Clive Best: Does the Moon trigger interglacials?

Posted: January 10, 2014 by tchannon in Cycles, Ice ages, sea ice, solar system dynamics, Tides

Clive has published an interesting series of articles on his blog. Here is food for thought.

Does the Moon trigger interglacials?
Posted on January 10, 2014 by Clive Best

Why did the last 8 glacial periods only end when the earth’s orbit around the sun reached maximum eccentricity ? This is the real unsolved mystery of the Ice Ages as discussed in previous posts and recently on scienceofdoom.

  1. Phenomenology of Ice Ages
  2. What causes interglacials – part 1
  3. Part 2: The real cause of interglacials – Resonant dust clouds

With the last of these posts I finally thought there could be a solution to this mystery based on resonant interplanetary dust, but alas I could find no evidence whatsoever in TSI data and dismissed the idea. However I now realise that perhaps there is another solution which may have been looking us in the face all the time.

Link to “Does the Moon trigger interglacials?”

h/t to Roger Andrews on Suggestions

Post by Tim

Comments
  1. geran says:

    Okay, first, how many, exactly “ice ages” were there? 11, 12, 15, 60, or more? C’mon, how many?

    Then, how many of the “ice ages” ended with the Earth at maximum eccentricity?

    We love the exact science of 4.5 billion years ago….

  2. Ian Wilson says:

    Cuedos Clive best for proposing this interesting hypothesis.

    However, this is not a new hypothesis as it is just taking an already established hypothesis and expanding it to longer time scales. I have been promoting a similar idea (on shorter time scales) for many years, with little or no response from anyone.

    Starting in 2008, I have been promoting the idea that the variations in the Earth’s climate caused by the Sun appeared to be amplified in the World’s mean temperature for the simple reason that they are synchronized with variations in the effects of the Lunar tides upon the Earth’s climate. The logic train that I have consistently used goes as follows: :

    1/ Motion Jovian planets –> variations in shape and tilt of lunar orbit –> long-term variations in in the influence of the lunar tides upon the Earth’s rotation, ocean and atmosphere —> long-term [inter-annual to decadal to centennial] variations in the Earth’s climate systems.

    2/ Motion Jovian planets —> Sun’s Barycentric motion –> variations in rotation rate of the Sun via a spin-orbit coupling —> variations in the long-term level of solar activity –> variations in the effect on Earth’s climate systems.

    See: WHICH CAME FIRST THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/heres-old-favorite.html

    ********************
    Here are some examples of my posts:

    1. Are the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) Warm Events driven by Lunar Tides?

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html

    2. The synchronization between the Solar Inertial Motion and the Lunar Orbit

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/03/synchronization-between-solar-inertial.html

    3. Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?

    Wilson, I.R.G., 2011, Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation
    Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
    The General Science Journal, Dec 2011, 3811.

    http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/3811

    Part of Abstract:

    “We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.”

    page 20:

    “Our data supports the contention that when ever the Sun experiences a large asymmetry in its
    motion about the CM of the Solar System, the Earth also experiences a significant deviation in its rotation rate. A logical consequence of this is that when ever the Sun experiences as large asymmetry in its motion, so does the Earth. This raises the possibility that there might be a spin-orbit coupling mechanism operating between the Earth’s motion about the CM of the Solar System and its rotation rate.

    page 29

    “We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter, in order of the size of their respective tidal influences. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances. The “Grand Cosmic Conspiracy” model tries to explain why the asymmetries in the solar motion about the CM and changes in the rotation rate of the Earth are synchronized. In order for this apparent correlation to make any sense, there must be some underlying physical process that connects the relative motion of the four Jovian planets to a factor that can influence the rotation rate of the Earth. We conclude that the most likely
    candidate for the underlying physical process is the synchronization between the
    precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the relative sidereal orbital
    periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter as a result of past resonances between these
    two phenomena that can influence the rotation rate of the Earth. We conclude that the most likely candidate for the underlying physical process is the synchronization between the
    precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the relative sidereal orbital
    periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter as a result of past resonances between these
    two phenomena.”

  3. Ian Wilson says:

    People might also want to read this blog post:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/connecting-planetary-periodicities-to.html

    which gives evidence that the Precession of the Lunar Line-of-Nodes and the Lunar Line-of-Apse of the lunar orbit are linked to the orbital period of the planets.

    Also, Chefio has done some good work on this topic too.

  4. p.g.sharrow says:

    I have watched the large tidal differences in the far north really tear up the ice of Alaska’s Cook Inlet. Only 32feet of rise and fall in the 1970s. 50% more 12,000 years ago, wow! As well as the the mixing caused in ocean circulation. pg

  5. Roger Andrews says:

    Ian:

    When I read Clive’s article I immediately thought of all the work you’ve done on lunar cycles and linked to the article on the Suggestions thread in the hope a) that Tim would reblog it (Tallbloke seems to be MIA these days) and b) that you would show up. And Tim reblogged it, and here you are.

    It’s getting late and I’m off to bed. But in the meantime I’d appreciate any specific comments you might have on Clive’s results. He and I have recently been swapping ideas on ice ages over at Euan Mearn’s blog (http://euanmearns.com/the-ice-man-cometh/) but he kept his lunar theory up his sleeve while we were at it. 😉

  6. Ian Wilson says:

    Roger,

    Thanks for making the link to Clive’s work – maybe this will get the so-called main-stream scientists of their buts and start thinking out-side the box.

  7. tchannon says:

    Rog is busy, I am busy (coding some critical stuff, some interesting), not around much hence little real content from me.

    Note the late moderation of a new commenter at the top. Don’t want fights but is fair comment.

  8. geran says:

    tchannon says:

    Note the late moderation of a new commenter at the top. Don’t want fights but is fair comment.
    >>>>>
    WOW, it’s so nice to be treated fairly!

  9. Bill McIntyre says:

    If Clive applied the tidal effects on the whole of earth (not just the oceans) he might have the holocene covered as well

  10. KuhnKat says:

    I have watched the work trying to project cycles backwards to match stuff for quite a while. They all seem to fail due to mismatch of paleo data and computed cycles.

    I have another possible problem with computing the cycles. Historically all early people who had extensive calendars started with 360 days. The archaeologists and others tell us they just rounded for convenience. Buds, after two years your planting dates are so far off that it is anything but convenient and you cannot project ahead for eclipses and other phenomena they tracked and apparently DID predict correctly. I am suggesting that Velikovsky had some correct ideas and that we cannot project back because the earth orbit has changed between then and now.

    The big guy up there did some bank shots and messed it up for y’all!! 8>)

  11. clivebest says:

    @Iain 02:48

    Iain,

    I was unaware of the great work you have been doing. Thanks for giving me a lot to think about. It is clear that there are astronomical influences on both the earth’s orbit and the moon’s orbit. Solar activity is also likely affected by Jupiter’s orbit . All these are considered insignificant effects on the earth’s climate short term. However they must have a significant effect on the long term climate on Earth.

    The moon anyway does have short term effects on climate. First the Earth moves 4000km closer the sun during the lunar cycle. Global temperatures change by about 0.02C per month as a result. Second moonshine is the largest source of radiant heat in the polar winter. Globally it changes temperature at night by ~ 0.01C. Thirdly the 18.6y precession of the lunar orbit moves the tidal bulge further north. Does this change the Jet Stream ? The Jet stream is high in the atmosphere where tidal effects are larger.

    There have been a string of papers reporting patterns of drought in N.America and China coincident with the 18.6 year cycle. When the moon is at largest inclination angle to the equator do traction forces change the Jet stream pattern?

    This is also intriguing:
    “The D-O events are discrete events paced by a regular cycle of 1470 years.” This so nearly coincides with the 1800y lunar cycle that your analysis looks fascinating.

    Clive

  12. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X02005162

    The marine δ18O [temperature proxy] record and solar modulation are strongly correlated at the 100 ka timescale. It is proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100 ka glacial–interglacial cycles.

    Origin…
    fundamental forces, magnetic or gravitational tidal ?

  13. clivebest says:

    Roger,
    The lunar theory only came to me a few days ago !

    Roe showed that Milankovitch variations indeed melts ice but all climate models to date have failed to explain interglacials..

  14. Bill McIntyre says:

    K K 11-1-14

    Some “conservation of energy” shenanigans as the earth cools – –

    5 days is a lot tho

    Should also see more rapid tectonic related incidents due to outer earth cooling faster than the rest

  15. oldbrew says:

    Some similar ideas were proposed in this 2000 paper, title:
    ‘The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change’

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/8/3814.full#sec-3

    They say: ‘We propose that such abrupt millennial changes, seen in ice and sedimentary core records, were produced in part by well characterized, almost periodic variations in the strength of the global oceanic tide-raising forces caused by resonances in the periodic motions of the earth and moon.’

    The main headings of the paper:

    The 1- to 2-kyr Ice-Rafted Debris (IRD) Cycle.
    A Proposed Tidal Mechanism for Periodic Oceanic Cooling.
    The 1,800-Year Tidal Cycle.
    A 5,000-Year Modulation of the 1,800-Year Cycle.
    Observational Tests of Millennial Tidal Climatic Forcing.
    Secular Variations in Tidal Forcing.
    Ramifications of the Tidal Hypothesis.

  16. A C Osborn says:

    One of the things that has become very apparent to me over the last few years is that scientifically talented bloggers are rediscovering the Science that has for a long time been ignored or even suppressed by main stream science. Just take a look at the work of Tim Cullen at http://malagabay.wordpress.com/
    He has been digging up all sorts of contradictory science and landscheidt
    http://www.landscheidt.info/
    was posting celestial science long ago.

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    As time (rarely) permits, I’ve been following a (lengthy) trail of links that began with Euan Mearns’ comment (January 7, 2014 at 9:30 am).

    I haven’t exhausted the trail yet, but:

    1.
    I’m filing this pattern in (photographic) memory:

    2.
    it was refreshing to find such eminently good sense posted on a climate blog I’d never heard of:

    “If correct, the main trigger of glaciations would not be the expansion of snow fields in subpolar belts, but rather the increase in temperature gradient between the low and the high latitudes.”

    This link trail has been timely, as I’ve recently been on a related link trail triggered by maksimovich at Climate Etc. — see for example this provocative work:

    Thomson, D.J. (1995). The seasons, global temperature, and precession. Science 268, 59-68.

  18. Roger Andrews says:

    Tim: I’m glad you put Geran’s comment back in because it gives me the opportunity to answer it:

    “Okay, first, how many, exactly “ice ages” were there? 11, 12, 15, 60, or more? C’mon, how many?”

    Over the last ~500,000 years my answer is ONE.

    Separated, however, by five interglacials, much in the same way as bands of rain from an incoming storm are separated by clear patches.

    “Then, how many of the “ice ages” ended with the Earth at maximum eccentricity?”

    The ice age is yet to end. All of the interglacials, however, ended with the Earth at or around minimum eccentricity, according to Clive’s data.

    More below.

  19. Roger Andrews says:

    Clive:

    A new theory. (Just thought of it, wasn’t holding it up my sleeve)

    A few weeks ago on the “Ice Man Cometh” thread over at Euan Mearns you were wondering about the sudden appearance of 100,000 year cycle in the LR04 record about 900,000 years ago:

    “From 5.3 million years to 900,000 years ago, the 100,000 year oscillation is all but absent in the LR04 data which oscillates solely in response to the 41,000 year obliquity cycle. But since 900,000 years ago the 100,000 year cycle kicks in together with the 41,000 year cycle.”

    The 100,000 year cycle kicked in when Antartica became permanently glaciated ~800,000 years ago.

    How do we know that this is when Antarctic became permanently glaciated? Because the Epica core hit bedrock at 3,260m (~800,000 years), meaning that there was no ice in the thickest part of the Antarctic ice cap at that time, or in other words that Antarctica was substantially ice-free. Since then, however, ice has always been present.

    I’m posting this comment on your thread too.

  20. Chaeremon says:

    In his summary, Clive Best writes: “Maximum spring tides existing 15,000 years ago were likely at least 50% stronger than those today. This must have had the largest effect in polar regions …”

    This is good food for thought to me, such a huge tidal range at the polar regions, thanks Clive.

  21. Paul Vaughan says:

    “We propose that the gradient in insolation between high and low latitudes may, through its influence on the poleward flux of moisture which fuels ice sheet growth, play the dominant role in controlling climate […]”

    Raymo, M.E.; & Nisancioglu, K. (2003). The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery. Paleoceanography 18(1), 1011.

    “Above, we propose a ‘‘gradient hypothesis’’: that the strong obliquity signal imprinted on the Ice Age record is caused by the control meridional temperature gradients exert on the poleward transport of moisture. As obliquity decreases, cooling at high latitudes occurs and the gradient in solar heating between high and low latitude increases. Both effects, cooling polar regions and the enhanced delivery of moisture, promote ice sheet growth. […] Ultimately, ocean circulation and ice volume are being controlled by atmospheric dynamics that must be sensitive to Milankovitch variations in incoming solar radiation.”

    harmonic of 41ka (obliquity) nearest 26ka (axis precession) = 41ka / 2 = 20.5ka

    (26)*(20.5) / (26 – 20.5) ~= 97ka

  22. Richard111 says:

    Fascinating article. During an ice age sea levels are MUCH lower. What effect would that have had on tides? I imagine sea shore would be beyond the edge of the continental shelf. How to find out?

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    …and the other side:

    (26)*(20.5) / (26 + 20.5) ~= 11ka

    See figures 2-5 — 100ka equatorial insolation’s role in poleward gradients & advection:

    Berger, A.; Loutre, M.F.; & Melice, J.L. (2006). Equatorial insolation: from precession harmonics to eccentricity frequencies. Climate of the Past 2, 131-136.
    http://www.clim-past.net/2/131/2006/cp-2-131-2006.pdf

    Berger, A.; Loutre, M.F.; & Melice, J.L. (2006). Equatorial insolation: from precession harmonics to eccentricity frequencies. Climate of the Past Discussions 2, 519-533.
    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/519/2006/cpd-2-519-2006-print.pdf
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/81/40/PDF/cpd-2-519-2006.pdf

    “In contrast with the extra-tropical latitudes, which exhibits a simple maximum of insolation each year, the Sun comes overhead twice a year at each latitude in the intertropical belt.”

    “Here we show that the double maximum which characterizes the daily irradiation received in tropical latitudes over the course of the year is at the origin in equatorial insolation of not only strong 95 kyr and 123 kyr periods related to eccentricity, but also of a 11-kyr and a 5.5-kyr periods related to precession.”

    “The tropics have been long neglected by paleoclimatologists who mostly followed the hypothesis by Murphy (1876), later independently popularized by Milankovitch (1941), that the driver of the long-term climatic variations is summer in the high northern polar latitudes.”

    “[…] leads to more evaporation in the equatorial regions, a larger latitudinal gradient in the northern hemisphere (remember that if we consider the winter hemisphere, the maximum of the energy received from the Sun is at the equator), a more active transport to the north […]. When extended to winter precipitation, the Milankovitch hypothesis is therefore also involving the equatorial and intertropical regions. […] more important than previously thought.”

    Select latitudes have had simplifying utility in heuristic pioneering, but there’s no need for authors to keep arguing 65N insolation vs. equatorial insolation. Poleward advection is a function of the multivariate poleward gradient field. Conceptually & narratively it doesn’t need to be one or the other. Rather there’s a whole easily seen with a due step back.

  24. Anything is possible says:

    Good luck Clive, I’ve been trying to figure this out for about 20 years. It’s complicated!

    Two points I would like to make :

    1), I think the inter-latitudinal insolation gradients, as high-lighted in Paul Vaughan’s link are crucially important to the accumulation of the NH ice sheets.

    2) I really want emphasise this point because almost everybody seems to neglect it :

    Consider what effect the ice sheets themselves have on climate once they are in situ. For a start, the whole of Canada and Scandinavia is raised 2-3000m above sea level. This ALONE is enough to decrease surface temperatures by 15C-20C, and that’s before you consider any albedo effects or wholesale changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. Not convinced? .Compare the present-day climate of Summit Camp in Greenland to sites at similar latitudes in Canada and Scandinavia, and you’ll see what I am driving at……

    To me at least, this raises the possibility that ice ages are, to a large extent, self-sustaining and somewhat independent of Milankovitch Cycles.

    Eventually, of course, it all breaks down, but this could be a consequence of continental ice sheets, unconstrained by surrounding oceans, expanding into lower latitudes where the climate remains too warm to sustain surface ice. Melting then begins to exceed accumulation, and the transition back to an inter-glacial climate is underway.

  25. J Martin says:

    Paul, as I understand it, obliquity is the combined effect of two periods of precession, since the planet cannot rock backwards and forwards. Is that correct ? So did you just extract the second precession frequency from obliquity ?

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Here’s an article Tim might appreciate:

    Rial, J.A. (2004). Earth’s orbital eccentricity and the rhythm of the Pleistocene ice ages: the concealed pacemaker. Global and Planetary Change 41, 81-93.

    note: harmonic mean of 80 & 123 is 97ka

    The mainstream narrative that alternating equator-north / equator-south (6 months later) poleward insolation gradients and consequent (heat engine) advection don’t matter on decadal-to-centennial timescales is completely wrong. It’s based on oversimplified assumptions. The proof is in earth orientation records. (Suggestion: Read Sidorenkov (2009) section 8.7 for foundations needed to discuss this sensibly in future.)

    Did you know?…
    The sunspot record has a subtle lunisolar component (that cannot be detected with conventional methods that by traditional design make naively false (statistically paradoxical) assumptions about spatiotemporal aggregation). This could explain a lot of previously-mysterious observations that have come up in discussion here a number of times. I’m not going into details now, but I’ll point to 2 things: (1) sunspot records are in part of function of viewing conditions from Earth’s surface (2) terrestrial circulation is strongly influenced by lunisolar cycles (e.g. QBO).

    There’s 1 more thing worth noting in this thread before rotating priority back to competing pursuits (back later…)

  27. tchannon says:

    Add some spice, mostly planetary body movement is extremely close to lossless.

    In this case mechanical work is suggested and that together with normal viscosity and turbulence/frictional loss might add somewhat to losses. What I have in mind is slight orbital change, not local energy dissipation.

    Most likely this is negligible. Is it?

  28. clivebest says:

    @oldbrew
    According to this Russian paper. The 1800 year lunar cycle is responsible for regular warmer and cooler periods which also drove human development and migration.

    @Roger Andrews
    If you believe the dO18 stack results then the slow drift of Antarctica over the south pole could be responsible for the cooling of the earth’s climate over the last 5 My. 800,000 years ago the current series of glaciation cycles started. It seems remarkable that Epica also finds no ice older than 800,000y. The Antarctica circumpolar current drives the global ocean circulation current- especially in the Atlantic. Winds blow continuously clockwise around antarctica pumping water northwards away from antarctica and upwelling cold deep water to the surface. Some of this deep water originated from the north pole up to a thousand years previously.

    Antarctica may well be the underlying reason for the current 1 million year long “Ice Age”. Interglacials are the exception.

  29. clivebest says:

    @Paul Vaughan

    Yes I think the 41,000y obliquity cycle is actually easier to understand. You can look at it two ways :

    1. The higher tilt angle gives a larger insolation to both poles during summer months. The arctic circle gets bigger. The total sum of insolation at both poles has a clear 41,000y cycle

    2. The difference between the insolation at the north pole to that at the south pole varies with exactly the same 41,000y cycle .

    The underlying variation is a mixture of the precession and the eccentricty. If the Earth had a perfectly circular orbit the precession would have no effect whatsoever.

    This can be seen in a little program I wrote to simulate Milankowitch cycles.
    The red solid and dashed curves in this figure correspond to points 1. and 2. above

  30. Roger Andrews says:

    Clive:

    I believe the LR04 d18O results; I’m just not sure what they’re telling us.

    The southward drift of Antarctica may explain why Antarctica became glaciated in the first place but isn’t going to explain the ~800,000 transition in the d18O records.

    The fact that there was (probably) no ice in Antarctica ~800,000 years ago doesn’t mean there was never any ice in Antarctica before then. It may just all have melted.

    But the fact that the ~800,000 transition in the d18O records coincides with the development / return of a permanent Antarctic ice cap suggests a possible cause-and-effect relationship.

  31. tchannon says:

    Given the earth is a soft body with little in the way of a rigid form and also the presence of moving liquid on the surface, the surface topography will be unstable. In addition there might be varying internal forces underlying the mostly soft mantel.

    Applying a mass on top of Antarctica depresses it into the body and this will move the rest of the surface, ocean floors and other bits of floating dross. This affects ocean circulation, bear in mind eg. Antarctica was connected to south America, breaking the isolating circumpolar current.

    And so on.

  32. Ian Wilson says:

    Clive thanks for taking the time to look at some of my work.

    If you go to

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html

    and look at the top right hand side of the first figure, you will see that DO events 3, 2, 1, and 0 all occur at times that mark the start of significant warming periods in the last 16,000 years. DO event 3 is at the start of the first warming event. Following this event, the world’s mean temperature starts the long climb towards modern day temperatures. DO event 2 marks the start of a sharp warming trend that almost get the world’s mena temperature up to modern day values. temperatures peak about 14,500 years BP and then drop quickly until about 12,500 years BP. DO1 interrupts that fall near 13,000 BP with a short weak increase in temperature before the world descends into the full force of the Younger Drayas. Then finally, DO event 0 lifts the World mean temperature to its modern Holocene values.

    If you look back through the Ice age between 20000 and 50000 BP you can see many (but not all) of the Do events producing temporary increases in the World’s mean temperature. This would indicate the the lunar driven DO events act like an ignition source but some other factor (e.g. The Earth’s obliquity) is needed to make the ignition events to take hold and lift the mean temperatures up to inter-glacial levels.

  33. Ian Wilson says:

    Sorry. that should have read …the top right of the second diagram.

  34. clivebest says:

    Ian,

    I’ve just read the Keeling & Whorf paper. Correct me if I am wrong but I think their results can be summarised as follows:

    – Perigean tides occurs every 411.78 days (spring tide at lunar perigee)
    – Perigean Eclipse Tide occurs every 2.99847 years (Perigean tide with Earh-Sun-Moon all in ecplitic plane)
    – Super Perigean Eclipse Tide(SPET) occurs every 1832 years (Perigean Eclipse Tide AND Earth/Sun at perigee)
    – In addition there is a 5000 year modulation in the strength of SPET as well.

    Their paper proposes that these cycles coincided with cool spells caused by increased mixing of deep ocean wit surface water. The most recent of these was the little ice age. They propose that some(most) of the observed warming is due to the recovery from this cold spell. The next cold cycle is due in the 35th century.

    You are now proposing that it is the synchronization of these super tides with the season that matters. 1st January coincides with perigee for the earth-sun. “The strongest alignment between the phases of the Moon and the 177.0 year Perigee-Perihelion cycle occurs at the FULL MOON at 739.001 years.” Or 1478 years between 2 new moons. Is this correct.

    You are saying these events trigger D-O climate warming events during the last ice age. Is this correct? I haven’t yet convinced myself of the logic for 1478y but will look more into it.

  35. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clive,

    Thanks sincerely for the illustrations and stimulating material.

    What I’m outlining here is a trivial extension of Milankovitch.

    I have further (strategic) notes to share on equator-pole & land-ocean contrasts in annual cycles, but the paid-work vortex isn’t cooperating…

  36. clivebest says:

    …… I forgot this one

    – Ice busting monster tides occur every 100,000 years when a SPET occurs with the earth’s orbit at maximum eccentricity. Then both the distance from the earth to the sun and earth to moon at perigee is at a minimum.

  37. Ian Wilson says:

    Clive,

    *****************
    If you are just concerned with the absolute strength of lunar tides on the Earth’s surface, then the 18.03 year Saros cycle and its sub-multiples (i.e 3.0, 6.0, and 9.0 years) are your basic repetition cycle.
    This is because 223 synodic months = 242 draconic months = 239 anomalistic months. In other words, if a New Moon occurs at perigee near one of the nodes of the lunar orbit [the conditions for a Solar Eclipse], another New Moon will occur at perigee near one of the lunar nodes 18.03 years later.

    Another way to look at these absolute tidal pattern is in terms of the Perigean eclipse cycle which is determined by the synodic product between the 8.8501 (sidereal) year pro-grade precession of the lunar line-of-apse and the 18.60 (sidereal) year retro-grade precession of the lunar-line-of nodes:

    (1/8.851 + 1/18.60)^(-1) = 5.997 (sidereal) years ~ 6.00 (sidereal) years

    The perigean eclipse cycle also influences tidal events on the millennial time scale because the
    return time for near coincidence of events of this cycle with perihelion is approximately 1,800 year.

    These are the tidal cycles that Keeling & Whorf propose that effect the World’s mean temperature.

    ******************
    My proposal is that it is more important to determine when the peak lunar tides synchronize with the seasons, In essence, I am claiming that the Earth’s climate is most influenced by the time it takes for the extreme Perigean spring-tides to re-synchronize with the Earth’s seasons. On time scales of few thousand years, this is equivalent to determining when the extreme Perigean spring tides re-aligns with Perihelion.

    [Note: Of course on longer time scales, you would need to account for changes in the ellipticity of the Earth’s orbit, the obliquity of the Earth and the Precession of the Earth’s axis].

    For those that want to learn more about the Perigean spring-tides:
    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/el-ninos-and-extreme-proxigean-spring.html

    The repetition periods associated with the alignment of the Perigean spring-tides with Perihelion (i.e. the seasons) are 20.293, 10.147, 3.796, 1.898, 4.00, 15.00 and 19.00 years.

    The 20.293 and 10.147 year periods come from the re-alignment of the synodic and anomalistic months
    The 3.796 and 1.898 year periods come from the re-alignment of the synodic and draconic months
    The 4.00, 15.00 and 19.00 year periods come from the re-alignment of the synodic and tropical year.

    [Interestingly, if you look at all the beat periods of these periods that are shorter than 7 years, you find that they almost perfectly match the observed peak frequencies observed in the periodogram of the SOI index between 1950 and 1997 (Sidorenkov 2000)].

    On longer time scales it is better to compare how long it takes for the perigee of the lunar orbit to point at the Sun at (or near) the time of Perihelion. This is 177 years and 1832 years.

    However, when the Perigee of the Lunar Orbit is pointing at the Sun at (or very near to) Perihelion it does not necessarily mean that the phase of the Moon is either New or Full (Syzygy). hence, we need to ask the question: How do the phases of the Moon re-synchronize with the 177.0 year Perigee-Perihelion Cycle?

    New or Full Moons that re-occur when the Perigee of the lunar orbit is pointing ta the Sun at (or near) the time of Perihelion are whole multiples of 739 years (i.e. 0.0, 739.0, 1478.0 and 2217.0 years).

    Now, careful study of the New and Full Moons near 739.0 years shows that the strongest alignment between the phases of the Moon and the 177.0 year Perigee-Perihelion cycle occurs at Full Moon at 739.001 years. This contrasts with the starting phase which is a New Moon at 0.000 years.

    Hence, it actually takes 1478.00 years (= 2 x 739.00 years) to complete the cycle where a New Moon occurs when Perigee points at the Sun at (or near) Perihelion once again.

    This makes the long term realignment period for the Perigean spring tides with the seasons = 1478 years, which is very close to the 1470 year periodicity of the DO warming events.

  38. Roger Andrews says:

    Ian:

    I don’t know how much difference it makes to your analysis, but the DO events shown in the GISP2 record you’re using occur 2,000-3,000 years later in the adjacent NGRIP record, and in the Vostok record from the Antarctic they show up as minor bumps if indeed they show up at all:

    (The y-axis scale is d18O for the Greenland records and temperature from deuterium for Vostok. I can’t show absolute units because I had to adjust the records up or down to separate them.)

  39. Roger Andrews says:

    Whoops, I meant 2000-3000 years earlier, not later.

    (I made this mistake because I plotted the graph with the time scale backwards relative to the way I usually do it. which is with the oldest data on the left. This is the way it’s done for AD data and the way it should be done for BP data too. We need to get everyone to do it this way.)

  40. Ian Wilson says:

    Roger,

    Thanks for making this important point. yes the Southern Hemisphere started warming about 2000 years earlier (~ 18,000 BP) than the Northern Hemisphere (GISP2 record in Greenland) (~ 16,000 year).

    DO 5 occurs at ~ 18,900 years BP and so it is possible that the warming of the Southern Hemisphere started with DO 5, while the Northern Hemisphere with DO 3 at ~ 16,000 BP.

  41. Roger Andrews says:

    Ian: The 2000-3000 year shift I was referring to occurs between the NGRIP and GISP2 cores before about 20,000 years BP, not between the Greenland and Antarctic cores. I brought it up to show that there’s a problem in defining when DO events in Greenland actually occurred (NGRIP and GISP2 are only about 200 miles apart). You may already have looked into this, in which case nothing is lost, but I didn’t know whether you had or not.

  42. Ian Wilson says:

    Roger,

    I think someone is pulling your leg. Surely you can see that bumps and sudden jumps in NGRIP and GISP2 are almost exact replicas of each other with one shifted compared to the other by a constant lateral shift. One of the two sequences is not aligned properly. End of question.

    As to the Southern versus Northern hemisphere differences, I suspect that the Vostok data is affected by a high frequency smoothing mechanism such as heavy gas diffusion in the ice column.

  43. TLMango says:

    I’ve often wondered if precession and obliquity were one and the same, always maintaining an
    8:5 ratio. If they have a common physical mechanism (the Sun and Moon) they should move in lock step.

  44. Roger Andrews says:

    “I think someone is pulling your leg. Surely you can see that bumps and sudden jumps in NGRIP and GISP2 are almost exact replicas of each other with one shifted compared to the other by a constant lateral shift. One of the two sequences is not aligned properly. End of question.”

    Ian, the shift between GISP2 and NGRIP isn’t constant. It’s zero before about 10,000 years BP, increases to ~2600 years around 30,000 years BP and falls back to ~2,200 years at 60,000 years BP.

    When you compare GISP2 with the GRIP record, which was drilled right next door, you see shifts that increase progressively from zero in the early part of the record to about 1,500 years at 60,000 years BP. And when you compare GRIP to NGRIP you find the shifts increasing with time from zero to over 3,000 years at 60,000 years BP.

    Bottom line? Either the GISP2 record you’re using is distorted, or the other two records are distorted, or all three records are distorted, or DO events in Greenland occur up to 3,000 years apart depending on location, or some combination of all of the above.

  45. Roger Andrews says:

    Ian: Here’s a paper that synchronizes GISP2, GRIP and NGRIP. The distorted record is indeed GISP2, and the distortion is removed by stretching it ~2500 years between zero and 30,000 years BP to match NGRIP.

    http://www.isogklima.ku.dk/english/publications/papers/pdfs/244.pdf

  46. Ian Wilson says:

    I have placed an important associated blog post at:

    http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/do-events-cause-rapid-warming-events-in.html

    This post clears up some the confusion caused by the discrepancies between scaling chronologies of the GISP2, GRIP and NGRIP ice cores. As can be seen from the second graph in this blog post [that used the NGRIP-based Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005 (GICC05) time scale] there is excellent agreement between the timing of the DO events and the rapid rise in polar temperatures.

  47. David A says:

    ? My discussion at Watts up with richardscourtney may provoke some thought with regard to “Why did the last 8 glacial periods only end when the earth’s orbit around the sun reached maximum Why did the last 8 glacial periods only end when the earth’s orbit around the sun reached maximum eccentricity ?” ? Unfortunately you will need to get to the end of the post to understand the point made, but may find it of interest.

    David A says:
    January 14, 2014 at 10:58 pm

    richardscourtney says:
    January 13, 2014 at 9:52 am
    David A:
    Your post to me at January 13, 2014 at 8:29 am concludes saying
    “However my question relates to the ration of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules. A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation?? A question masquerading as an assertion.”
    R>C responds…OK. My suggested links did not meet your need. Sorry.
    I provided those because – as I said – the subject is large and as introduction I thought links to writings by Ira Glickstein were the most appropriate in a thread discussing a new article by him.
    You ask;
    “A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via back conduction, instead of back radiation??”
    Well. Yes, but so what? The Earth’s atmosphere does include GHGs.
    =========================================================================
    Dear Richard, thank you, and apologies for the delayed response. The clue to your so what? question is in this sentence of mine, which you quoted…”my question relates to the ratio of energy leaving the surface via changes in conduction due to changes of GHG molecules.” So I am asserting, (with an open mind) that this quote “A planet with no GHG would continuously conduct heat to the atmosphere, until the atmosphere at the surface reached equilibrium with the surface, via BACK CONDUCTION, instead of back radiation”” being affirmed as correct, would mean that some of the projected 33 degrees of warming due to GHG back radiation, would be made up by increased conduction from a reduction in GHGs.

    In fact, I am asserting as logical that the energy conducting to the atmosphere, would have a longer residence time, due to the fact that it could not radiate away, and continue to mainly conduct up to the cooler atmosphere. Conduction, and Convection would continue, via Coriolis
    affect, night and day flux, and latitude heat differentials The thinner more elevated atmosphere would continuously absorb warmer, faster vibrating molecular energy, until they equalized. A thermometer would measure the thinner atmosphere as cooler, due to the fact that fewer would hit the same surface area, but they would have a thermodynamic equilibrium of the same energy per molecule. So the “so what?” is an affirmation that less GHG equals more conduction from the surface, and an increase in atmospheric residence time of said energy, partially making up for the 33 degree warming affect of GHGs. Stated more simply, a decrease in back radiation is, to some degree offset by an increase in back conduction.

    What I can not figure out is how to quantify such a change. Not all the energy leaving the surface is radiant. Clearly Trenbeth shows this, however, even now some of the energy hitting the surface is also conducted, via warmer air contacting a cooler surface.

    BTW, I use “David’s law, regarding residence time, to explain the warming affect of GHGs. Anything that increases the residence time of energy in a system is warming. The devil is in the details.
    One watt of energy hits the ocean surface, accelerates evaporation and that one watt leaves the ocean, and begins to exit the system (system equals earth, ocean, atmosphere) Another watt of SW energy strikes the ocean surface and penetrates up to 200 meters.

    So I see the earth’s system as a highway with one on-ramp, TSI, and one off-ramp, space, The inflow on the onramp is relatively constant over the annual cycle. (For the moment forget longer astronomical cycles) The number of cars, (units of energy) in the SYSTEM (earth, ocean, atmosphere) depends on the average speed of the cars between the on and off ramps. More cars slowing means more cars on the highway. (earth, ocean atmosphere) More cars driving faster means fewer cars on the highway.
    SW cars that reflect from white clouds go very fast. Different SW clouds that dive deep in the ocean, drive very slow.

    This is why I ask, and have never received an estimated answer, if the earth, ocean atmospheric system gains or loses energy during the SH summer. About 7 percent more TSI striking greater percentage of ocean, with increased NH albedo, clearly cools the atmosphere, but does the increased heat entering the oceans, more then counteract this? This energy entering the ocean’s are certainly slow drivers on our fascinating highway.

    So that last paragraph can also apply to changing eccentricity, which would have an affect on the residence time of earths energy input.

    Well, as I said, it is an academic question by an interested layman. Somehow I think I could make humor out of it, lets see, “Two photons walk into a bar….?

  48. clivebest says:

    Paul,

    I don’t consider the 41,000y cycle to be a mystery at all. If you sum up the total energy received at the North Pole each year you get a clear 41,000 year signal. Lots of energy = melting ice

    Raymo, M.E.; & Nisancioglu, K. (2003). The 41 kyr world: Milankovitch’s other unsolved mystery.

    say that it is the temperature gradient that matters. Yes that shows up as well as being a clear 41,000y signal. When the North pole is getting loads of energy the south pole is getting less depending on precesssion and exccentricity. Now subtract the 2 and you get a perfect 41,000y signal as before. The precession signal cancels out.

    Here are the results

  49. Paul Vaughan says:

    Clive,

    I believe you may be misinterpreting what they mean by “low latitudes”.

    By “high latitudes” they mean poles. By “low latitudes” they mean equator. They are not talking about south-pole–north-pole gradients, but rather equator-pole gradients — i.e. the primary air & water mixers — which reverse spatial orientation every 6 months.

    • Concise overview of heat engines = p.433 [pdf p.10] here:

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.

    • Elaboration on heat engines = section 8.7 (begins on p.175 [pdf p.189]) here:

    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2009). The Interaction Between Earth’s Rotation and Geophysical Processes. Wiley.

    http://imageshack.us/a/img850/876/f0z.gif (credit: JRA-25 Atlas)

    Regards

  50. E.M.Smith says:

    It is helpfull to think of it as “What causes the north pole ice to melt?” Rather than what causes a glacial. The normal state is frozen. Only when all aligns enough to melt the n. Pole does an interglacial happen. So th 41k period ended when the 41k driver became insufficient alone and needed more elements aligned…

  51. TLMango says:

    Chuang Xuan and James Channell from U of F in Gainesville Florida wrote a paper on the 41000
    and 100000 year cycles present in the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Don’t have the particulars with me now.

  52. TLMango says:

    Thanks Tim
    Theres a huge divide between the solid earth geophysicists, fluid dynamics and astrophysics. Some
    fields are more interested in their rocks than how they effect climate. So I cut these folks a little slack because they either aren’t true believers in AGW or don’t know any better. But they are pushing a theory I really love and thats
    luni-solar precession. A geomagnetic field fueled by precession. Check out (Wu and Roberts, 2009).

  53. Paul Vaughan says:

    Doake, C.S.M. (1977). A possible effect of ice ages on the Earth’s magnetic field. Nature 267, 415-417.
    =
    “Ice ages and reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field are two widely different geophysical phenomena; but they may be casually linked by the following mechanism. The moment of inertia of the Earth will be changed by variations in size of polar ice sheets and the resulting redistribution of water mass. To conserve angular momentum the Earth’s rotation must therefore change. Calculations on the basis of a simple model then suggest that conditions at the core-mantle boundary may be perturbed in such a way as to affect the generation of the Earth’s magnetic field.”
    =

  54. dscott says:

    Have you considered that the Moon itself influences the jet stream which in turn greatly alters the day to day weather patterns? Prolonged alteration of the jet stream would in turn cause droughts or excess precip.