100 000 Year Discrepancy & Ice-ages

100 000 Year Discrepancy & Ice-ages

Disclaimer – “This thread is based on facts, theories, hypothesis as well as personal conclusions and therefore should be taken with a pinch of salt”

Earth’s Internal System:
1) Albedo effect
2) Atmospheric composition
3) Clouds
4) Ice levels, Sea levels & Ocean currents
5) Land mass positions
6) Volcanic eruptions & Impacts
8) Earthquakes & Plate tectonics

Albedo effect:
Ice sheets increase Earth's reflectivity and thus reduce the absorption of solar radiation (heat). This in turn could contribute to either side if a balancing point is reach for expanding or declining.

Atmospheric composition:
Not to be discussed. There are enough threads on ATS as climate seems to be third behind the political and WW3-news threads.
I will however mention that the atmospheric composition (thickness) will have an effect on sound waves (sonic booms that is of a higher volume), greater temperatures fluctuations in cooling and warming extremes, political motivated scientific fiascos, etc.

Clouds:
More clouds mean less solar radiation (less heat) and visa versa. Low altitude clouds have a net cooling effect as their "whiteness" is more important than their "blanket" effect.

Ice levels, Sea levels & Ocean currents:
Ice levels influence sea levels that directly affect ocean currents and its salinity which all contribute towards the water evaporation into the atmosphere. The more ice the less rain Earth will receive.

Landmass positions:
As long as the continent of Antarctica exists at the southern pole of our planet we will be repeatedly pulled back into glacial ice ages. Ice caps cannot maintain great thickness over open oceans but can achieve great thickness over a continent especially in a polar position. No amount of warming in our current cyclic patterns can or will deplete the ice in Antarctica as long as it is on the South Pole - period.

Volcanic eruptions & Impacts:
Dependable on size and aerosols released volcanic eruptions & impacts can cause quick warming/cooling, severe destruction, famine and extinctions. Although it can be for prolonged periods their influence always seem short-term in relation to temperature spikes in data sets. In short – They can be seen as fast variations and cooling triggers but not long lasting cyclic ice-ages. But there is nobody alive to tell us what would happen because of a mega-burp or hit, however at 640 000 years ago Yellowstone erupted and that didn’t seem to have any effect on the ice-age following it.

Earthquakes & Plate tectonics:
It has more to do with local destruction's that could affect air, sea currents and river directions. However on a longer time scale it completely change the way Earth would look with the reshuffling of continents.

Solar System and Beyond:
1) The Sun, Solar radiation & wind
2) Earth Orbital Cycles (Milankovitch Cycles)
3) Cosmic radiation
4) Earths Magnetic field
5) Ad-hock events

The Sun, Solar radiation & wind:
It does not matter if our Sun has 1 or 2 dynamos’ – it is a variable star because of Angular Momentum (AM) that controls the solar radiation/wind. The 11 year cycle is linked to Jupiter/Earth/Venus motion. The 30-60 year cycle (cooling/warming) is linked to the Jupiter/Saturn motion. The 172 year/208 year cycle (which is the same cycle) is linked to the Jovian planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. The De Vries cycle is only detectable outside Grand Minimum periods when the Uranus and Neptune conjunction perturbations do not have the strength to overshadow the leading Jupiter/Saturn (AM). Therefore the shifts between 172 and 208 year cycles

Earth Orbital Cycles (Milankovitch Cycles):
Earth’s wobble while spinning on its axis called Precession, degree of tilt in its axis called Obliquity and orbit called Eccentricity are well documented and proven in various data-sets. I will discus my view why the 100 000 year cycle is overruling the stronger 41,000 year cycle in the conclusion.

Cosmic radiation:
Cosmic rays are the high-energy particles coming from outside the solar system. Their density and the strength of the Sun will determine the amount of cosmic radiation the Earth receives. Cosmic radiation is directly link to Volcano frequencies, plate tectonics movement and earthquake increases.

Earths Magnetic field:
Earths Magnetic field strength is our first line of defense due to the amount of radiation it deflects (like a shield).

Ad-hock events:
This is where all the bad boys fit in from close range Super-nova events, rouge Stars, Planet X’s and comet strikes that can make alterations to our Solar System changing our cycles

Conclusion:
Earth is on a cyclic path slowly getting colder with bigger extremes. The proof is in the data-sets.

The why is in plate tectonics and the landmass distribution. Due to plate tectonics the landmasses on Earth always move around and ice caps cannot build thickness over open oceans but can achieve great thickness over a continent especially in a polar position. Earth will get colder with more landmasses in Polar Regions and hotter with few or none in Polar Regions.

The 41 000 year cycle slowly start moving to the background as the landmass Antarctica moved closer to the South Pole collecting more ice. Only after collecting the balancing amount of permanent ice did the 100 000 cycle break through to look like the main cycle. The reverse will be true as the landmass Antarctica moves away from the South Pole. The longer Antarctica stay on the South Pole and the ice sheet above the balancing point the more severely ice-ages will become.

Therefore we will need many more “Larsen C Ice Shelves” to break of to divert Earth form getting even colder in coming ice-ages. This in turn will cool down the oceans with a balancing effect on extremes like the now famous CO2 and El Niño’s. If it wasn’t for Antarctica’s position Earth would have been hotter which is not a bad thing, as we are below the comfortable average level and could easily trigger back into an full blown ice-age. Ice-age ages are brutal and dry.

Cheers

a reply to: ICycle2

This is my current "pet topic". I understand the cycle to be 100,000 years of ice age followed by 12,000 years of temperate weather...but can that be right? It doesn't seem like enough time for the flora and fauna to have recovered. Perhaps you know?

a reply to: MissSmartypants

I do not know but my best guess is "yes". They can reestablish quickly because ice-ages do not completely cover Earth and once the ice declines there are many ways for the flora & fauna to follow suit.

a reply to: ICycle2

Well written, but it smells fishy. For one, Continental drift is measured in millions of years, not 100,000. Antarctica has and will stay put for longer than that cycle.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

I think you misinterpreted the thread as there is now way Antarctica can move from the pole in 100 000 years

The Antarctic region started to influence Earth’s climate from around 35 million years ago when our world starts cooling down but it’s only the past million years that the balancing point was reached. That is when the 100 000 year cycle starts to dominate the ice-age cycle. The 41 000 year cycle will always stay the strongest influence in our current solar system cyclic patterns.

a reply to: ICycle2

Aren't you forgetting an important factor in your research? Earth's vegetation covers 20% of the planet. Plant life contributes directly to cloud formation, affects our weather patterns, general climate, and plants are the primary source of our atmospheric oxygen. Plants contribute directly to stabilizing the Earth's climate. Pretty important piece of the puzzle.

a reply to: ICycle2

I have friends and a cousin nearby who are debating this right now. It's an interesting subject i admit. With all the activity going on in the arctic, i try to keep an open mind about it as much as possible, and tend to observe a bit more than dive into. It's a good thread though and something worth going over for those who are interested in climate shift.

a reply to: ICycle2

Good thread and you did cover some of the things that some wish were not ever present.. S&F

I doubt many will take the time to listen to this video which covers much that is discussed in this thread... It is not emotional or laced with made up GW BS. Just the facts about solar minimums cosmic rays and ice and cloud cover.
youtu.be...

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: ICycle2

This is my current "pet topic". I understand the cycle to be 100,000 years of ice age followed by 12,000 years of temperate weather...but can that be right? It doesn't seem like enough time for the flora and fauna to have recovered. Perhaps you know?

Where I live the glaciers only receded about 10,000 years ago. Genetic studies found a lot of fish subspecies here only diverged from their superspecies about 10,000 years ago. Most of the land forms were formed by receding glaciers about 10,000 years ago. Prior to that my area was under 1km of ice.

originally posted by: MissSmartypants
a reply to: ICycle2

This is my current "pet topic". I understand the cycle to be 100,000 years of ice age followed by 12,000 years of temperate weather...but can that be right? It doesn't seem like enough time for the flora and fauna to have recovered. Perhaps you know?

Earth is what, some 4.3 Billion years old.
The 100,000 year cycle is only a relatively 'new' thing in the history of our planet, it's one of the reasons why the boreal forest exists, it's hardy and can adapt quickly, just like humans.

To be honest, plate tectonics play more of a role on the whole ice age thing than anything. The only reasons why Antarctica is so cold and full of a large amount of ice is because a continent is stuck down there and the waters around it are stuck in a perpetual motion swirling around the land mass cooling the air and waters around it. This has a major impact on a global scale. If that ice is melting, it's telling us something.

Go back to an emerging super continent and I don't think ice ages would be a thing.

I think you have to answer one question. Forget any Earth bound reasons except the Earths axis. The question is just why there is ice accumulation at the poles?
It has nothing to do with antarctic land mass or arctic over water, plate tectonics or any Earth bound activity.
It is one thing only and that is because the poles get colder in their winter time because they are farthest from the suns warmth and influence, hence the seasons. The angle of the Earth relative to the Sun.
Now what you have to include in your assessments is the fact that animals in Siberia have been flash frozen a couple of thousand years ago with scientists coming to the conclusion that the actual North Pole ( not the magnetic pole that's moving towards Siberia now but the physical North Pole) had suddenly slipped hundreds of miles South virtually in days not months or years.
You have actual archaeological maps showing Antarctica free of ice. Do not dismiss these as flights of fancy they actually exist. So then how does this fit the theory that the Antarctic land mass has held onto the ice for thousands of years before man.

a reply to: crayzeed

I'm glad you have the answer because mine is with a pinch of salt

a reply to: crayzeed

The poles being 'cold' is a rather given and should be assumed they would be considering they are furthest from the suns rays.

Also, you are still talking in terms of thousands of years here. The fossil record goes back MILLIONS of years. Hundreds of millions.

Pangaea has tremendously affected the setup of the world now. We live in a post Pangaea time period where the reconfiguration of continents and oceans has changed the climate of many areas. There is scientific evidence that proves that climate was drastically altered. When the continents separated and reformed themselves, it changed the flow of the oceanic currents and winds. The scientific reasoning behind all of the changes is Continental Drift. The theory of Continental Drift, created by Alfred Wegener, explained how the continents shifted Earth’s surface and how that affected many aspects such as climate, rock formations found on different continents and plant and animal fossils.[29] Wegener studied plant fossils from the frigid Arctic of Svalbard, Norway. He determined that such plants were not meant to adapt to a glacial climate. The fossils he found were from tropical plants that were meant to adapt and thrive in warmer and tropical climate.[30] Because we would not assume that the plant fossils were capable of traveling to a different place we suspect that Svalbard possibly had a warmer, less frigid climate in the past.[31] When Pangaea separated, the reorganization of the continents changed the function of the oceans and seaways. The restructuring of the continents, changed and altered the distribution of warmth and coolness of the oceans. When North America and South America connected, it stopped equatorial currents from passing from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.[32] Researchers have found evidence by using computer hydrological models to show that this strengthened the Gulf Stream by diverting more warm currents towards Europe. Warm waters at high latitudes led to an increased evaporation and eventually atmospheric moisture. Increased evaporation and atmospheric moisture resulted in increased precipitation. Evidence of increased precipitation is the development of snow and ice that covers Greenland, which led to an accumulation of the icecap. Greenland’s growing ice cap led to further global cooling.[32] Scientists also found evidence of global cooling through the separation of Australia and Antarctica and the formation of the Antarctic Ocean. Ocean currents in the newly formed Antarctic or Southern Ocean created a circumpolar current.[32] The creation of the new ocean that caused a circumpolar current eventually led to atmospheric currents that rotated from west to east. Atmospheric and oceanic currents stopped the transfer of warm, tropical air and water to the higher latitudes. As a result of the warm air and currents moving northward, Antarctica cooled down so much that it became frigid. Although many of Alfred Wegener’s theories and conclusions were valid, scientists are constantly coming up with new innovative ideas or reasoning behind why certain things happen. Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift was later replaced by the theory of tectonic plates

Taken from Wikipedia

All the citations are there.

So yes, in I guess theory, but a well thought out and supported by a lot of evidence that plate tectonics DID play a massive role on climate change. Ice and glacial formation on the southern parts of Pangaea, follow by it's drifting form, was rather minimal, the amount of ice at the southern pole is probably the most this planet has ever seen.

My thread seems to create some misunderstanding about the timelines:

Antarctica only started to influence our climate around 35 million years ago. It was only once it was close enough to the South Pole that it starts gathering and retaining ice. Since then the ice accumulation became so large that around a million years ago a balancing point was reached where the 41,000 year (tilt) seems to play second fiddle to the weaker 100,000 year cycle. It’s basically an optical elision induced by the size and thickness of the accumulated ice. Because of this problem the Milankovitch Cycles was not accepted at first. Only after the data started to prove the 100.000 year cycle, science accepted it, but the discrepancy stayed.

Closed.
UPDATED here
www.abovetopsecret.com...