced cultures every 100000 years that are subsequently destroyed leaving no physical evidence of their advancements. Think ill stick with the CO2 rise is natural theory.

reply to post by intergalactic fire


That's intresting but what time scale is it? What are your thoughts about what the data suggests?

Another factor is a Pole shift. Upon reading about the Mammoths with their last meals in their mouths I cannot help but realize that a physical pole shift could in fact "flash freeze" a beast in its tracks. I am certain ancient lava flows show magnetic pole shifts but how can we know about the physical poles if they are not experienced by mankind and recorded?

reply to post by AusiAnarchist

However extended solar minimum at the right point in the Milankovitch cycle, would probably do it in my opinion.

Im still doing some searches on this cycle, as it has some problems but it made me thinking of the precession of the equinox.
I am also thinking it could have something to do with different events happening at the right moment, so the one influences the other. But as it clearly shows a pattern, it has to do with returning cycles i think, maybe some sort of alignments... I will get back on that later if i have some more data, knowledge and some imagination on this.

Unless of course you believe that humans evolve advanced cultures every 100000 years that are subsequently destroyed leaving no physical evidence of their advancements. Think ill stick with the CO2 rise is natural theory.

Its unlikely but maybe not that crazy, who knows what realy happens at these moments
But for know i will stick with you.

The timescale is in years, begins at midpoint holocene(which began 11 700 years ago)
+4000BC untill 2000AD.
What i can say for now from the graph is that we have a fairly active sun for the last +-100years according to the previous shown data.
These are some papers on the subject.
cc.oulu.fi...
cc.oulu.fi...
www.mps.mpg.de...

Originally posted by Greensage
Another factor is a Pole shift. Upon reading about the Mammoths with their last meals in their mouths I cannot help but realize that a physical pole shift could in fact "flash freeze" a beast in its tracks. I am certain ancient lava flows show magnetic pole shifts but how can we know about the physical poles if they are not experienced by mankind and recorded?

I am not into that flash freeze theory as there is no evidence that animals have been frozen instantly, for those mammoths that have been found, imo they were trapped in avalanches or fallen into cravesses. And not a 'day after tomorrow' style.

The seafloor shows us geomagnetic poleshifts. I seen a docu about this, were they measured the magnetic direction in the rocks on the seafloor, but i cant seem to find any patterns in this for saying this has something to do with ice ages.

In 1963 Frederick Vine and Drummond Matthews provided a simple explanation by combining the seafloor spreading theory of Harry Hess with the known time scale of reversals: if new sea floor is magnetized in the direction of the field, then it will change its polarity when the field reverses. Thus, sea floor spreading from a central ridge will produce magnetic stripes parallel to the ridge

If you are interesting in the docu i will try and find it back.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by intergalactic fire


You are speculating, a crevasse or canyon you say? I say Not!

reply to post by Greensage

I posted this somewhere else too, will repost it here.

When one looked at the body one had the impression that it must have suddenly fallen into an unexpected fissure in the ice, which it probably came across in its wanderings, and which may have been covered with a layer of plant-bearing mould.Its death must have occurred very quickly after its fall, for we found
half-chewed food still in its mouth, between the back teeth and on its
tongue, which was in good preservation.

www.madsci.org...

reply to post by intergalactic fire


OK, believe what you want by Mad-sci, I highly doubt anyone went back to 1901 to "see the body".

It is funny how we can accept so much in our world but if someone mentions Pole Shift the brain freezes like the New Ice Age; I will keep my mind open, but thanks for the snippet!

Originally posted by Greensage
reply to post by intergalactic fire

 

OK, believe what you want by Mad-sci, I highly doubt anyone went back to 1901 to "see the body".

It is funny how we can accept so much in our world but if someone mentions Pole Shift the brain freezes like the New Ice Age; I will keep my mind open, but thanks for the snippet!

Nothing to do with believe, just sounds more logic to me that it was just an accident. If there was a flash freeze we would find all sorts of animals very well preserved in the most strangest positions for whatever they were doing.
That was the only article i found on mammoths who still had meals in their mounth.
whole article www.talkorigins.org...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b20c94050349.png[/atsimg]
According to this data temperature drops more slowly than temp rise.
If there was a flash freeze scenario wouldnt we see a massive drop in little or no time?