Pages

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Ian Bradford: A mini ice age may have already begun - are you prepared?

Milankovich cycles

Milankovich cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements on its climate over thousands of years. In the eyes of Milutin Milankovich there has been a noticeable trend in climate, temperature and seasons due to this cycle. We can accredit these long term climate changes to three variations in geometry between the Earth and the sun.  

Milankovich was a Serbian geophysicist and astronomer who in the 1920’s hypothesized that variations in the Earth’s eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession combined to result in cyclical variations in the intra-annual and altitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the Earth’s surface, and that this strongly influenced the Earth’s climatic patterns. 

Orbital eccentricity       

The Earth revolves around the sun in an approximately circular orbit. However, roughly every 100,000 years this orbit becomes more eccentric, i.e. the orbit becomes more like an ellipse, (egg shaped). So the Earth goes from a circular orbit to a more elliptical one. This is due to the gravitational pull of neighbouring planets-particularly the larger ones.  Because of its orbital eccentricity, the distance of the Earth from the sun varies. It can be a longer distance from the sun causing it to cool, or a shorter distance causing it to warm more.   










Axial tilt – Obliquity

This is the angle of the Earth’s tilt with respect to the orbital plane. This angle varies between 22.1 deg and 24.5 deg over a cycle of some 41,000 years.  The current tilt is about 23.44 deg roughly halfway between its extreme values. The tilt last reached its maximum in 8700 BC and is now in its decreasing phase of its cycle. Increased tilt provides more solar radiation in each hemisphere’s summer and less in winter. The current trend of decreasing tilt by itself will promote warmer winters and colder summers as well as an overall cooling trend. 










Axial precession

Axial precession is the trend in the direction of the Earth’s axis of rotation relative to the fixed stars. It takes about 25,000 years to complete one cycle. It is mostly the gravitational pull of the sun and moon that cause precession. This tilt will determine how much more or less each hemisphere will receive of the sun’s radiation. For example in about 10,000 years the North pole will be tilted towards the sun when the Earth is at perihelion - that’s its closest position to the sun. Axial tilt and orbital eccentricity will both contribute to the maximum increase in solar radiation during the northern hemisphere summer. 


 








Research in more recent times has shown that ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciations over the last million years have been at a period of 100,000 years which matches Milankovich’s  eccentricity cycle. Jung-Eun of Brown University proposes that precession changes the amount of energy that the Earth absorbs, because the southern hemisphere’s greater ability to grow sea ice reflects more energy away from Earth. From 1 to 3 million years ago climate cycles matched the 41,000 year cycle of obliquity. After one million years ago the Mid- Pleistocene Transition occurred with a switch to the 100,000 year cycle matching eccentricity. 

It is clear that orbital variations are predictable. Any model that relates orbital variations to climate can be run forward to predict future climate. 

It is also clear that these changes in the Earth orbit, tilt, and precession must have a serious effect on the Earth’s climate.

Milankovich cycles give us the long term variation in climate.  

What about the sun, and the movement of the sun, and what is going on inside the sun

The sun is the source of energy for the Earth and all the planets. Most people think the sun sits at one spot and the planets orbit it. However, the sun also moves. It’s to do with centre of mass (centre of gravity), and the gravitational forces that exist between the planets and the sun. If two masses are spheres ( as the planets are nearly), then the law of gravitation says if we have just two planets that there is a force of attraction between them that depends on their masses and on the square of the distance of separation. So the bigger the masses and the closer they are the bigger the force of attraction. 

I was going to include the physics of the movement of the planets and the sun, which is quite straightforward, but I realise many reading this will not have any physics, so have kept it simple. The four large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, have the biggest influence on the Sun. As the planets move around in their orbits, the Sun under their influence moves in a series of spiral type paths. The net result is that the Sun has been slowly moving closer to the Earth. This has happened over a long history. As the Sun moves closer to Earth it raises the temperature here. This solar cycle lasts for 2100-2300 years and is known as Hallstatts cycle of solar radiation. The current cycle will come to an end about 2600. Professor Zharkova predicts a temperature rise of about 3.5 Deg C by the year 2600. She states that Carbon Dioxide plays no part. She states that only uneducated people can come up with the idea that CO2 should be removed from the air. Humans are merely bystanders and we cannot change the Sun nor the orbits of the planets. 










The path of the sun from 1944 to 2020. The black dots give the position of the sun.

This movement of the sun clearly explains why the northern hemisphere is having hot summers and very cold winters with record low temperatures. (Though we never hear about the cold temperatures in the media- only the high summer ones.)  

The Sun-Earth distance changes, in spite of the fact that the IPCC have said the Sun-Earth distance is constant. Clearly the IPCC do not want the sun to play any part in global warming. 

What about inside the Sun?  The Sun has a magnetic field with north and south poles which switch over every 11 years and consequently so does solar activity and the amount of radiation. Solar activity is usually classified by the numbers of sunspots, appearing on the Sun’s surface generated by the solar dynamo mechanism acting in the Sun’s interior. The periodic appearance of sunspots is related to the solar background magnetic field and can be used as a measure of solar activity. In other words, the more sunspots the greater the Sun’s activity.  Sunspots appear dark because they are cooler than the rest of the Sun. They are still at a temperature of about 4200 Deg C.   

The changeover of the magnetic poles takes 11 years. A changeover is a cycle.    These cycles are numbered. The numbering began in 1755. We are currently in cycle 25 which began in 2020.  

The following gives the sunspot numbers from 1980 to 2040. 2030 to 2040 have been calculated. The number of sunspots has been falling off since 1980.  




Two magnetic waves resulting from two dynamos in the interior of the Sun interfere forming maxima and minima of solar cycles. There is a minima coming up in Cycle 26 with the magnetic field nearly zero. The discovery of the double dynamo action in the Sun brought us a timely warning about the upcoming Grand Solar Minimum. 

Mathematical derivations show there are Grand Solar Cycles every 350-400 years caused by the interference of the two magnetic waves. These grand cycles are separated by the Grand Solar Minima, or periods of very low solar activity. The previous Grand Solar Minimum was the Maunder Minimum 1645-1710, and the one before that the Wolf minimum1270-1350. In the next 500 years there will be two modern grand solar minima the first from 2020 to 2053 and the second in the 24th century 2370-2415. 

So the first modern grand solar minimum has already started. 

In 2020 the sun saw 115 spotless days, (or 78%).

The movement of the sun and the 11 year solar cycles give us the reasons for climate change over shorter intervals. Some of these changes are very quick, like the Younger Dryas.   

What are the consequences? 

From 1645 to 1710 the temperature across much of the Northern Hemisphere of the Earth plunged when the Sun entered a quiet phase now called the Maunder Minimum. The total solar irradiance was reduced by 0.22%. That led to a decrease in the measured temperature in the Northern Hemisphere by 1-1.5 Deg C. This seemingly small decrease in the average temperature led to frozen rivers, cold long winters and cold summers.  The surface temperature was reduced all over the globe, especially in the countries of the Northern Hemisphere. Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: Alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland, sea ice crept south from the Arctic, and the Thames froze regularly during these years as well as the famous canals of the Netherlands. 

There was another factor too. The reduction in the solar magnetic field led to an increase in cosmic rays. Cosmic rays are charged particles emitted from such things as exploding stars. These cosmic rays seeded clouds in the upper atmosphere which further added to lower temperatures.  It is expected the temperature will lower by about 1deg C in this mini ice age. From about 2053 in cycle 28 temperatures will return to normal, and the temperature will continue to rise as the sun gets even closer to the Earth.

There are going to be major problems. Solar panels in many places will be covered in snow much of the time. The same snow and ice will make wind turbine blades out of balance and they will disintegrate. Wind turbines will not be able to be operated. There will not be enough electricity in many places and many (probably millions), will die of cold. Then there is the food question. In many areas, food will no longer be able to be grown. Millions will not only die of cold but of starvation also. Animals may not be able to be fed because the crops to feed them may not be able to be grown.









Solar panels- not much use if they are under snow.

Instead of investing in wind farms and solar farms, all investment should be in nuclear power. Modern nuclear power stations are very safe. Wind and solar are going nowhere. Wouldn’t it be a good idea to err on the safe side and build nuclear power stations just in case?  That would at least provide energy right around the clock and prevent large numbers of people dying from cold.  

The predictability of another mini ice age is very credible because the solar cycles have been maintained for a long period of time and this enables us to see the grand solar cycles formed by the interference of the two internal magnetic waves. These grand cycles are always separated by grand solar minimum of the Maunder type. We should know by 2030 if this cold spell is happening. 

Footnote: Professor Zharkova who has researched this, has experienced attempts at silencing her, plus persecution. The editor of Nature Scientific refused to publish one of her scientific articles under pressure from the proponents of anthropogenic global warming. This retraction is the case she says for anyone who questions man made global warming and explains climate change in any other way.  These people she refers to as the CO2 mafia! She did eventually get her article published. 

To me this is a good sign. It shows that she is considered a threat to the anthropogenic global warming fraud which groups like the IPCC want to keep rolling. To them, the sun plays no part. It’s that 4% of human produced CO2 that causes climate change. 













Ian Bradford, a science graduate, is a former teacher, lawyer, farmer and keen sportsman, who is writing a book about the fraud of anthropogenic climate change.    

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ian - not sure that Milankovich cycles are part of the matauraunga "science" that is being indoctrinated into our impressionable new scientists ?

But thank goodness, people like yourself can, and do bring real science to the public's attention.

Thank you for bring Milankovich cycles up again - its reality.

Perhaps also, you might like to write about the effects of burning up thousand tons of aluminum in the upper atmosphere from thousands of expended Starlink satellites ?

This aluminum oxide will stop UV from reaching the surface of earth, compared with the release of freon gases into the upper atmosphere which opened up the ozone hole over the Antartica allowing great amounts of destructive UV.
Its never happened before and its possibly it irreversible.

Rob Beechey said...

While you have brain dead politicians caught up in this Global Warming hoax and Net Zero nonsense, no meaningful energy investment will prepare our country for colder weather. Isn’t it time to have an intelligent conversation and show some leadership

Anonymous said...

More stale, dodgy assertions from AGW denialists that are long refuted.

See articles on Climate Feedback:
– For Milankovich cycles, web search "Ian Plimer at Sky News falsely claims that a new study announces an incoming ice age"
– Valentina Zharkova’s predictions, unsupported by the best scientific understanding, which is why doubtless she has struggled to get published in credible scientific journals, web search "claims of a coming 30-year mini ice age are not supported by science"

LFC

Ewan McGregor said...

Well, here’s a thought for Rob Beechey to consider: If you want “to have an intelligent conversation and show some leadership” on the issue of climate change, maybe a good start would be to avoid such language as “brain dead politicians caught up in this Global Warming hoax and Net Zero nonsense”.

Anonymous said...

The CO2 mafia believe the sun is a fixed giant light bulb emitting a constant amount of light and heat, at the centre of a near concentric circular planetary system. According to them this means the sun plays little or no part in determining the earth's climate. Grasping the significance of this level of scientific observation and deduction is way beyond them - or so it would appear. Ian, thank you. This is long overdue for a public airing.
Rob, you're right. The politicians need to wake up and have the guts to at least start questioning the CO2 Mafia.

anonTeslaOwner said...

What utter rubbish. Milankovic cycles are factored into all climate models, and have been for decades.
Please post facts instead of ill-informed rants.
You are doing exactly what you accuse climate commentators of doing.

Anonymous said...

This is a great explanation of minor climate change issues Ian, but it does not account for the ferocious melt down of the last ice age, about 15-18k years ago, leading into the Holocene. One theory relates to the shifting of the entire lithosphere, thereby moving the two poles some thousands of k from their previous locations. That rather makes minor changes entirely inconsequential. Read Hapgood for the details.

Anonymous said...

@anonTelsaOwner, you may be correct, but a person who accepts losing 40%pa plus per year on their vehicle is sensible for the planet, yet alone their own pocket, is hardly someone with a lot of credibility/sense. But then, climate catastrophists are aren't usually rational either.

Anonymous said...

Don't you all realize that after 4.5 billion years the planet's climate finally stabilized around 1800, and was destined to never change again.
And all evolution stopped.

anonTeslaOwner said...

@anonymous - I don't care about depreciation because I drive all my cars into the ground before I buy a new one. I do that for my Utes as well as cars. BTW, almost any new car depreciates around 30% as soon as you drive it off the lot. The calculation that you should care about is total lifetime cost. I charge my Tesla on solar, it has no maintenance costs, so it costs me almost nothing long term (apart from RUC's but fair enough, got to pay for roads). Also, my Tesla drives so much better than any other car I've ever driven so enjoyment is a much more important factor that depreciation.

anonTeslaOwner said...

@anonymous - If you actually care about understanding an issue, perhaps you should rely on actual facts when debating issues, instead of puerile snide attacks on someone because of their car choice.

Anonymous said...

I am trying to gauge the overall reliability of the information in this article. The article includes the statement “In 2020 the sun saw 115 spotless days, (or 78%).” What is this meant to mean and how does this information relate to the article as a whole. Clearly 115 days is not 78% of a year and neither is 240 days. Feedback from Ian Bradford would be appreciated.

Rob Beechey said...

Another great essay Ian. Keep up the good work. The Alarmists are certainly getting their tits in a tangle.

Ian Bradford said...

Replying to anonymous just above. Interesting how alarmists don't put their names. Clearly you didn't read the article. I said that the number of sunspots gave an indication of the activity of the sun. 115 days had zero sunspots. In times of high activity of the sun there may be thousands of sunspots.

Ian Bradford said...

Replying to anon! tesla owner. please give me the evidence that Milankovich cycles are factored in to climate change. Give me names of those who have factored it in.
I have read every report the UN/IPCC have put out. I have not seen any mention of Milankovich cycles. What do the IPCC say is causing global warming? Over and over again it's the 4% Carbon Dioxide humans put into the atmosphere that causes the warming. Why would the IPCC want the sun involved? As soon as they involve the sun it could open up criticism. They have stated the sun is fixed and does not
move. I have been through the physics involving movement of the sun and it is straight forward. The sun is indeed getting closer to the earth. The IPCC would not want this as it would mean the sun might be causing a warming of the earth because it is getting closer.
No I'm afraid to keep the anthropogenic climate fraud going the Milankovich cycles must play no part.

Murray Reid said...

I won't sleep well tonight!

John B said...

Ian,

A very interesting article.

One question I am struggling with - I understand the sun moves in a spiral as you describe but due to the relative masses of the sun & earth - does earth also move in tune so to speak - keeping the distance to the sun constant or does the distance between Earth & Sun alter as the sun's absolute position moves ?

There's quite a lot of evidence eg Beryllium deposited in the Antarctic ice cores - correlating with the earth's passage through the spiral arms of the galaxy delivering higher cosmic radiation and more transmutation delivering particles in the atmosphere leading to slightly increased cloud cover and cooler temperatures.

Appears to be on about a 40,000 year cycle to be superimposed on the multiple other cycles.

Ian Bradford said...

For John B: Yes you are right about the earth moving through the spiral arms of the galaxy. This was investigated by Niv J Shivov at the Hebrew Univ. in Jerusalem. Our solar system travels around the centre of the galaxy at about 863,000km/hr. The spiral arms of the galaxy rotate at about 76,000km/hr. So our solar system passes through the arms of the galaxy as it is travelling faster. When it passes through an arm it receives more cosmic rays. because it is closer to the source of them. This encourages cloud seeding in the upper atmosphere and hence influencing our climate. The earth passes through one of the arms every 135 million years and takes 10 million years to go through each arm.
As far as the sun-earth distance is concerned, the distance is not constant. For a start, the earth varies its orbit from approx. a circle to an ellipse. The sun moves in the kinds of spiral as indicated in the diagram. But it is not spiraling around one spot. The sun is under the influence of gravitational attraction from chiefly the four major planets. These planets are moving in there own orbits. So the path of the sun is a little erratic but has a cycle of about 1200 years. During this time it is moving slowly closer to one end of the ellipse. Hence making the earth- sun distance vary also.

GERRY SANDERS said...

The problem we have is that this has gone far beyond science and is now only political and about money. Few people will read and understand such commentaries as Ian's , correct as it obviously is. Most scientists are now funded by various Government bodies and interested parties and if your salary depends on pushing the given agenda you push it. When governments are pumping out billions on green agendas there will always be plenty of hands out to receive it and tow the party line. Our own coalition has made some good progress in reversing the nonsense but they have not yet come out openly to debunk what has been described as" the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on mankind " .

Ian Bradford said...

What you have written is absolutely correct Gerry.

Anonymous said...

IPCC considered Milankovich cycles in this older publication at least (freely accessible on the web):
Hegerl et al. (2007). Understanding and attributing climate change. In Solomon et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to The fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
– Relevant discussion on p. 673.
– It cites the following article (apparently a seminal article – very highly cited on Google Scholar):
Berger, A. (1988). Milankovitch theory and climate. Reviews of Geophysics, 26, 624–657. doi:10.1029/RG026i004p00624
– You can find the full text by web search "doi:10.1029/RG026i004p00624"
– Most of Berger’s discussion is on deep, geological time periods. A brief consideration on p. 649 about the near future in longish time scales = the next thousand years (and next 60K years graphed).

NASA also has a good summary on its website (I expect NASA understands the science of planetary orbits pretty well!) – web search "why milankovitch orbital cycles can't explain earth's current warming"

LFC