“Classical” Milankovitch theory is about 41ky and shorter periods, without the significant long terms of 100ky and above which are the subject of a great deal of postulation today. As an exercise a special version of temperature proxy Vostok ice core data was prepared and correlated with four different computations of Berger 1991 solar insolence at lags of between zero and 18ky. The best correlation was for the sum of 65NJul and 65SJan, r-squared=0.31 and at a lag of 7ky.
This result was unexpected because of the popular view that 65N is best fit. Further it suggests a rolling effect starting in the north and ending in the south.
Two problems were noted in private discussion:
-
Is summing 65NJul and 65SJan a valid process?
-
Few if any datasets exist where Arctic and Antarctic can be examined for a phase difference because of the unreliable dating of proxies, some of which have been adjusted for time coherence.
The primary period of the mean is about 41ky which makes sense. No investigation of phase skew has been done where I would expect the lag to vary with frequency.
A description of the data preparation follows
Vostok data
The published data is irregularly sampled but regularly sampled data is far preferable mathematically, and so the dataset was resampled to 1ky. This is standard signal processing, in this case oversample at 1 year, filling missing datapoints with null and low pass filter at 2ky, which turns nulls into valid. The result was decimated from 1 year to 1ky. A 766 year skew was introduced so that the sample points are concurrent with the insolation data.
Figure 2 , plotted overlay and irregular data.
Finally the data was high pass filtered at about 55ky (figure 3), removing the 100ky and above content.
Figure 4 illustrates what is going on, is not actually complicated, just difficult to explain in words.
Figure 5 shows the whole thing as straight plots. The “<50ky periodicy” data in blue is the data which is going to be used for correlation.
Insolation data
The data is actually output from solar system modeling. this has to be taken as fact because no accurate historic reference exists. The sun or planet orbits might have changed. This model is used as published, with the addition of sum and difference of 65NJul and 65SJan. (this was not expected to be part of a result) An extra 20,000 years of insolation data is necessary so that the full length of the Vostok data can be used at all time lags.
Figure 6 shows a plot of 65N, 65S and mean (sum). This data is used for correlation and the dataset is 20ky longer than the Vostok data to allow for a sliding correlation window on the whole Vostok data.
General
- Dates are adjusted from the dataset BP (reference AD1950) to AD.
- All plots run conventionally left to right which is old to the left and new to the right.
- Filtering uses dataset end compensation
The four insolation parameters were correlated with the Vostok data lagged from zero to 19 ky.
Results
In table format:
| lag | 65NJul | 65SJan | difference | mean | r-squared |
| 18 | -0.05 | -0.01 | -0.02 | -0.07 | |
| 17 | -0.06 | 0.07 | -0.07 | 0.01 | |
| 16 | -0.06 | 0.15 | -0.11 | 0.1 | |
| 15 | -0.06 | 0.21 | -0.15 | 0.19 | |
| 14 | -0.05 | 0.27 | -0.17 | 0.27 | |
| 13 | -0.02 | 0.31 | -0.18 | 0.34 | |
| 12 | 0.01 | 0.33 | -0.18 | 0.41 | |
| 11 | 0.05 | 0.34 | -0.16 | 0.47 | |
| 10 | 0.1 | 0.32 | -0.12 | 0.51 | |
| 9 | 0.15 | 0.3 | -0.08 | 0.54 | |
| 8 | 0.2 | 0.26 | -0.03 | 0.56 | |
| 7 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.02 | 0.56 | 0.31251 |
| 6 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.55 | |
| 5 | 0.32 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.52 | |
| 4 | 0.33 | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0.48 | 0.11138 |
| 3 | 0.33 | 0.03 | 0.17 | 0.43 | |
| 2 | 0.31 | -0.01 | 0.18 | 0.37 | |
| 1 | 0.28 | -0.03 | 0.17 | 0.3 | |
| 0 | 0.23 | -0.04 | 0.15 | 0.22 |
For a plot of the table, see figure1.
Figure 7 show the Vostok derived data and leading insolation data.
Appendix
NAME OF DATA SET: Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years
LAST UPDATE: 11/2001 (Original Receipt by WDC Paleo).
CONTRIBUTOR: Jean Robert Petit, LGGE-CNRS.
SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Petit, J.R., et al., 2001, Vostok Ice Core Data for 420,000 Years, IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series #2001-076. NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
Berger A. and Loutre M.F., 1991, Insolation values for the climate of the last 10 million of years. Quaternary Sciences Review, Vol. 10 No. 4 pp. 297-317, 1991.













Good work, Tim. An approximate 7K lag between the orbital insolation record and the Vostok temperature record appears to correlate well.
-Gerry Pease
An interesting trend that is evident in the 55ky and wideband filtered Vostok data is the declining temperature over the last few thousand years. This is exactly what I would expect to see based on the eccentricity correlations with glaciation periods discussed in “Orbital eccentricity and ice ages: Milankovitch revisited”.
This exercise is about my feeling my way into the problem, need to feel the data. Just reading about it when it is not clear what has been done, or at least checking it doesn’t work for me.
A puzzle is why a southern polar dataset is no more sensitive to heat in the south than north. There again Antarctica is the strangest place on earth, is decoupled from the rest of the world.
Apparently glaciation started when the circumpolar current formed.
Oddity: why is it the southern pole has a land mass exactly centred there and the north pole exactly has a sea hole, no land?
I know you used the Berger and Loutre 1991 paper here Tim, and I get what you’re saying about actually working with the data. Do have a read of the more recent Berger and Loutre paper WIllis linked though. It has answered some of the puzzle for me anyway.
Click to access cp-2-131-2006.pdf
Speculation that the circumpolar current formation was caused by the earlier separation of the Antarctic land mass from South America:
“The results place the ACC’s global impact much closer to the time when Antarctica separated from South America, creating a gateway.”
In any event, understanding what the data shows must precede understanding why the data is what it is, and you have cast some light on the “what,” if not so much on the “why.” First things first.
tb: I’ve just read the later paper Willis kindly referenced.
The conclusion implies the paper’s intended audience is neither you nor I, almost a wakeup plea.
There is little information for me in the paper. Berger does not state whether his earlier work is valid.
The most useful item is the spectra, compare his Fig 5 with Figure 4 above. The eccentricity problem has a massive amplitude mismatch between the upper and lower components. The upper is in his ’91 data but an order of magnitude too small.
Tim,
I assume you have plotted just the smoothed 65S insolation data on top of the Vostok data, since that seems liike a logical comparison. What do those correlations look like for various lag times?
Gerry: No smoothing of the insolation data, all very simple.
The only filtering was in creating the resampled vostok data (that is the hairy part) and the single high pass shown. Everything else is raw and in effect so is vostok.
Only other thing is plotting software doing it’s best to join points. Lots of them.
Figure 1 is a straight XY plot of the grid of correlations from zero to 18 time points of 1ky. This is shown in the data grid, rounded to 2 places. Plot that, you will recreate Figure 1 but needs the Y axis inverting.
All I did was lay the datasets side by side and then slide the array of computations.
Best match is for (65N+65S) / 2
Work is work scruffy but I could put something together for making available less plots which do not generally survive transporting.
I’m reaching an increasing firm opinion there is a problem with the Vostok timescale, maybe 10ky or so jump around vaguely 230ky. Tweak that and 100ky stuff matches much better.
Tim, yes indeed, not including Milankovitch cycles in models of climate evolution is clearly a serious omission. I think they could be used to help recalibrate the data too, as your previous comment suggests.
Ice core dating calibration depends on assumptions about precipitation rates doesn’t it? Seems to me the recent Berger and Loutre work might offer some ideas about which time period sinusoids might be applied to the data to improve precip models.
This concept that warmer tropics and heavier precipitation in cold regions is the creator of Ice ages, is interesting. Cold caused by glaciation, rather then, glaciation caused by cold. pg
I do see from the table and its plot in Figure 1 that an 11ky or 12ky lag for 65S looks like it might correlate well to the Vostok Holocene data. 11ky is certainly a very large time lag, and you seem to be saying that earlier 65S lagged insolation numbers are not a very good phase match to the Vostok data using either 11ky or 12ky lags.
I see the -230ky phase offset you mention. I wonder what could cause the Vostok timescale to be off for that part of the ice core sample?
Maybe it’ll be handy to have the chart on hand while we consider that.
There seems to be an anomalously high swing in obliquity around then.
Gerry says:
June 8, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Speculation that the circumpolar current formation was caused by the earlier separation of the Antarctic land mass from South America:
“The results place the ACC’s global impact much closer to the time when Antarctica separated from South America, creating a gateway.”
Another relevant link:
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/climate-news/ocean-current-changes-led-to-dramatic-global-cooling/16069.html
The big problem we’ve got is that the only solid data on how climate works comes from the last 100y or so of the current interglacial. We have only sketch proxy data for what happened before this, and as this is based on many assumptions which may or may not be valid, its accuracy is indeterminable.
I like Rogers assumption that glaciation is the normal climate mode for Earth and interglacial periods are the exceptional events. Even while enjoying the current balmy climate, it still worries me that 90% of the volume of the oceans sits at between 0 – 3 degrees C. This, and the current polar ice caps, represent an awful lot of ‘coldth’ locked into the system, whilst the sea surface and more temperate land masses have comparatively little heat stored. I wonder if it Is possible that some unknown climate mechanism causes the cold water to be safely stored in the deep during interglacial’s, but at other times allows this to be better mixed resulting in a colder Earth?
UPDATE
Last night I carried out a crazy data fitting experiment on the long period insolation and vostok data. This used constrained model parameters, identical on both datasets. On comparing the two results there was a very clear problem, solved by manually splitting the Vostok data.
I’ve just looked at shorter period data on the basis that the above is roughly correct. A first look shows a mess and tends to agree with the above indication. This might answer the question I posed: given a wrong timescale a better match will be for lower time resolution terms.
I know there are severe question marks over ice dating, all paleo dating.
http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/osmabstracts/ParreninF.pdf
This does not solve the problem of what if any north/south skew is present, timeline is not independent, although there might be a partial fix.
I still need full insolation data.
More food for thought
geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/…/Bender_2002_copy.pdf
This I find amusing. what exactly does “useful” mean? It does not say useless, yet was ignored by others.
” It has been largely neglected, however, in part because we lack a speci¢c understanding of its climate dependence. As well, early results were noisy [17], and did not appear to reflect useful climate properties.”