Yes, this guy says a lot of things. Here is something that he says in the comments section of that blog topic - "My gut feeling is that changes in solar insolation at the poles due to orbital tilt (obliquity) have driven glaciations for the last 5 million years. The Earth cooled for independent reasons triggering ice ages. 1 million years ago eccentricity for some reason dominated the cycle. This must be astronomical, unless I can be convinced otherwise." - Yes, well I have a gut feeling about all of this as well. Would it be that none of us will be here in 2000 years so why worry about it? Well, that is a reason for us alive today to not worry about it and it is a natural cycle that he his speaking of. So why would we worry if he is right or not about this? I certainly have realized that a rapidly warming climate now is our far biggest problem and it is not as to if we will enter another glaciation period in 2,000 years from now. What is your gut feeling on this, Kano?
The article you linked to is well written in parts (and only in parts), and the author clearly has a broad comprehension of some aspects physics. However, his understanding of ice-ages, cryospherics and mathematics is left severely wanting. It seems that what he’s done is to fill the gaps in his knowledge through guesswork and speculation rather than by expanding his knowledge, and as such he’s made a lot of mistakes that a more educated person would immediately identify.
There are literally scores of errors and false assumptions in what he’s written but I’ll focus on the salient point:
Best’s full quote regarding the coming of an ice-age in 2,000 years is as follows…
=======================
“Yes I agree that this should be the largest swing of solar heating between northern and southern hemispheres. However, all this is 100% dependent on the orbital eccentricity. If the Earth had a circular orbit the precession of the equinoxes would have no effect at all.
“My gut feeling is that changes in solar insolation at the poles due to orbital tilt (obliquity) have driven glaciations for the last 5 million years. The Earth cooled for independent reasons triggering ice ages. 1 million years ago eccentricity for some reason dominated the cycle. This must be astronomical, unless I can be convinced otherwise.
“The next ice age will begin within 2000 years. It is a far greater threat to humanity and nature than the hype over AGW. It is impossible for humanity to stop another glaciation, but AGW could perhaps offset some of its effects in the short term.
“Why do we torment ourselves worrying about how to dispose “safely” of nuclear waste over 100,000 years when much of the northern hemisphere will be uninhabitable in 20,000 years”
=======================
The first paragraph is correct.
The second paragraph is based on conjecture and indicates that he’s several years behind the times, he’s speculating about obliquitous forcing and it’s influence on glaciations when this is now a pretty much accepted fact. He’s talking about “gut feelings” – this isn’t science, for 5 million years read 15 million, for his vague “independent reasons” read “orbit about the galactic centre”, for 1 million years read 2 million years.
Then in the next paragraph we get a random statement that is completely unconnected with the previous paragraphs in which he asserts that “The next ice age will begin within 2000 years” – where did that come from? Is he thinking that his previous statements somehow corroborate this, they most definitely do not.
He’s talking about the right things here in terms of orbital eccentricity and it’s influence on insolation and glacials/interglacials and initially he had the right time-scales; then there’s this completely unconnected and totally contradictory claim about the next ice-age. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s as if he wrote the response then whilst paying a visit to the lavatory his six-year-old kid has inserted the errant paragraph for a joke.
We will not, and can not, enter an ice-age in the next 2,000 years.
The article is junk.
Let’s look at the following two statements [emphasis mine]:
>>The work presented here does not attempt to explain the origin of the ice ages, but instead it tries to PARAMETERISE the observed temperature dependencies to derive as much quantitative information as possible.<<
>>A very small signal for 23,000 years was seen but including it in the fit made little difference to CHI-SQUARED.<<
Here’s the problem:
Chi-square is a categorical, NON-PARAMETRIC (non-numerical) statistic. For example, you can use it if you want to know whether the number of boy vs. girls in a class is statistically the same or not – but you cannot use it to determine if the measured height of the boys and girls is significantly different.
So, I'm not even sure what the guy is actually doing – but, then, apparently neither is he.
Secondly, you cannot mention continental geography and then just blow over it. It changes the system state – that is, the system before the change is not the same system as the system after the change. Therefore, you cannot just run your observations and analysis across that boundary like nothing happened – because something did happen – instead of one thing you have two different things.
From your link.
"Within 10,000 years the Earth will be well on the way into a new deep glaciation which should peak 30,000 years into the future."
He makes some controversial statements about the Milankovich Cycles, of which I a skeptical. But he does not predict an imminent ice age.
The site is a blog and blogs are usually not reliable. But you keep on referencing them
The next ice age isn't due for 10-20,000 years so don't hold your breath
I won't be around so I really could care less.
What do YOU think Kano?
I think you can do better.
No ice age is likely in next 10,000 years
this guy says it will
