_________________________________________________
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh
Wednesday, 21 May 2008
By Phil Chapman

The scariest photo I have seen on the Internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared two weeks ago but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared last Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1,000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

For example: we could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

First published in The Australian on April 23, 2008.

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

Read the response to this article here


An opinion provided by OnlineOpinion.com.au - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate.
Comments
Add New
posted by: Norm G. Smith 21-May-08 23:57:14
While is believe this former NASA Astronaut is essentially correct in many of his facts, in his own way he is fearmongering the next Ice Age like many on the global warming side who are seen as alarmists.

His comment "The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1,000 years" is probably accurate but maybe not. Nobody knows when next ice age will begin. While 12,000 years is the average duration of these warm interglacials, historicly there have been anomalous interglacials that lasted over 30,000 years.

The 5 million year temperature history shows the unpredictability of Mother Nature: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.png Note: This graph shows the past on the left and the present on the right.

One striking similarity between Chapmans arguments and the arguments of those who present frightening scenarios on the global warming side of the debate is that his arguments contain some facts mixed with a whole lot of allegations that are based on the word "IF." Here are some examples:

-"IF the temperature does not soon recover..."
-"...IF we are moving into another little ice age"
-"Millions will starve IF we do nothing..."
-"IF it continued for 20 years..."
-"IF the ice age is coming..."
-"If we are prepared to take action..."

All of this stuff sounds real "iffy" to me regardless of which side of the debate I hear it from.

Chapman's worst argument is the notion that we could stop global cooling by using bulldozers to "dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia." As an Auzzie he just does not grasp the vastness and the remoteness of the areas. There is also the inconvenient fact that the dirt would quickly be snowed-over again, and the environmental damage the scheme would cause.

My personal bottom line on climate change. It Happens. According to the chart above it has always happened. Humans cannot control the Earths climate with either bulldozers or more taxes labelled as Carbon Taxes. Stopping Mothers Natures ongoing climate change is akin to stopping continental drift.
posted by: Dr.B.M.FARUQUE 26-May-08 10:22:19
It is true we may have another Ice Age when this interglacial terminates. And I understand 11 year cycle of the sun does not trigger Ice Ages. It is Milankovitch Effect due to solar energy that initiates and influences Ice Ages. We may be well into the interglacioal hence cooling can not be ruled out. But the process of industrial growth will retard the process of Ice Age.
posted by: Denise Chumley 30-May-08 02:45:50
The long term bio-geological trend is toward global cooling, mostly because atmospheric carbon dioxide has been and continues to be sequestered in rocks. Currently the rate of release is greater than the sequestration rate, but eventually we'll stop burning rocks and the long term trend will continue, thus an ice planet is the long term trend.

I wonder where Norm G Smith hails from that he can say "As an Auzzie (sic) he just does not grasp the vastness and the remoteness of the areas." As an Aussie I assure you that most Australians do understand vastness and remoteness of areas such as Antarctica and Siberia. To get to the United States he has already travelled vast distances.
posted by: John Moss 30-May-08 12:12:10
Considering that Phil Chapman was Australia's first astronaut, it's somewhat odd that his comment "There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold" is at odds with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies climatic data for 2007. NASA crunches the numbers from the satellite data and had this to say about the latest global temperature avergages for 2007: "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2 degree C above the prior record with the help of the "El Nino of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Nino-La Nina cycle. "

What I extract from what Chapman has written, is that even geophyscists and astronautical engineers are prone to belief systems that contradict scientific evidence - unfortunately.
posted by: Alexander L. 30-May-08 12:31:42
Even if Phil is right and we are facing an ice-age this can`t be a reason to burn fossil fuels like we did until now. If the temperature will decrease, we will need even more energy. Looking at the oil price during the last few month everybody can see what will hapen. Some say we already have a war for oil, surely we`ll have one if this scenario comes thrue. I think this upcoming ice-age should be one more reason to save energy and develop the renewables as fast as we can.
posted by: I. S. Mel Arat 30-May-08 22:36:05
Sorry Phil Chapman, you are wrong — but you were not wrong when you first wrote your article.

I went to the site you refer to and looked at the image of our Sun-star.

Gulp!

YIKES!

I quote:

"Daily Sun: 29 May 08"

"The sun is blank--no sunspots."

I agree with Phil Chapman's sentiments — we have reason to be concerned — and to James Hansen and the IPCC paraphrase Mr. Chapman:

Don't you think it is possible, or now, at least somewhat more likely, that you may be mistaken? Are you not willing to reconsider the adamancy of your stated position?

I don't think Phil Chapman is a "denier". He is simply motivated to point out that the "science is all but settled" — NOT!
posted by: j. Guerin 23-Mar-09 10:38:54
.

Still no sunspots , this is getting totally abnormal
Chapman is essentially correct in his fears
and certainly a cooling earth would grow much less crops than a warm one

As for the reality , the northern summer ice melt at it's maximum in september should give a good indication
of where we are headed .
.
Write comment
Name:

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
Email this
Related Stories ____________________________________________