New Ice Age Theory

amigoro writes "Most believe that the ice ages are the result of subtle changes in Earth's orbit, known as the Milankovitch cycles. According to one scientist, that is not the case. Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, has developed a model which hypothesizes a dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 or 41,000 years, exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth. The main problem with Milankovitch cycles is that they can't explain how the ice ages go from 100,000 year cycle to 41,000 year cycle. The cycles predicted by Ehlrich's model line up with the observations."

Re:To the Retard who Posted this Story

[Zonnald]

The opinion you suggest can explain differences between two bodies, but not necessarily with the same body over time. This new theory relates to the output of the sun and how it effects the one body - Earth. I would like to see an investigation of how the temperature of Venus or Mars fluctuates as a result of this cycle. Although that is still a pretty hard study as observations are a little bit restricted to the here and now.

Socrates would be disappointed

[Volfied]

sophism [sof-iz-uhm] -noun
              a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone, e.g. beginning with a conclusion and finding reasons to justify it, regardless of where the evidence points.

Er, what?

[mqduck]

Man... Where have I been? I'm no science geek and I guess it shows. What happened to that big asteroid that was supposed to start the Ice Age?

Re:Socrates would be disappointed

[squidfood]

beginning with a conclusion and finding reasons to justify it, regardless of where the evidence points.

In statistical terms also known as overfitting your data .

Misleading grammar

[p0ss]

Ice ages are not caused by planet Earth's orbital variations as once thought, but by the dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years which is exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth, according to a radical new theory proposed by renowned astrophysicist Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University.

shouldn't that be:

According to a radical new theory proposed by renowned astrophysicist Robert Ehrlich of George Mason University, Ice ages are not caused by planet Earth's orbital variations as once thought, but by the dimmer switch inside the sun that causes its brightness to rise and fall on timescales of around 100,000 years which is exactly the same period as between ice ages on Earth.

that's like writing
THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!! according to some guy somewhere.
instead of
some guy somewhere thinks the earth is flat!!

Models, Theories & Proof

[BoRegardless]

I thank God the scientists keep looking for patterns and physics to try to explain what we see in the geologic and solar record & current observations of the sun, as that is the ONLY WAY we will ever have a chance of really knowing what long term cycles are caused by. There may be 50 models and theories, but it will likely be a stew of dozens of researchers that finally get a theory that is solid enough to be verified and called a Proof, or tentative Proof.

Fact is, no one can yet show a proof of why, but we do know that Ice ages occurred dozens of times and when, but we can not yet prove what the underlieing factor is that causes the repetition (excluding the major "accidental" supermassive volcano or mega-asteroid).

That is what true science is for, which is to keep digging, sometimes literally, until you uncover the data and principals that can be independently verified and eventually acknowledged as fact.

But that is not convenient for politicians who want power, and bureaucrats who can manage whole new divisions of government if they get funding to try to act on something with the citizens money, when there is only speculation as to what is going on and to what degree, let alone whether we can actually do anything about it.

BS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is such BS. Everybody knows that the sun has been a constant source of heat and light since the beginning of time and that the only cause of disruption in the universe is Western Civilization. To say otherwise is to blaspheme.

Hallowed be the Al Gore.

I'm no scientist...

[KKlaus]

But come on. "The cycles predicted by Ehlrich's model line up with the observations." The summary says that like its some type of verification. They line up (duh) because he picked the cycles that way. What a stupid end to the summary.

Fwiw, I like the line of thinking - that the ice ages are an action of the sun rather than the earth, but its entirely unsubstantiated and to go _holy crap_ the model that he crafted to fit historical data fits historical data is fantastically disingenious.

Re:Models, Theories & Proof

[qralston]

There may be 50 models and theories, but it will likely be a stew of dozens of researchers that finally get a theory that is solid enough to be verified and called a Proof, or tentative Proof.

You are making the classic mistake: you are assuming that science is about trying to prove that something is true. It's not. Science cannot prove anything; science can only disprove.

If you want a concise definition of science, it is this: science is the methodology by which we identify and discard beliefs and theories that are false. This process does not produce facts; it does not produce proof. At best, it produces theories that have withstood enough attempts to knock them down that for now, we tentatively assume that they are accurate. But we're still standing on quicksand.

People who look to science to give them facts and absolute truths are inevitably frustrated [answersingenesis.org], because science can't give them what they want.

Re:Real source

[RenderSeven]

Not sure why you cant do some reading yourself. According to wikipedia, the Himalayas are the youngest mountains on earth and geologically active, growing 5mm per year. Over 100000 years, thats 500 meters, assuming the growth rate is constant, which it probably isnt. The jet stream does in fact pass directly over Everest.

Is that enough to trigger a shift in the Jet Stream? I dont know and neither does anyone modding the parent a troll. While the parent may not be definitive or even correct, I sure as hell think its interesting.

Re:Socrates would be disappointed

[dl_zero]

Indeed he would. The belief that global warming is caused by humans driving SUVs even though there were ice ages long before pollution even existed is ridiculous.

Re:Real source

[DeadChobi]

Modding isn't about rewarding correctness. Modding is about rewarding concise, insightful ideas. Whether or not they're scientifically correct, or even based in science is another story entirely and not something that any of the moderators should even deal with. If you find yourself shaking your head and grimacing at someone's misinformation, mod them up so that someone else can debunk it. Or better yet, ignore it and let someone else debunk it.

Don't silence the voices of ignorance. Pull them up into knowledge.

Re:Real source

[bmo]

"Uhhh, soooo, every 50 million years or so, the Himalayas appear or disappear?"

Not far off. Everest is about 60 million years old.

http://www.mnteverest.net/history.html [mnteverest.net]

At one time, the Appalachians looked like the Himalayas, were eroded flat, and then were uplifted yet again.

http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/parks/province/appalach.h tml [usgs.gov]

Climate change? Change is the norm.

--
BMO

Re:Socrates would be disappointed

[YttriumOxide]

No it isn't. Of COURSE there are many other factors involved in global climate change, but only the truly stubborn or drastically deluded (note: I also include "deluded by others") would think that global climate change isn't being affected by the behaviour of humans over the last century or so. Having ice ages before there were humans around to affect the environment has no bearing on whether or not our actions can ALSO cause climate change.

The error of either/or

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that a number of Theories in Science (this doesn't include Creationism, since that's only an unsupported Hypothesis, and not actually a Theory) compete with each other as if There Can Only Be One right answer. Often, though, when the dust finally settles, the Truth turns out to consist of elements of more than one of the competitors. So, in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if the Truth about Ice Ages includes both the "dimmer switch" and the orbital mechanics thing.

Re:Dimmer switch?

[arminw]

.....so he can punish us with increasing temperatures.......

These people did not come up with this idea. The Bible has references to severely increasing heat from the sun as part of God's punishments for human evil, reserved for the last days. One of these is found in the Old Testament in Isaiah 30:26, where we are informed that the sun will be seven times hotter and another is found in Revelation 16:8-9. There it says that people will be scorched by the sun and curse God because of the great heat. The passage in Revelation is just before the part about the final battle of the final war, the battle at Armageddon.

To many here, the Bible represents fiction and fairy tales. However, an all out global war and the resulting world wide upheaval, along with havoc from nature is not impossible. We humans like to believe, both corporately and individually that we are the captains of our ship and the masters of our fate. From a sudden death of a loved one, to history of great natural disasters and from the very real possibility of global thermonuclear and other technologically advanced warfare, that belief and hope is ill founded. Global warming, human caused or not, can only add to this nightmare. Could it be that we really are NOT in charge after all?