S. S. Vasiliev and V. A. Dergachev: 2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration

Posted: March 24, 2014 by tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, atmosphere, Carbon cycle, Celestial Mechanics, climate, Cycles, Electro-magnetism, Geomagnetism, Idiots, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, solar system dynamics, Tides, wind

Here we have  two fine scientists who have written an excellent and easily readable paper, well supported by the evidence they cite.

2400-year cycle in atmospheric radiocarbon concentration: bispectrum of 14C data over the last 8000 years
S. S. Vasiliev and V. A. Dergachev

Received: 5 September 2000 – Revised: 6 August 2001 – Accepted: 21 August 2001




The full paper is available here and is a good read. It goes into the paleo evidence found worldwide which confirms the reality of this cyclic period in climate indices such as ice cores, ocean sediments, carbon 14 deposition and etc. Team Wassup and the co2 fetish ‘cyclophobes’ have their blinkers firmly clamped over their eyes. Not very scientific. Their readers deserve better though, so I hope they read  this interesting science that they are not allowed to see at Watts’ blog due to his narrow minded ban on discussion of this topic.

The 2400yr Halstatt cycle is of primary interest to us because there is a very strong link with planetary motion cycles.

The conjunction cycles of the major planet pairs Jupiter – Saturn and Earth – Venus both precess over the same 2400 year period. It is also 2/3 of the period over which the Neptune – Uranus conjunction cycle precesses. We’ll cover in more depth the longer and shorter term inter-relationships these pairing periodicities show which tie in to the Glacial/interglacial and other Milankovitch cycles, the Bond and De Vries cycles, and the Gleissberg and Hale cycles in another post soon. The reason for posting this paper is to show that these cyclic periods have long been known about, but have more recently been swept under the carpet by the merchants of chaos and their lukewarm apologists.

  1. ren says:

    Tallbloke see the data on the Arctic magnetic field. Do you see relationship of the shape of the polar vortex in this year?


  2. ren says:

    The observed magnetic field is highly asymmetrical.
    Lines of inclination are highly elliptical, with the North Magnetic Pole situated near one end of the ellipse.
    The strength of the magnetic field is no longer a maximum at the North Magnetic Pole. In fact, there are now two maxima, one over central Canada, the other over Siberia.
    Magnetic meridians do not converge radially on the North Magnetic Pole.

  3. Solar cycles thus climate cycles based JUST on the planets play a role in the climate but are modified or enhanced, by the beginning state of the climate, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field, the phase earth is in ,in respect to Milankovitch Cycles, processes going on in the sun itself ,and galactic cosmic ray concentrations in the vicinity of earth out in space,(to name a few)which means different outcomes are going to result from given solar cycles based JUST on the planets influence or lack of influence on solar cycles/sun

    For example, take the beginning state of the climate.

    By beginning state of the climate I mean how far away ,how close is the climate to glacial or non glacial conditions, when a given solar cycle comes into effect. Where the climate is AT, is going to have a significant impact on what impact that given solar activity/cycle may or may not have on the outcome of the climate going forward.

    This is why to pin point what the climate is going to do going forward based just on solar cycles with respect to the planets (thus the climate) is an educated guess. I think one can make general statements as to if the climate will become warmer or cooler but not much beyond that if using JUST solar cycles based on the planets impact or lack of impact upon the sun.

    Those other items have to be given consideration some carrying more weight then others.

  4. tallbloke says:

    Savatore, I agree to a large extent with what you are saying. We recognise that multiple factors are in play. But remember that the milankovitch cycles affecting earth are themselves controlled by the planets. We will show the probable linkages in our next ‘why phi?’ post coming up soon. If you study the paper linked in this thread, you will see that most of the peaks in the C14 timeseries are HARMONIC RESONANCES of the principle periods of 210, 420, 710 and 2400 years. There’s a reason for that.

  5. ren says:

    Earth’s magnetic field is changing and this can introduce some confusion. Flux of galactic radiation can also be variable.

  6. tallbloke says:

    ren, the earth’s magnetic field is also linked to the Sun and the motion of the planets. We just need to decode the signal. Earth’s magnetic reversals have a 1.1myr component. There is a major exchange of angular momentum between Uranus and Neptune on the same timescale around 1.119myr. The planetary (and lunar) cycles are some of the keys to decoding earth’s changes at all timescales.

  7. ren says:

    It seems to me that the solar system strives for synchronization, it can protect life on earth.

  8. Hans Jelbring says:


    For information.
    There is an article by Luc Beufort: “Climatatic importance of the modulation of the 100 kyr cycle inferred from 16 million year long Miocene record”, Paleoceanography, 9, 821-834, 1994.

    From my thesis (page 49) about this work. “The amplitude of the main signal with a period of 111 ky, fluctuates quasi-periodically, modulated by periods of 2.38, 1.14 and 0.8 million years.

    111 ky is the accepted period (or at least it was around 1998) for the perihelium of Earth to rotate once in relation to the stars.

    The 16 million year time set is recorded by identifying 18O isotope variations in Coccolithus pelagicus in a drill core (ODP 747 in the inidian Ocean).

    Hence, the drill core contained about 140 full 111 ky cycles.

  9. ren says:

    Projected changes in the geomagnetic field from 2010 to 2015.
    The predicted changes inF, the largest decreases are predicted to the
    south of eastern North America as well as to the south west of South
    America. The later involves a continued deepening and westward
    motion of the South Atlantic Anomaly. The largest increases in F
    are predicted to take place in the equatorial part of the mid-Atlantic.

  10. Kon Dealer says:

    What are the implications for dating using Carbon-14 isotope decay?

  11. tallbloke says:

    Don K: What are the implications for dating using Carbon-14 isotope decay?

    That dating isn’t infallible. Especially on really long term proxies such as those mentioned by Hans J.

  12. Rog, first I want to say I really appreciate this site . Thanks.

    I agree with your reply to me.

    I agree that the planets have a large role in all of the items you mentioned, such as the earth’s magnetic field , Milankovitch Cycles.

    My argument is not so much that the planets have a major influence on solar dynamics ,but that given solar changes even if the same will not necessarily translate to the same climate outcome.

    That is what I was trying to say in my earlier post.

    The state of the climate right now believe it or not is not that far away from glacial conditions.
    If one were to look at the temperatures over the past 10000 years ,temperatures were for the most part higher then they are currently. Take the Holocene optimum for example which featured temperatures much higher then today.

    Then take the Medieval warm period also warmer then today. This period the Medieval warm period ended around 1275 to 1300 AD, and that time period I feel is strikingly similar to what we have currently as far as our climate situation. Very similar to that period of time 1275-1300 AD.

    What happened back then was the sun went into a prolonged minimum phase and the Little Ice Age came on and it was fast not slow in establishing itself.

    I think conditions right now make us very vulnerable to this happening again, if anything conditions now are even more favorable for this kind of climate change then they were back around 1275AD in my opinion.

    I say this mainly because I think the beginning state of the climate is closer to glacial conditions now then what it was when the Medieval Warm Period was coming to an end. In addition the earth’s magnetic field is now much weaker then it was back then.

    The upshot of this is this prolonged solar minimum could have a significant impact on the climate going forward.

  13. Abstract

    Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years Before the Present) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth’s orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.


    This article above is alone the lines of my previous post in that it shows today the beginning state of the climate relative to the past 10,000 years is more unstable and more subject to solar changes, while the beginning state of the climate in contrast back 12,700 -14,700 years before the present was more unstable then today.

    Back 12,700 -14,700 years solar changes relative to today probably had a bigger impact on the climate, while solar changes during the Holocene Climatic Optimum relative today probably would have a smaller impact on the climate, due in large part to the beginning state of the climate.

    Which is the point I am trying to make with some of my recent postings which is given solar cycle conditions WILL NOT necessarily translate in giving the same climatic outcomes.

  14. Bolling–Allerod

    A period of warm climate beginning abruptly approximately 14 700 years ago, following the end of the Pleistocene, and extending to approximately 12 700 years ago.

    This warm period ended with a return to cold conditions during the Younger Dryas. Traditionally, this period is divided into the Bolling (warm), Older Dryas (cold), and Allerod (warm) intervals, but recent, more detailed climatic records indicate that the entire Bolling–Allerod period was generally warm with several abrupt coolings.

    Broeker, W. S. 1992. Defining the boundaries of the late-glacial isotope episodes. Quat. Res.. 38, No.1. 135– 138.

  15. What keeps me thinking in the above is this part of this sentence which is as follows:

    the entire Bolling-Allerod period was generally warm with several abrupt coolings.

    Those abrupt coolings that is where the key lies to climate changes and why in my opinion.

  16. Climate Science today instead of focusing on areas discussed on this site is stuck on CO2 . What a waste of time and money.

    Again AGW theory will be obsolete before this decade ends.

  17. Ren, I think the configuration (magnetic excursions) of the magnetic field of the earth as well as the strength plays a role in some other areas, one being the location on the earth where galactic cosmic rays will be directed the most.

    The further South galactic cosmic rays are directed due to the earth’s magnetic field configuration the greater impact they may have in the formation of clouds. Reason being the nuclei via the galactic cosmic rays would have more moisture to work with thus being more effective in the formation of clouds.

    More low clouds equates to colder temperatures.