skyfall.fr are one of our sceptical European friends
Figure from paper cited later. If the top trace is correct that is a superb match between insolation (P) and proxy. A lot of reading follows.
Under the title “Lindzen lors de l’audit de l’APS : Milankovitch et l’Arctique”
http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1280
For anglophones
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skyfall.fr%2F%3Fp%3D1280&edit-text=
I’ll let skyfall speak and then then link the interesting part.
Link to the paper from skyfall is to an author’s copy and is broken. I’ve dug out a proper copy.
This dull looking open access paper hides gems.
Accurate spin axes and solar system dynamics: Climatic variations for the Earth and Mars
S. Edvardsson, K. G. Karlsson and M. Engholm
Department of physics, Mid Sweden University, 851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden
(Received 10 April 2001 / Accepted 4 January 2002)
Abstract
Celestial mechanical simulations from a purely classical point of view of the solar system, including our Moon and the Mars moons – Phobos and Deimos – are carried out for 2 millions of years before present. Within the classical approximation, the results are derived at a very high level of accuracy. Effects from general relativity for a number of variables are investigated and found to be small. For climatic studies of about 1 Myr, general relativity can safely be ignored. Three different and independent integration schemes are used in order to exclude numerical anomalies. The converged results from all methods are found to be in complete agreement. For verification, a number of properties such as spin axis precession, nutation, and orbit inclination for Earth and Mars have been calculated. Times and positions of equinoxes and solstices are continously monitored. As also observed earlier, the obliquity of the Earth is stabilized by the Moon. On the other hand, the obliquity of Mars shows dramatic variations. Climatic influences due to celestial variables for the Earth and Mars are studied. Instead of using mean insolation as in the usual applications of Milankovitch theory, the present approach focuses on the instantaneous solar radiation power (insolation) at each summer solstice. Solar radiation power is compared to the derivative of the icevolume and these quantities are found to be in excellent agreement. Orbital precessions for the inner planets are studied as well. In the case of Mercury, it is investigated in detail.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20020029
Post by Tim
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
This paper covers the last seven glaciations so it would seem fair to compare the results with the EPICA ice core temperatures:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark
EPICA and Vostok ice cores show the timing of the last seven glaciations in thousands of years BP (Before Present) based on papers published in 2007 & 2008:
Tmax, 0…125…235…335…400…580…690…780
Tmin, 20..135…270…340…430…640…750
This paper cited above shows ice volumes from Imbrie et al, 1990:
Tmax, 0…125…190…335…405…510…670…740
Tmin, 20..135…270…345…430…640…700
This looks like surprisinly good correlation to me considering that this is not an “Apples to Apples” comparison. People who can make respectable “Backcasts” may be able to tell us when the next “Ice Age” will strike.
The translation link did not work for me. Fortunately I can read French much better than I speak it so I was delighted to find this gem:
“Carbocentrisme.”
The author has captured the problem in a single word!
I’ve seen this before — quite interesting.
It’s a timely reminder that model parsimony is a statistical & cultural paradigm. Nature has how ever many contributing cycles nature has. The p-values may tell us to admit no more terms to the model, but this can be wrong.
On this theme:
Tim, say you were given a list of periods & amplitudes (~35-40) dictated by nature, with the only unknown being response phasing. Is your software easily configured to do the multidimensional phase optimizations to fit a series given such constraints?
If so, I may have an exploratory puzzle to recommend.
@gallopingcamel (May 25, 2014 at 6:03 am)
I also read the article in French and I was delighted to pick up the term “carbocentrism” (“carbocentrist”, “carbocentric”, “carbocentered”, etc.).
The term is exactly right.
Reinterpreting ERSST EOFs 1-4 (O/T, so I’ll leave it at that for now)
I’d like to import the whole phrase, “chez les carbocentristes”, untranslated, as a new gallicism for skeptics. I’m not sure whether it was intended to be faintly disparaging in the French but it would be if dropped into an English sceptic piece. It reminds you that they are in an ivory tower without actually saying it.
PV, if you have _exact_ period or frequency they can be typed in and locked. (lock = 0x01, almost anything or combination can be locked, part of how deannualising is done)
Free parameters are optimized, usually using least squared as the figure of merit, ie. RMSE
Phase of course.
It is also possible to unlock as a last stage, allow fine time or period but only if the match is genuine otherwise a machines wakes up and says, huh, go away and will whizz off. If this happens some thought is needed on why.
[edit] I forgot, it also possible to allow a range of period for each, with a lot of them I’d want to program up creating the constraints file.[/edit]
It is also perfectly okay to preprocess data and then transform back afterwards. (eg. linearise then delinearise)
Chances of success? Slim.
Aside I don’t think I have ever mentioned. Early on as part of testing I showed it a square wave to approximate. A square wave has a known particular decomposition. To my dismay if failed… nope, turns out there is a second solution which it found. Been a lot of unexpected results, related to how a figure of merit is computed, not something obvious in any published literature.
Tim, I wish I had a few years of uninterrupted focus to work on software development. Actually, it might take more than a decade of uninterrupted focus to complete what I have in mind.
You’re using some kind of forward and backward selection, right? And that is the optimization challenge — i.e. that the order of entry and removal of terms affects the ultimate choice of model? My understanding is that there’s a landscape of possible final models you explore, with the limiting factor being machine time — e.g. an exhaustive grid search is too inefficient (would take effectively forever), so you’ve settled on an algorithm that works well most of the time (and you guide it manually like any sensible, aware user would when it gets off into territory where it might not go if you had infinite time to program)?
In the case I’m proposing, everything hinges on just 2 periods and an alternate mathematical representation of their event series that I’m exploring. So the model has only 2 parameters that inflexibly dictate an entire (large) family of model components (with fixed amplitudes & periods), as that’s how the earth & moon work in nature.
I’ve never seen this method anywhere, but math is a big world and I’ve solved enough difficult problems to know that it’s almost always the case that someone else has already been there — more often tons upon tons of people have already been there, but sometimes just a few. A problem is not knowing what the methods are called in specialist communities and therefore not being able to search for them efficiently. A solution to this problem is independence. Most of the people by whom I was surrounded in grad school would just solve any problem they encountered independently. The focus was on being able to develop methods from scratch without any support. That was the paradigm. It’s inefficient, but it’s robust. I always prefer to develop my own algorithms from scratch, but lack of free time is a merciless killer that is forcing me to consider alternatives. I always find that with collaboration there’s the risk of fatal misunderstandings, but free time just isn’t on the horizon …and misunderstandings can be weathered …(or better yet avoided).
A problem is that there are several simple models with very high r-squared. I need to do further exploration to develop objective criteria for selecting among them, as forecasts are sensitive despite tight fits over the record. I successfully developed a method (based on seasons & tides) for choosing which terms get priority for model entry, but logic dictated that all model terms should be included in hierarchically weighted fashion. This immediately led to a programming problem that I decisively don’t have time for. Hence the inquiry.
In the end it may turn out that some terms can be ejected, but I like to run exhaustive diagnostics to comparatively learn everything possible firsthand before drawing such conclusions. (When in new territory, look under every stone sort of thing.)
It may also turn out that entirely new customized software is needed to finish solving the problem, but simpler possibilities have not yet been ruled out, so such a conclusion would be premature.
I may e-mail you sometime in the weeks ahead if/when time permits the degree of attention & focus needed to evade risks of misunderstanding.
We don’t usually discuss software on the Talkshop, nor do in detail on my own blog. Historically I have in specialist public places such as newsgroups where I was moderator, not that I said much.
Computer based optimisers is a fascinating subject, as is optimisation in many other fields. Never as simple as it might seem, lots of constraints and unintended consequences.
You can do optimisation using some of the general purpose maths packages. This might be enough for what you want to do. (simple things can be done in general purpose scripting anyway)
Conceptually a simple optimiser loop is little different from say Runge-Kutta as used in maths. Easy, now generalise and make large. A classic and infamous gotcha from computer science is the Travelling Salesman Problem. This explodes in time so fast it cannot be solved precisely (NP-hard). That leads to engineering style, do you want the answer or a good enough answer?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/TravelingSalesmanProblem.html
So famous there are books on the subject “In Pursuit of the Traveling Salesman – Mathematics at the Limits of Computation”
“In Pursuit of the Traveling Salesman gives a very readable account of progress in tackling one of the most important problems in Applied Mathematics: the Travelling Salesman Problem. The problem of finding the shortest route through a number of cities is finite and therefore solvable in principle but becomes disproportionately complex as this number grows. Theoretical, practical and historical aspects of the problem are thoroughly explained.
The opening chapter Challenges details the problem including two examples of competitions with cash prizes. The Proctor & Gamble competition in 1962 offered $10,000 for the shortest route visiting 33 locations in the USA. …”
— http://www.ima.org.uk/viewItem.cfm-cit_id=384560.html
Is this French paper a rehash or repeat of the Gerard Roe paper ?
I can’t get google to translate it in firefox.
I note that the Roe paper didn’t reference the Edvardsson paper. There was a published comment that they [Edvardsson et al] got their calculations quite wrong for mars-phobos-deimos, and that the author agreed. Might that have led to the paper being ignored? No real discussion of Earth, but the topic is too far from comfortable ground for me.
link to paper
If you have trouble with the translation link the Talkshop has a link to both Bing and Google translators on the top menu. Try invoking it for yourself.
Put this in as the target without the quotes “http://www.skyfall.fr/?p=1280”
You’ve unearthed a good point there. I’m in no position to appraise the matter either.
A few bits and pieces on Milankovitch and glaciation that I have picked up.
William McClenney, a geologist has been following the literature on glaciation quite closely for several years. His replies @ WUWT startingHERE to the Mosh Pup and Jai Mitchell are quite entertaining.
For example:
The take home part of McClenney’s comments is since 2005, no one is supporting the extended Holocene thesis any more.
“Aside from Loutre and Berger’s 2003 astronomical model, which was soundly trounced by Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal, there has only been one well-accepted means of preventing glacial inception discussed in the literature: greenhouse gases.”
He had some more serious comments at:
“the CONVERSATION” a University blog
theconversation(DOT)edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808
and @ the Huffington Post
(wwwDOT)huffingtonpost.com/social/William_McClenney/extreme-weather-climate-change_b_948797_106718906.html
CONTINUING:
The critical Lisiecki and Raymo’s 2005 rebuttal is this paper:
Click to access Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf
A fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? I extracted the 21 June solar insolation @ 65◦ N for several glacial inceptions: a> says…
This paper, gives the solar insolation and CO2 for termination of several interglacials. Current values are insolation = 479 W m−2 and CO2 = 400 ppmv
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
From NOAA I get:
Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm−2
NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2
So the question becomes what else kicks the earth into glaciation?
Problem: ‘the models are too hot in the tropics’
Comment: ‘a simple solution to this problem is to reduce the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the models’
[both quotes from the post]
Other climate factors that may be needed to initiate a glaciation:
Ian Wilson and others have pointed out the north-south vector of the long term lunar influence. This seems to correspond with the ~1400 year Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations, Bond events and Heinrich events that cause global temps to change up to 16C in dramatically short times.
Another is the solar effects on the jet streams. Steven Goddard and others have noted that the polar vortex pattern over the USA this winter matches that of the Lauren-tide Ice Sheet.
Last is the growth of sea ice in the Antarctic.
RACookPE1978 @ WUWT has several good comments on the effects of Antarctic sea ice vs Arctic sea ice. It is the Antarctic that is critical not the Arctic. What happens if Drake Passage becomes clogged with ice for one thing. The Antarctic Circumpolar Current is wind driven and ice is going to change the dynamics. Does this mean more cold water diverted into the Humboldt current? F. H. Haynie, a retired EPA scientist thinks:
So does this mean more La Ninas or even a permanent La Nina condition?
R. A. Cook looks at it from the point of view of energy. Given the actual latitude of Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice, open water in the Arctic is a net energy LOSS while more sea ice in the Antarctic is also a net energy Loss. In other words the Climastrologists are watching the wrong place – SQUIRREL!
In another comment Mr. Cook gets more specific
That is the first of several posts by Mr. Cook and others where they have a ‘discussion’ with Willis E. Several good papers on the subject are cited.
oldbrew says: @ May 26, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Comment: ‘a simple solution to this problem is to reduce the climate sensitivity to CO2 in the models’
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or quit using CO2 as THE factor in the climate models. Actually just toss the models.
The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:
In other words we flushed millions down the toilet on climate models that are KNOWN to be a pure waste of time.
Dr. Brown of Duke who has been working with ‘Chaos’ for years. He mentions ‘Strange Attractors’ where the climate will stay stable around one ‘Strange Attractor’ for years and then enough factors change in the right direction to boot the climate into staying stable around a different ‘Strange Attractor.’ This is seen in the saw tooth pattern of temperature over the long term.
Identifying the factors effecting climate and the cycles as you guys are trying to do is a much better use of time, money and effort.
I have been looking at the Antarctic sea ice for a while and wondering what would happen if it joined South America. After reading Gail’s post it would seem I am not the only one, then Gail brings in strange attractors. If the ice closes the gap an entire new set of strange attractors will come into play.
Frightening concept, but the gap is getting smaller, that big ice sheet that the AGW crowd tell us is breaking free could be a big enough plug to fill the hole. That would make for rather rapid climate change and not in a nice way. The information that the Arctic vortex followed the same pattern as the ice sheet in the last glacial is a wake up call.
Anyone here on Rogers site know how to kick start the sun? Congrats on the UKIP thing Roger Europe and England need a wake up call.
‘Antarctic sea ice has now been significantly above the satellite average level for 16 consecutive months.’
‘Antarctic sea ice extent for April 2014 reached 9.00 million square kilometers (3.47 million square miles), the largest ice extent on record by a significant margin.’
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This is the most interesting reexamination of Milankovitch Cycles I have seen in a long time.
BTW, the global sea ice anomaly shot up last year following a low in 2012, and it continues to increase at present as the Antarctic ocean cools:
Wayne Job,
I think the Antarctic is probably more critical to the climate that the Climastrologists want us to think.
The closing of the Isthmus of Panama and the opening of Drake Passage changed the entire ocean circulation pattern and is thought to be what caused the current Ice Age.
It is tough to find a lot of information on the Antarctic but Brian A Tinsley has written a lot of papers in that field link
The Tinsley and Yu’s review paper has an explanation as to how an increase in ions in the atmosphere results in more extreme winter storms. The paper also has an explanation as to why there was the highest amount of cloud cover in the Arctic in the summer of 2012, which resulted in the greatest recovery in sea ice in recorded history.
A couple more Tinsley papers:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL00499/pdf
This study I have very high regard for.
The following goes hand and hand with the study I just sent in the previous email.
These four factors either combined or in some combination are responsible for all the climate changes on earth. If one agrees with this then one will also have to agree that global climate change is synchronous.
MY FOUR FACTORS
1. The initial state of the global climate.
a. how close or far away is the global climate to glacial conditions if in inter- glacial, or how close is the earth to inter- glacial conditions if in a glacial condition.
b. climate was closer to the threshold level between glacial and inter- glacial 20,000 -10,000 years ago. This is why I think the climate was more unstable then. Example solar variability and all items would be able to pull the climate EASIER from one regime to another when the state of the climate was closer to the inter glacial/glacial dividing line, or threshold.
.
2. Solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects. Lag times, degree of magnitude change and duration of those changes must be taken into account. I have come up with criteria . I will pass it along, why not in my next email.
a. solar irradiance changes- linked to ocean heat content.
b. cosmic ray changes- linked to clouds.
c. volcanic activity- correlated to stratospheric warming changing which will impact the atmospheric circulation.
d. UV light changes -correlated to ozone which then can be linked to atmospheric circulation changes.
e. atmospheric changes – linked to ocean current changes including ENSO, and thermohaline circulation.
f. atmospheric changes -linked also to albedo changes due to snow cover, cloud cover , and precipitation changes.
g. thickness of thermosphere – which is linked to other levels of the atmosphere.
.
3. Strength of the magnetic field of the earth. This can enhance or moderate changes associated with solar variability.
a. weaker magnetic field can enhance cosmic rays and also cause them to be concentrated in lower latitudes where there is more moisture to work with to be more effective in cloud formation if magnetic poles wander south due to magnetic excursions in a weakening magnetic field overall.
4. Milankovitch Cycles. Where the earth is at in relation to these cycles as far as how elliptic or not the orbit is, the tilt of the axis and precession.
a. less elliptic, less tilt, earth furthest from sun during N.H. summer — favor cooling.
I feel what I have outlined for the most part is not being taken as a serious possible solution as to why the climate changes. Rather climate change is often trying to be tied with terrestrial changes and worse yet only ONE ITEM , such as CO2 or ENSO which is absurdity.
Over time not one of these one item explanations stand up, they can not explain all of the various climatic changes to all the different degrees of magnitude and duration of time each one different from the previous one. Each one UNIQUE.
Examples would be the sudden start/end of the Oldest, Older and Younger Dryas dramatic climate shifts, the 8200 year ago cold period, and even the sudden start of the Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period.
This paper, gives the solar insolation and CO2 for termination of several interglacials. Current values are insolation = 479 W m−2 and CO2 = 400 ppmv
MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2, CO2 = 256 ppmv
MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2, CO2 = 259-265 ppmv
MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2, CO2 = 225 ppmv
MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2, CO2 = 240 ppmv
From NOAA I get:
Depth of the last ice age – around 463 Wm−2
NOW (modern Warm Period) 476Wm-2
So the question becomes what else kicks the earth into glaciation?
Gail, the answer to your question is what I posted in the above, which is the Beginning State Of The Climate, Solar Variability(duration /degree of magnitude change)Strength of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, along with Milankovitch Cycles.
Those four factors can /will kick the earth into a different climate regime due to primary and secondary effects.
Thresholds can be achieved so when it happens it could be quick although the lead up to the happening can be slow and gradual.
The ap index has been extremely low post 2005 and it looks like no recovery is in site. If you look at the study I sent between temperature versus the aa index you will see the correlation is quite strong.
If you match CO2 concentrations versus those temperature changes you will see NO correlation at all.
I listed the secondary effects in my previous post by the way.
All the commentary on this web-site shows WE(on this web-site in aggregate) are on the correct path when it comes to why/how the climate will change going forward.
If climate science looked at all the likely factors and tried to ‘weight’ them, it would have a much better chance of making progress IMO. The current ‘tunnel vision’ is holding everything up.
So true old brew and sites like WUWT keep it going since they block any real debate. I gave Anthony a piece of my mind today. Of course it will never be posted.
He will never allow posters like myself to challenge his precious Leif/Willis.
I am for all out give and take when it comes to climate discussion with a level playing field. You don’t pick and choose what someone may or may not say when it is it is grounded in scientific opinion. point.
Salvatore Del Prete, oldbrew,
I certainly agree. Although I do not put the list of factors in the same way Salvatore does.
1. Are we near the glacial/interglacial threshold which seems to be some where near the calculated value of 465 to 500W m−2 for the summer solstice at 65N? (Note this is CALCULATED via the Milankovitch parameters)
2. How much heat is still stored in the oceans? (That is Salvatore’s starting climate)
3. What other factors are effecting the sun. Is it at a grand solar minimum or maximum?
4. The above will effect the ozone and albedo and other factors and can change the actual amount of energy received by the earth from the sun as well as the weather patterns such as the positions of the polar vortices and jet streams.
5. Lunar influences, specifically the north/south vector Ian Wilson and others have identified.
6. Volcanic action. This seems to be connected to grand solar minimums and perhaps lunar?
The data is certainly out there and if a casual dabbler like me can see it you know it is also known to the Climastrologers but it doesn’t fit well with their ‘Cause’ so they ignore it.
Gail, you are no casual dabbler. Your knowledge is extensive.
OH, and Salvatore thanks for the link to that paper. Dr. Joan Feynman papers are always good reading.
Salvatore,
You probably saw this some time ago when it was first shown at WUWT, but the inflection point during the same time period of the Super El Nino of 1997/98 I find intriguing.
It is from the paper:
A newer paper
Click to access Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
This is a modification of the original graph:
From a draft of the paper: Inter-annual variations in Earth’s reflectance 1999-2007.
Also of interest: (wwwDOT)spacearchive.info/news-2004-05-27-cit.htm
If the same pattern has continued, increasing or level cloud cover, I doubt we will get much of an El Niño this year if we get one at all but I think we are looking at La Nada. There is just not enough energy going into the oceans.
Figuring out exactly what caused that inflection point I think is a key point to understanding climate. Solar cycle 22-23 minimum was in 1996/97 and if Cliver et. al are correct, the geomagnetic
activity(aa) was starting to level off or decline at that time. It may be just an intrinsic property of the ocean oscillations like several people think at WUWT, but I do not think so. There is a good chance that there is something else happening with the sun we have not stumbled on yet that is effecting the climate. The UV/EUV wavelengths that effect the ozone are a good bet and they also penetrate deep into the ocean. There is the E10.7 proxy which has been around since the early 1980s but aside from some very short term (days) data I can find nothing available except to researchers. F10.7 is another proxy but it is no where near as accurate as E10.7 according to W. Kent Tobiska. “During active solar conditions, daily F10.7 can overestimate the EUV energy input into the atmosphere by up to 60% and also underestimate it by as much as 50%.”
(And I am a dabbler because I am too lazy to relearn the math I need to really do the digging. My forte in industry was always taking bits and pieces from different sources and putting them together into a logical whole to solve problems.)
For what it is worth Gallopingcamel has two excellent additions to the science.
One is a comment at Steve Goddard’s that should be given more attention:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/whats-up-with-that/#comment-357834
And the second is an article at Verity’s Digging-in-the-clay:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/robinson-and-catling-model-closely-matches-data-for-titans-atmosphere/
Both are incredible nuggets that should not be lost.
I hope they won’t be Gail, I know about it and GC has input. I’m the one being slow, no mental energy left from firefighting legal stuff to do with badly behaved outsiders. I am very, resist words, upset.
Gail,
Thanks for your kind words.
I am more than impressed with your comments on Milankovitch cycles even though the mathematics is way above my pay grade.
I was hoping to meet you in Fayettevile on my way to Raleigh on Thursday, May 29 or on my way home to Florida on the following weekend.
Here is a link to my teaching schedule which includes my cell phone number. It would be great to hear from you:
http://www.bdidatalynk.com/PeterMorcombe.html
Gail,
It is always a pleasure to visit North Carolina. Robert Brown is traveling next week but I plan to spend some time at Starbucks with Nicola Scafetta.
Gail Combs says: May 27, 2014 at 10:27 pm
“2. How much heat is still stored in the oceans? (That is Salvatore’s starting climate)”
To me this is the deciding “base” parameter on which all other climate effects work.
See this post:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/ben-wouters-influence-of-geothermal-heat-on-past-and-present-climate/
Since the last warming of the deep oceans (up to ~290K) that ended ~84 mya they have been cooling down some 18K.
When the deep ocean temperature dropped below ~280K icesheets began to form an Antarctica.
Below ~275K seems to be the deep ocean temperature that enables the Milankovitch cycles to maintain the current cycle of glacials / interglacials.
In the comments I introduced the term DOSCA: Deep Ocean Surface Cooling Area expressed as a percentage of total ocean surface area.
To me this works as an “amplifier” for the effects of ao Milankovitch and solar cycles.
Gail, the info. you have posted from Albedo, to Antarctic Sea Ice role in the climate to Atmospheric Dynamical Responses to Solar Wind Variations is where climate science should be focused , in contrast to all this nonsense about global man made warming due to CO2.
These articles are wonderful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Quaternary_volcanic_eruptions
In the above post notice the lack of significant volcanic activity post 1900.
Further evidence that volcanic activity is inversely related to solar activity .
Temp increase as volcanic activity decreases.
Over reporting, ie. data inconsistency?
On the interdecadal polar motion / IPO coherence I illustrated above:
Reminder (of something we discussed in the past):
Zonal movement of WPWP (Western Pacific Warm Pool)
here‘s a suggestion that sea ice anomalies tie in (perhaps again proving we pretty much can never go O/T, since everything’s interconnected)
Links to Zhou’s work:
http://202.127.29.4/yhzhou/
(& then do an in-page search for “warm pool” & “atlantic oscillation” to find relevant “polar motion” pdfs)
So the important reminder here is that:
Temporal phase reversals (in deceptive appearance only) can be spatial.
(At WUWT recently there’s a lot of ignorant fuss about temporal-only methods that pretend the spatial dimensions don’t matter. They’re getting lost in hair-splitting mathematical & technical minutia of methods that patently can’t do the job, so they’re doing no better than climate modelers over there, unfortunately…)
(Word UnimPressed has not been allowing me to comment so I will try again.)
Ben Wouters says: @ May 28, 2014 at 1:13 pm
….“2. How much heat is still stored in the oceans? (That is Salvatore’s starting climate)”
To me this is the deciding “base” parameter on which all other climate effects work…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is one of the points that is studiously ignored. And yes I understand where you are saying. As a caver (spelunker) I am aware that in deep mines the temperature goes up – not that you would catch a caver in a mine {:>D
One of the points that seems to be missed is the large heat capacity of the ocean and its ability to store small increments of energy over long periods.
For example:
This graph gives the different depths that various wavelengths of solar energy penetrate the ocean. Warmists like L.S. keep saying the TSI only changes 0.1% or whatever and completely ignore the fact that the wavelength ratio changes and therefore the depth to which the solar energy penetrates changes. This alone could manifest as increases or decreases in ocean heat storage/discharge (ENSO) and also cloud cover. If the Wavelength Ratio shifts towards the IR then more energy is “deposited’ closer to the surface and ultimately causes more evaporation ===> cloud cover.
Small changes integrated over large areas and long periods of time can have major effects. I think of it as pushing a child on a swing. Very little effort is needed to keep the swing in motion once it is in motion however small changes in that amount of push will accumulate and the swing will either go higher or slow down or even stop.
Konrad on your thread and over at WUWT stated the same thing this way:
So yes, what you said makes sense though I never thought about it before. So thanks for pointing it out.
One of the other changes of course was the rearrangement of the continents that changed the ocean circulation.
Paul Vaughan,
I am going to have to read your information closely (as usual)
At a quick glance the “..The following figure overlays the Antarctic ice anomalies (green) from above, on the Arctic ice anomalies (black) from above. A divergence began around 1998 (when the major El Nino of 1997-98 occurred)….”
Sure looks like a bipolar sea-saw, the reactivation of which is supposed to push us into glaciation according to the paper “Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?” {:>D(And yes I know the paper is talking of Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations and Bond events, but most warmists don’t know that.)
RACookPE1978 @ WUWT had several good comments as to why a loss of Arctic sea ice = loss of energy to space via open water because it is closer to the poles while an increase in Antarctic sea ice also = a loss of energy via albedo because the Antarctic sea ice is closer to the equator. So the present configuration of losing Arctic sea ice and gaining Antarctic sea ice do not cancel each other but are an additive effect of losing more energy.
He mentions Judith Curry’s work (actual measurements) in this one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/18/how-much-sunlight-actually-enters-the-system/#comment-1571201
In this comment he was kind enough to “… duplicate below a “spreadsheet copy” of a spreadsheet I have for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 day….” so it might be of interest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/17/crises-in-climatology/#comment-1571641
Add in the increasing albedo post the major El Nino of 1997-98 shown by the Earthshine Project paper and a weak sun, I really do not know how much longer the Climastrologists can keep up the Con game.
All you have to do is look at Robert Felix, IceAgeNow website to see it is NOT hot elsewhere in most cases. Also for crop failure it is not the net ‘Global temperature’ that matters but the wild swings in weather like Polar Vortices and Blocking Highs caused by the meandering jet streams we have been seeing of late.
My guess is it is going to take major crop failures and famine to wake-up the Sheeple and the MSM will STILL be try to blame it on CAGW. (That is why the name got changed to ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Weather Weirding’)
I am hoping the USA can come up with the equivalent of UKIP and Farage before it is too late.
Gail Combs says: May 29, 2014 at 2:08 pm
“So yes, what you said makes sense though I never thought about it before. So thanks for pointing it out.”
I’m pretty confident I have the mechanism that explains why the avg. temp on Earth is more than 90K higher than on our moon, and why the Earth has experienced several hothouse and icehouse periods during its existence. (perhaps even a Snowball Earth)
Could you give me a clue as to what I should explain differently to get this idea over the floodlight?
“One of the other changes of course was the rearrangement of the continents that changed the ocean circulation”
Yes, but no reason why the DEEP oceans warmed ~18K.
Remember the Ocean Heat Content (OHC) discussion. The “alarming” temperature rise was some 0,06K (or 0,006K?)or something similar. I’m talking eighteen whole degrees.
Let the oceans warm 3 to 5 degrees, and we’re out the glacials.
Of course nothing we can do about that 😉
Click to access GCR%20GEC-Solar%20Variability%20influences%20on%20Weather%20and%20Climate%20GCR%20Tinsley%201989Oct.pdf
There is evidence the Moon was captured during the Younger Dryas, stabilizing the Earth’s rotation and resulting in the Holocene era. If so, there is no reason to believe Earth is in an ‘interglacial period’, or that the Milankovich cycles based on current data are valid. manvantura.wordpress.com
Angiras: What about ample evidence of tidal action in paleo records over millions of years??!