The
recurring ice ages are real
The theory however is failing
Almost since it became
recognized that repeated ice ages have occurred over the last two million
years, the main theory of their cause was built around observed long term
cycles of variations of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. These cycles are
real.
Eccentricity:
The Earth's orbit is not
circular, but slightly elliptic - nor is the Sun exactly at the center,
the Earth's orbit is slightly offset. The figure above is exaggerated -
a 0.5 offset. The real offset varies between 0.005 and 0.058 (presently
0.017 or 32% into the cycle) over periods of 413,000 years, 95,000 and
125,000 years, which loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle. The variance
is expressed in changes of the length and the intensity of the seasons,
while the overall heat received from the Sun remains the same.
Obliquity:
It is a well known fact that the spin-axis of the Earth is offset, or
tilted, from its geographic axis. The offset varies between a tilt of
22.1° and 24.5° and back again, for a 2.4 degree change over a 41,000
year cycle. The present tilt is 23.44 degrees (or 55% into the cycle and
decreasing). It is expressed in hemispheric differences (between north
and south) in solar radiation received (cooler summers in one hemisphere
and cooler winters in another), while the total heat received from the
Sun, obviously remains the same.
Precession:
Is the change in the alignment of the spin axis relative to the fixed
stars over a 25,800-year cycle. It is expressed in changes in the
extremity of the seasons, though again to total heat the Earth receives
from the Sun remains the same.
The mathematician Milutin
Milankovitch combined the
three cycles as a basis for explaining the recurring ice ages based on
changes in solar isolation in the different hemispheres. However, the
computed results don't mach the observed evidence. There exist 7 major
problems of disagreement between the two. For one, the 100,000 year cycle
should have the least effect, but is instead the dominant cycle. Also at
times the observed effect precedes the computed cause. No can the
Milankovitch cycles explain the puzzling change about a million years ago
from the observed 41,000-year ice age cycles to the 100,000 years
cycles.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
(re. all of the above)
However,
the most puzzling aspect of the theory is that neither of the three cycles
alters the total amount of of solar radiation that is received by the
Earth from the Sun. The orbital cycles merely effect seasonal and
hemispheric distribution, but not the total energy flux. In proportion as
one hemisphere gets colder, the other hemisphere gets hotter. The combined
effect cannot explain the deep, deep cooling during the last Ice Age for
example, for which it is known that so much snow had accumulated in total,
that the surface level of the oceans had dropped by nearly 200 feet.
Hemispheric differences cannot have this kind of an effect.
The
Johannes Kepler effect
All astronomers from
Ptolemy to Copernicus faced the same kind of problem in that the observed
evidence of the orbits of the planets didn't agree with the prevailing
theory. The theory was based on the assumption that the orbits of the
planets must be on the line of perfect circles, since circles are
geometrically perfect form, and the heaven are naturally perfect, being
higher than the Earth. And so, in order to work within the theory, the
astronomers invented fudge factors to overcome the pesky disagreement
between the theory and reality. They invented epicycles. They had the
planets riding on imaginary cycles that were themselves riding on larger
circles. Astronomy was stuck with this, and a few minor variations of it,
for almost 19 centuries, until Kepler discovered that the orbits of the
planets were not determined by circles, but by the effects of universal
gravity, by which the orbital paths became naturally elliptical. Until
Kepler had made his discovery, astronomy had tried to explain the
celestial effects without being aware of their cause, and so they failed.
After Kepler all the epicycles and fudge factors were left behind and
astronomy began to look at the real thing.
We are in the same
situation again when trying to explain the observed ice age cycles with
the computed Milankovitch cycles, which don't match. And the reason again
is the same, for the disagreement between the evidence and the computed
effect. In this case too attempts are made to explain effects for which
the cause is not recognized. In pre-Kepler time, astronomers tried to
explain the planetary system without the one force that is expressed by
it, the force of gravity. In modern time we do the same by trying to
explain the ice ages in terms energy-flux computations, without
considering the one force that supplies all energy in the Universe, which
is the electric force. The Milankovitch-cycle theory assumes that the only
affecting factors on the Earth's climate are the orbital changes that
modify the exposure of the various parts of the Earth to the Sun.
Everything else is deemed to be constant. In reality this is far from the
case.
The
electric effect
It is known, supported
by much evidence, that the Universe, including every galaxy, and every
sun, is electrically powered, so that electric power is the only primary
source of power in the Universe. The nuclear-fusion powered Sun is a myth.
(see: absolute power - solar power) It is a
misperception. The myth is needed as a kind of epicycle-type fudge factor
in order to make the big bang theory of the universe explainable to some
degree, which in turn supports a large class of related theories that ride
on similar fudge factors.
See: The
Electric Universe
- classes of perception
When one considers the
plasma electric currents that pervade the Universe, as the power source
for the Universe, and therefore for the solar system, one recognizes a
vast array of factors that can cause cyclical variations in the power flux
density affecting the solar system. One can also recognize that some of
the orbital cycles are evidently the result of changing electro-magnetic
conditions, considering that the electro-magnetic force of the Universe is
39 orders of magnitude stronger that the force of gravity.
The
bottom line
The bottom line is
that the Milankovitch-cycle
theory is as useless for determining the start of the next Ice Age, as
Ptolemy's perception would be for plotting a course to mars.
Historic-based predictions are evidently far more to the point since the
Universe isn't likely to stop following its self-established pattern. And
this tells us that we may be in a transition period already, and that we
should become intensely concerned about protecting our agriculture from
the impending cold ice age climate.
see: Climate
history of the last 420,000 years
Still, the bottom line
might yet be changed. It is is known that the climate on Earth is affected
to a large degree by changes in the ionization of water vapor in the
troposphere, which affects cloud formation and a dramatic reduction of
greenhouse effect - even to the point of causing ice ages - it might yet
be possible to artificially control the ionization by utilizing the
electric potential in the ionosphere to power our economies with, thereby
reducing the electric field that plays a role in the ionization process.
All of this means that
we have the future in our hands by looking at what is actually real
(instead of what is merely held as consensus by mediocrity), and then
utilize the principles that come to light through discovery. And this I am
certain will happen. It appears that when Kepler had made his discovery of
universal gravity (see: New Astronomy or
Nova Astronomia), few people had an open mind for it. We can gleam
this from what he said about one of his revolutionary books:
"Now,
eighteen months after the first light, three months after the true
day, but a very few days after the pure Sun of that most wonderful
study began to shine, nothing restrains me; it is my pleasure to taunt
mortal men with the candid acknowledgment that I am stealing the
golden vessels of the Egyptians to build a tabernacle to my God from
them, far, far away from the boundaries of Egypt. If you forgive me, I
shall rejoice; if you are enraged with me, I shall bear it. See, I
cast the die, and I write the book. Whether it is to be read by the
people of the present or of the future makes no difference: let it
await its reader for a hundred years, if God Himself has stood ready
for six thousand years for one to study Him."
Johannes
Kepler, Book V, Harmony of the World
However, times have
changed. We may not have the luxury to delay our response to truth by a
hundred years. The approaching next Ice Age may overcome us if we tarry
too long.
|
