 | oldbrew on Britain saved by coal –… |
 | Marcus WC Tipton on Britain saved by coal –… |
 | tallbloke on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
 | Ned Nikolov on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
 | konradwp1 on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
 | djalmabina on Study: Mars and Titan have ann… |
 | Gamecock on Tottenham Hotspur to host worl… |
| Ned Nikolov on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
 | Paul Vaughan on Arctic Ice Hockey Stick August… |
| tallbloke on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
| Ned Nikolov on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
| tallbloke on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
 | pochas94 on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
| tallbloke on Arctic Ice Hockey Stick August… |
| Ned Nikolov on Ned Nikolov: Demystifying the… |
.
.
A very important topic indeed, thanks to Judith Curry for raising it.
by Judith Curry
. . . suggesting that Dansgaard-Oeschger events resulted from a combination of the effects of sea ice and ice shelves—structures that help define the margins of ice sheets—to account for both the rapid and the slower parts of the cycle.
View original post 1,221 more words
In the comments Judith Curry thanks another commenter for linking to this paper:
‘Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles: Interactions between ocean and sea ice intrinsic to the Nordic seas’
The paper starts by saying:
‘Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles are the most dramatic, frequent, and wide-reaching abrupt climate changes in the geologic record.’
NASA has an informative summary of D-O events with links to datasets, here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data3.html
Nice subject Oldbrew. There is another interesting paper out by RG Johnson from U. of Minnesota.
‘Past and future ice age initiation: The role of an intrinsic deep-ocean millennial oscillation’.
It can be found at Hockeyschtick somewhere around May 22.
Johnson shows a graph (figure 6) of 4 overlapping 1500 year cycles.
These overlapping cycles represent a sequence that takes place with the oceans oscillations.
Both the work of Curry and Johnson point this out.
I may be wrong but… I thought the Dansgaard-Oeschger was a 1500 year cycle.
There’s a 1000 year millennial cycle. A 1470 year Bond cycle. A long and a short Hallstatt cycle,
2300 and 2200 years. All of these cycles at one time have laid claim to the Damon and Sonnet
C14 graph. If there is one issue I’d like to see resolved it is: When we are looking at the Damon and
Sonnet graph, which cycle are we looking at ? I love this stuff. Keep up the good fight Oldbrew.
@ TL Mango
Thanks for that, here’s the link:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-theorizes-new-ice-age-could.html
I’ll have to read it later – ‘the world’s longest abstract’ says The Hockeyshtick 🙂
Even the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) has been known to dabble in climate cycles.
The following(below) is something I had come up with two years ago. This is long BEFORE this current article by Judith Curry came out. This article is similar to what I say , but she does not explain why the AMOC changes (other then freshwater input but what promotes that?),she also does not consider the fact that there might be a solar/atmospheric circulation/AMOC connection which might promote a change in the AMOC circulation.
She also does not give any relevance to the earth’s magnetic field strength, and beginning state of the climate, which will allow given solar variability to have a much greater effect on the climate if the state of the climate is close to the glacial/interglacial threshold boarder.
In summary this article is nothing new or revolutionary , the thought has been around for years to one degree or another.
FACT 22 – Solar/Thermohaline Circulation/1470 year climate cycle connection – Southwest Weather, Inc. supports the theory that states the superposition of the DE VRIES – SUESS 210 year solar cycle, and the Gleissberg 87 year old solar cycle creates a solar variability every 1470 years, that impacts the fresh water concentrations put into the North Atlantic, which in turn either weakens or strengthens the Thermohaline Circulation. The effects, depending on the initial state of the climate; that being glacial or interglacial. Since we are currently in an interglacial period, we will examine the Solar/Thermohaline circulation possible connection for this initial state of the climate when solar activity is in a minimum state.
OVERVIEW
The connection between the Thermohaline Circulation and the Solar Cycle is if solar activity should reach a certain level of activity, it could through a modulating effect of the atmospheric circulation, either amplify or reduce the amount of sea ice entering the subpolar North Atlantic. This would then change the fresh water concentration of the subpolar North Atlantic, leading to a change in the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) production, which would either enhance or decrease the Thermohaline Circulation.
FOR EXAMPLE:
If solar activity were to reach a certain minimum magnitude (every 1470 years), it could modulate the atmospheric circulation, resulting in a negative Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which in turn would amplify the transport (due to a stronger northerly wind flow over the North Sea to the Sub Polar North Atlantic, in response to a negative NAO) of drift ice into the Sub Polar North Atlantic, causing the salinity concentrations and the temperature of the Sub Polar North Atlantic waters to decrease. (Density decreases overall despite colder water temperatures)
This would cause a reduction in NADW formation, which would lead to a weakening of the Thermohaline Circulation. The result would be a further cooling in the higher latitudes, due to less northward transport of heat via the Thermohaline Circulation.
This would then have a PROFOUND EFFECT on the temperatures of the Northern Hemisphere much MORE, then what the solar reduction in activity itself would suggest.
Re C14 – there may be a reliability issue:
http://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/carbon-14-seeing-the-light/
The elephant in the room, or one of them, may be the Hallstatt period or cycle, which is thought to be in the range 2100 to 2300 years approx.
According to one paper:
‘the Hallstattzeit wave form in Figure 4 suggests that the Sun slowly expands, lingers at maximum diameter and then contracts. This structural modulation partitions potential energy and radiant energy (Sofia 1984) between two intransitive states.’
http://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1450/1454
Its an interesting concept, Arctic ice growing sufficiently to reach the sea bed. Chiefio did something on this as well.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/arctic-flushing-and-interglacial-melt-pulses/
Seems a valid concept and is perhaps how glaciations get going. I wonder how we could stop it, or ameliorate it, perhaps by building thorium nuclear power plants near or on the sea bed pumping out heat.
Figure 6 p.578
seems to most concisely encapsulate ideas alternately being put on the table via grossly excessive (bordering on absolutely insane) word-counts.
Problem #1 with D-O solution:
The irresponsible proprietors of D-O info have left it scattered & scrambled.
(Sellers: That’s not what customers want.)
To an outsider, it looks like a hopelessly verbose turbulence of conflicted, meandering confusion. (Sellers might as well be pitching: “Would you like to buy this dirty mess that you first need to clean up before you can decide if there is any use?”)
A militant effort needs to be made (by whom I don’t know) at data reduction (by not just one but several orders of magnitude).
I would suggest at most a 1 or 2 page encapsulation of the problem with all of the key datasets organized into the same format and rolled into a single text-only webpage. This could help facilitate efficient attraction of much brighter minds from outside climate science. The problem needs to be completely defined quantitatively to facilitate a single-sitting 20-minute computational quick-start.
I strongly suspect that several bright, fresh minds might crack this problem in a single sitting (independently, as individuals working in parallel) if the problem definition they first encounter is sufficiently condensed.
2 big undisputed Earth cycles:
1 year
1 day
And how do they beat?
Julian year = 365.25 days
Beat with nearest subharmonic of 1 day:
(365.25)*(365) / (365.25 – 365) = 533265 days
(533265) / 365.25 = 1460 years
Tip: Using the tropical year (instead of the Julian year), it’s a trivial exercise to extend this framework to align precisely with the following:
U-N
JEV
SEV
(I’m giving everyone an opportunity to try this independently. It’s an easy exercise.)
The same exercise invites illuminating reinterpretation of Svalgaard’s attacks (1024 year harmonics) on planetary theory. (Suggestion: Check tropical year / tropical leap year alignment series for an eye opener.)
With additional attention to the draconic month, it appears possible that this framework also explains the 4.5 year low frequency component of ENSO.
–
Sensible interpretation of climate records demands orders of magnitude more careful attention to aggregation criteria.
Regards
[…] and Tallbloke has a lively forum going on this as well https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/explaining-abrupt-climate-change/ […]
The paper Paul Vaughan links to is the one reported by The Hockeyshtick (see TL Mango’s comment above).
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event
‘Heinrich events occur during some, but not all, of the periodic cold spells preceding the rapid warming events known as Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, which repeat around every 1,500 years. However, difficulties in establishing exact dates cast aspersions on the accuracy—or indeed the veracity—of this statement.’
JSUN EV
(22.14)*(18.01) / (22.14 – 18.01) = 96.5
(165)*(84) / (165 – 84) = 171
beat with nearest subharmonic of 96.5:
(193)*(171) / (193 – 171) = 1500 years
A more precise calculation matches the following:
(365.24219)*(365) / (365.24219 – 365) = 550449.6443 days
(550449.6443) / 365.24219 = 1507.081217 years
solar system affects Earth’s orbital parameters (and hence insolation aggregation) = not surprising
inflexibly related:
beat of 1 day with nearest harmonic of tropical year:
365.24219 / 365 = 1.000663534
(1.000663534)*(1) / (1.000663534 – 1) = 1508.081217 days
(1508.081217) / 365.24219 = 4.128989636 years (leap year)
tight alignments of tropical year with tropical leap year occur at the following intervals (in tropical years):
128, 256, 512, 1024
compare with Svalgaard’s ignorant &/or deceptive solar-planetary distortion artistry for some easily-overlooked insight into what goes on with 10Be circulation at the terrestrial end of solar-terrestrial relations due to insolation tide event series (by now we should all recognize that insolation tides both drive and mix whereas lunisolar tides only mix)
reminder:
(1500)*(180) / (1500 – 180) = 205 years (de Vries)
180 = lunisolar or solar system?
beat of LAC with nearest harmonic of LNC (in years):
18.612948 / 2 = 9.306474
(9.306474)*(8.847358) / (9.306474 – 8.847358) = 179.3396597
which is of course confounded with solar system dynamics
Where I grew up we used to take a shortcut across the ice in winter. All locals were well aware that cracks in the ice (around the shore and between an island & a headland) were a function of both tides & temperatures.
It would always be a windy day in spring that tipped the balance from ice to open water.
Temperature can strengthen & weaken ice. Tides can crack ice. Tides more easily fracture what locals called “rotten” (warmth-weakened) ice. Wind can rapidly rip apart rotten, cracked ice. Locals knew this from simple, firsthand observation.
180 years is also close to the Jose cycle 178.73 years = 9 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions
Indeed oldbrew there are layers upon layers of confounding. And we can probably quickly agree that sharp awareness of the layers of confounding is superior to aggressive promotion of deliberate ignorance (such as is now strictly enforced in comments at wuwt by 4 Californian political agents, whose stealth pro-AGW agenda is becoming more transparently tied to the IPO as the IPO increasingly desynchronizes with AMO & the reality experienced by the majority of northern hemisphere skeptics who live outside of spatiotemporally anomalous California — note the amusing attempt to use Hollywood cultural imperialism to brainwash east coasters & Europeans that AMO is really IPO in a disguise that’s too inconvenient for today’s (darkly twisted) US climate politics — this corruption would be more funny if it wasn’t so problematic).
timing framework exactly confounded with tropical year / tropical leap year alignments
PV: yes indeed, we can do without being sidetracked into empty debates.
Here’s the more precise calculation (mentioned above) based on Seidelmann (1992):
JEV = +6V-10E+4J = 11.06964992 years
SEV = -6V+10E-4S = 9.007246722 years
(164.79132)*(84.016846) / (164.79132 – 84.016846)
= 171.4062162 years = U-N
(11.06964992)*(9.007246722) / (11.06964992 – 9.007246722)
= 48.34508981 years
subharmonic nearest U-N:
4 * 48.34508981 = 193.3803593 years
(193.3803593)*(171.4062162) / (193.3803593 – 171.4062162)
= 1508.436329 years
This is an average period.
Actual event series vary.
The confounding with the simple beat of 2 large undisputed cycles (the day & the year — see above) raises questions about more general classes of spatiotemporal coherence & confounding lurking just beyond the extent of our explorations to date.
For what it’s worth, here is another possible explanation for DO events:
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. DO Events Cause Rapid Warming Events in the Last Glacial Period
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/do-events-cause-rapid-warming-events-in.html
Does anyone know when the last ‘alleged’ D-O event is supposed to have ended?
I like what Salvatore Del Prete had to say about solar activity and atmospheric circulation.
There has to be a solid connection between D-O events, the Sun and atmospheric circulation.
As the Sun orbits the galaxy, it is dragging the planets along with it.
Impulses(Theodore Landscheidt) from a wobbling Sun affect the planets.
The Sun causes the eccentric orbits of the planets to expand and contract.
Impulses from the Sun cause variations in the Earths length of day.
See… Vincent Courtillot’s video:
‘Prof. Dr. Vincent Courtillot Prasentation – YouTube’
Courtillot has done a lot of work involving ‘Length of Day’ and geomagnetic jerks.
He promotes the theory of Brian Tinsley about an electrical charge that is created
by atmospheric circulation.
This all has to tie in with the D-O.
Oldbrew,
If RG Johnson’s work is correct, there are four phases to the D-O.
In figure 6 of his paper, he has four overlapping 1500 year cycles.
Since there are four phases, we would have to designate one as the beginning.
Then we could use the peaks in his graph to establish an ending.
But…. If the Sun is the engine, there might be a delay involved.
We may never know for sure.
Could it be a hybrid of the 210-year de Vries and the 87-ish year Gleissberg cycles as suggested here? (abstract only)
‘Possible solar origin of the 1470-year glacial climate cycle…’
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature04121
That 1470-year cycle is quite commonly quoted e.g. see Wikipedia.
(From the abstract: 1470/7 = 210y and 1470/17 = 86.47y)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
Ian Wilson’s comment (above) reminded me that I recently built a simple tool that graphs exactly the types of alignments (with the terrestrial year) that Ian’s exploring.
I agree with Ian’s comment (on his blog) that an incredibly precise lunar ephemeris would be needed to address some of the questions being raised.
Probably of high interest to many Talkshop contributors:
J-S (Jupiter-Saturn) alignments with the terrestrial year hit their highest quality during the following years during the first 1500 model years according to Seidelmann’s (1992) definitions:
exactly year 735 & exactly year 1470
(note that 1470/2 = 735)
J-N & S-N also hit high quality alignments with the terrestrial year at exactly year 1470 (but not at 735).
oldbrew, Braun’s paper was in the very first batch of papers I explored back when I first started getting serious about climate studies ~2008. I won’t say he’s wrong, but I will say I haven’t seen any empirical evidence that would lead me to buy his conjecture. His conjecture is useful in that it stimulates the type of thinking that can actually lead to the solution of real (as opposed to imagined) climate problems. I appreciate this. This can be sharply contrasted with the sour, excessively malicious, concerted harassment we currently see militantly aimed at shutting down every line of inquiry other than internal chaos, which can be strictly (in the mathematical sense) ruled out at key scales of spatiotemporal aggregation via the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. Earth Orientation Parameters (EOP) are the arbiters of conservation budgets and thus climate disputes. Turbulence in the system is bounded systematically in aggregate and this has been proven geometrically. A ploy of leading agents of ignorance &/or deception at WUWT & CE is to convince naive readers that turbulence is free to violate laws. The level of corruption in the climate discussion is permanently fatal. It cannot be resolved.
Yes – in a nutshell: if a cycle exists, logically there must be a cause or causes.
That may seem obvious but some people seem to have a problem with it. We all know there are cycles: solar cycles, El Nino/La Nina, tides etc. etc.
Of course it’s possible to go over the top and see imaginary cycles too, but that’s just one of the hazards I guess.
‘J-N & S-N also hit high quality alignments with the terrestrial year at exactly year 1470.’
Interesting: 41 S-N = 74 J-S = 115 J-N = just under 1470y
Also: 1346 J-E = 1420 S-E (1420-1346 = 74 J-S)
Seems to make sense?
D-O looks orbital. I’m not inclined to suspect a primary role for solar activity in D-O, but I’m not going to look into such speculation any more deeply until key info is better organized (by orders of magnitude). I take seriously Ian Wilson’s suggestion that we may not have an ephemeris of sufficient quality to resolve D-O speculation, but I see no reason to delay in dismissing as deliberately thorny political agency all manipulatively provocative suggestions that D-O is random.
Aside: This is O/T, but it’s sufficiently important to this community that I dare interject it here: Nir Shaviv just clarified at WUWT that he subscribes to the 0.1 degree C per solar cycle view that has been strictly ruled out by the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum.
0.1C at the surface, but the energy stored in the PWP and released near solar minimum in the biggest el nino of the cycle, and the following la nina near SC peak smoothes the real scale of the energy range of OHC through the solar cycle.
To simplify: ENSO and SC operate in a counter-correlating pattern which keeps surface T fairly even.
But that’s just about aggregation across the vertical & zonal axes that takes the variance accounting from 3% (even worse: with residual patterns that violate model assumptions) to at most 18% of the variance (even if one generously ascribes to solar-governed variance all lunisolar-governed variance).
A much bigger contributor is the interhemispheric axis which accounts for orders of magnitude more solar-governed variance. The informative decomposition in Figure 3 here might help with interpretation of linear recombinations of EOFs 1, 3 & 4 on p.4 here, which give r^2 of very nearly 100%.
This is a much bigger issue that can’t be side-stepped without dismissing one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. It’s a serious matter of black-&-white logic, not to be confused with the many grey areas in climate studies.
My impression is that the community isn’t (and may never be) ready to discuss this sensibly. Additionally this is O/T, so I propose that the sensible option (at least for now – and possibly forever) is to leave it there, wasting no further effort that is best conserved for other pursuits.
Regards
Paul: Agree. However Shaviv is talking about the global aggregation of surface T over the SC with his 0.1C, which is approx correct. I don’t think he fully appreciate the ocean’s ability to store, retain and disippate heat over the period, which your analysis reveals nicely.
TB: Agree.
I’ve done the analysis. It’s Stat 101 level, so I chuckle light-heartedly even calling it an “analysis”. I know exactly how people get 0.1°C & (5.5)*(3.273967393%) ~= 18%, but basic diagnostics (fancy ones definitely aren’t needed in this trivial case) clarify that the Stat 101-level stat-inferential model assumptions are violated. (There’s not even the remotest reason to accept them in a drunkenly wishful stretch.)
I was thinking to do a write-up on this sometime since this false belief has been so widely disseminated via authoritative decree (Svalgaard) and brainlessly accepted by an expansive population of functionally innumerate receivers (Svalgaard’s hopelessly blind disciples), but I decided: what’s the point in trying to communicate with people who are stubbornly entrenched at that low level? So I just never bothered.
I suspect Nir Shaviv and I could clean up any misunderstandings in a single, quick conversation. Online communication is fraught with easy opportunity for deep, persisting misunderstanding.
A topic for some other day: There’s confounding in the 18-22 year band that’s possibly leading to (quite important) misinterpretation (lunisolar vs. solar). (There’s a bunch of stuff I left out of the ERSST EOF 1234 document to save time to go sea-kayaking & hiking. Then later I lost interest and my focus drifted elsewhere — new explorations are almost always more compelling than formalizing old stuff.)
Thanks for being amicable about this despite the potential for misunderstandings — appreciated.
–
And thanks to those above who caused me to stop and notice that 735 & 1470 give the best J-S / terrestrial year alignments of all alignments between 0 & 1500 years. I should have added that J-N & S-N align well with semi-annual at 735.
One last loose end on D-O exploration:
If anyone knows (maybe Ian Wilson does or would know where to look to quickly find out), I’m wondering about the astrometric precision of current estimates of the length of the tropical year. What is the range of possibilities for this quantity? There are various types of years (anomalistic, tropical, sidereal, etc.) Is there any type of year with length ~365.248299319728 days?
Paul, you have mail.
Oldbrew said: June 7, 2014 at 7:18 pm
Does anyone know when the last ‘alleged’ D-O event is supposed to have ended?
Response:
Yes it started a warming event in 680 A.D. that peaked around about 1100 A.D. – it was called the Medieval Warm Period.
The next one [assuming it the same as the others that have taken place in the Holocene) will start ~ 2150 A.D. and peak about 2570 A.D.
Please see:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2010/10/1470-year-do-events-transition-from.html
Paul said:
What is the range of possibilities for this quantity [The Tropical year]? There are various types of years (anomalistic, tropical, sidereal, etc.) Is there any type of year with length ~365.248299319728 days?
Response:
The current (2000) vernal equinox year is 365.2424 days long. It is the closest to the value you have proposed.
The following shows the formula that I use for the Tropical year [It is a Wikipedia post so take due care].
The mean tropical year on January 1, 2000 was 365.2421897 or 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.19 seconds. This changes slowly; an expression suitable for calculating the length in days for the distant past is
365.2421896698 − 6.15359×10−6T − 7.29×10−10T2 + 2.64×10−10T3
where T is in Julian centuries of 36,525 days measured from noon January 1, 2000 TT (in negative numbers for dates in the past). (McCarthy & Seidelmann, 2009, p. 18.; Laskar, 1986)
Paul, Oldbrew and Tallbloke,
In the last six months I have been investigating a very close resonance between peak lunar tides and the relative wobbles between the orbits of Venus and Earth [Sorry for the vague description but the work is in progress]. I have established that there is a close resonance between these two phenomenon over at
least a 3000 year period [Note: I am also limited by the accuracy of the lunar ephemeris].
Without going into further detail, I am wondering if this near resonance between the orbits of Venus and the Earth, with that of the Moon, occasionally locks into a stronger resonance that dramatically affects the
rotation rate of the Earth and, hence, the Earth’s climate. This is speculation piled on top of speculation but
it may be a continuing area of study – particularly along the lines suggested by Paul in relation to the difference between the tropical year (365.24218 days) and a whole number of Earth rotations (365 days).
It might just be that these resonant locks take place roughly every every 1470 years – producing the Do events.
Please see.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events
Ian, thanks for your comments.
Perhaps Julian is the closest match (so there may be some tedious work for anyone patient enough to devote careful attention to calendering issues).
PV said: ‘Is there any type of year with length ~365.248299319728 days?’
Try this – they only use 3 d.p. but it could be expanded.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080516083746/http://www.matrixofcreation.co.uk/archives/archives.php
@oldbrew nice article (of Richard Heath and Robin Heath), I think I’ve read it a while ago.
Before anyone uses it: these numbers do Not jump from the clipboard right into the orbit 😉 here’s some fact check for what they write “… that after 18.618 solar years, the Nodes will return to the same part of the sky, a period called the Draconic Period …”
If by that they reflected that 18.618 solar years are, by astronomical math, ~249 sidereal months (but didn’t write it): in addition one has to spot two or more suitable anomalistic months for both ends of the interval, and also find suitable spots in Earth’s anomalistic orbit, whose pertubations Together may make the claim true. Good luck with that 😉
But besides of that: nice math, handsome factors, natural instead of fictitious units.
IW mentions ‘the difference between the tropical year (365.24218 days) and a whole number of Earth rotations (365 days).’
1508 x 365 = 1507 x 365.24218
1508 = 377 x 4 (377 is a Fibonacci number)
Re PV’s 365.248299319728 days:
1470 x 365.24829 = 1471 x 365
@ Ian Wilson
Note that:
9 V-E = 178 E-Moon = 169 V-Moon
100 of those is 1438.83 years
Some great investigations underway here .!! PV you have excelled in the detail of your investigation.
Good on you ALL for this amazing on-line research and TB providing the blog.
I am out of my depth here as the maths and astrophysics is a specialist area.
I can’t offer much except to say. A system is co-ordinated and no element is an island.
I find the resonance overlay concept interesting . Constructive and destructive resonance. amplification + amplification = DO event?
Is there a re-occurring planetary spatial pattern at 735 &/or 1470yr ?
a sort of period in time when the planets have a particular spatial arrangement that maximises either global warming or global cooling
A unique planetary combination that reduces the suns rotational velocity and produces a very long extended period of the earth in a thickened solar wind.
and vice versa
for strong global warmings
So is the rotational velocity of the sun correlated with planetary spatial position?
Is the solar wind spatial pattern /spiral known to change in shape and thickness with changing solar system mechanics?
If it gets cold enough. Plant life dies and CO2 cycle interrupted.
https://weathercycles.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/solar-wind-and-earths-climate/
weathercycles, to clarify: I’m thinking orbital, not solar — (solar for multidecadal — no question; but orbital for D-O …but let me additionally clarify that I’ve no problem respecting other POVs so long as proponents don’t deliberately harass (like happens pathologically at WUWT & CE))
When I can find a minute (sometime over the next few days probably), I’ll extend from JEV / SEV (see above) to also illustrate more specifically UEV / NEV coherence with the terrestrial QBO / ENSO / IPO / polar motion framework. (Before recently I hadn’t realized how the leap year fit into the picture.)
Tallbloke situation in the south may indicate the beginning of changes in the thermohaline circulation. Look also at the temperature in the stratosphere over the southern polar circle.
Another quick update that will need to be elaborated later:
I’ve verified that this pattern in solar rotation ties in tightly when the tropical leap year framework is extended down to semi-annual. This confirms that we’re dealing with a sampling & aggregation problem. By extension to the anomalistic year, I’ve identified a parallel framework. The 2 frameworks intersect at ~1465 years and the flip side of the coin is the Milankovitch cycles. The tropical event series framework goes 64, 128, 256, etc. and the anomalistic one goes 52, 104, 208, etc. I’ve confirmed the tight tie in with JSUN EV. This is getting too easy. Details sometime during the days ahead as/when time permits. (Right now I need to shift focus to paid work…)
On that basis: tropical = multiples of 8 years, anomalistic = multiples of 13 years
And 8 Earth years = 13 Venus years (less 1 every 1200)
Yes – in a nutshell: if a cycle exists, logically there must be a cause or causes.
That may seem obvious but some people seem to have a problem with it. We all know there are cycles: solar cycles, El Nino/La Nina, tides etc. etc.
Of course it’s possible to go over the top and see imaginary cycles too, but that’s just one of the hazards I guess.
MY RESPONSE Some cycles have merit such as Milankovich Cycles and maybe the angular momentum of the planets paying a role in solar variability.
The use of cycles beyond that in trying to explain all the chaotic random climate variations and the lengths these people will go to make it fit and justify it to me is lunacy.
The lunar tides versus climate change being a prime example. This is the wrong path and it is not going to work. In addition I have yet to see any convincing prove that it has worked. Even in hindsight it does not work.
The correct path for why the climate changes, starts first with solar variation and the duration and degree of magnitude change of the solar variation. Secondly that has to be put in the context of the present state of the climate meaning how close to a threshold boundary is the climate to glacial versus inter-glacial conditions.
Next the secondary effects have to be evaluated due to solar variability and the degree of change those secondary effects have to exhibit in order to have a meaningful impact on the climate which again will depend much on what the beginning state of the climate is at the time.
In addition it must be appreciated that the climate system unlike the astronomical system is chaotic , random and non linear meaning it DOES NOT work in an ordered fashion. Making it more complex is the fact ,how much of an impact a given forcing may have on the climate is really independent of the size and strength of the forcing . For example the climate can have the same force applied to it which can result in entirely different climatic outcomes.
The earth’s magnetic field strength also comes into play in a very big way because it can either enhance or moderate solar variability.
Any number of random events INDEPENDENT OF ASTRONOMICAL CYCLES can all have staggering impacts on the climate system of earth.
I am going to send a link people should look at if interest in abrupt climate.
For background information, I recommend the 2002 NRC report Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises.
That article is under the main topic of this post .
I do agree with Ian Wilson about a lunar tide being involved.
S = 29.457784 :::: J = 11.862242
S * J / (S – J) = 19.85931224
J / 5 * S / 14 / (J / 5 – S / 14) = 18.60433691 ‘ Ian’s lunar cycle
J (5 / 6) * S / 3 / (J (5 / 6) – S /3) = 1472.018317 ‘ the Bond cycle
P = 19.85931224 ‘ synodic
(P * 5) * (18.60433691 * 5) / ((P * 5) – (18.60433691 * 5)) = 1472.018317
J * S / 4 / (J – S /4) = 19.42258845
P = 19.42258845 ‘ a J/S beat freq
(P *10) * (18.60433691 * 10) / ((P * 10) – (18.60433691 * 10)) = 1472.018317 * 3
(J * 70) * (18.60433691 * 42) / ((J * 70) – (18.60433691 * 42)) = 1472.018317 * 9
(S * 50) * (18.60433691 * 75) / ((S * 50) – (18.60433691 * 75)) = 1472.018317 * 18
(S / 16) * (J * 2 / 13) / ((S / 16) – (J * 2 / 13)) = 208.0314162
P = 208.0314162 ‘ de Vries
(P * 55) * (18.60433691 * 330) / ((P * 55) – (18.60433691 * 330)) = 1472.018317 * 9
(S * 25 / 3) * (J * 25 / 3) / ((S * 25 / 3) – (J * 25 / 3)) = 165.4942687
P = 165.4942687 ‘ related to the period and amplitude of solar cycles
(P * 3) * (18.60433691 * 25) / ((P * 3) – (18.60433691 * 25)) = 1472.018317 * 5
(S / 2) * J / ((S / 2) – J) = 60.94838271
P = 60.94838271 ‘ Scafetta’s 60 year temperature cycle
(P * 20) * (18.60433691 * 60) / ((P * 20) – (18.60433691 * 60)) = 1472.018317 * 9
These are all J/S beats.
So I believe the Sun is the driver and the Moon is just the delivery system.
________________________________________________________________________
Mod note – one correction applied to above info, details here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/explaining-abrupt-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-80222
The problem is the astronomical cycle theory does nothing to explain chaotic abrupt climate change some of which can take place in less then a decade.
There is no connection and this can be seen not only in the complete randomness of abrupt climate changes apart from predictable astronomical cycles but the length of time the climate stays in an inter- glacial or glacial climate regime despite the same predictable astronomical cycles that happen during the periods of time the earth stays in a glacial or inter-glacial regime.
.
.
If this were not so, those of you who do believe in astronomical cycles(which are like clock work) would be able to predict abrupt climate change and climate changes in general just like clockwork , which can not be further from the truth.
.
Salvatore: check the title of the post – it’s a direct copy from Climate Etc. website.
The only two astronomical cycles that have merit in my opinion or Milankovitch cycles and angular momentum, but Milankovicth cycles however can’t account for abrupt climate change and even have problems explaining the glacial /interglacial periods of climate in general.
While angular momentum of the planets perhaps explains why the sun has variability, but it is the sun’s variability and the secondary effects that arise from the variability that changes the climate.
By the way earthquakes change the rotational rate of the earth which can effect the length of day(climate) a non astronomical cycle explanation.
correction the only two astronomical cycles that have merit in my opinion are Milankovitch
Salvatore: ‘Clockwork’ sinusoidal astronomical cycles can have non-linear effects when interacting with bi-polar planetary systems near boundary conditions.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/09/giant-of-geologyglaciology-christian-schluechter-refutes-co2-feature-interview-throws-climate-science-into-disarray/
Sudden change caused by solar variation.
Paul: Nice work in your pdf file.
I’m interested to know why you think the diurnal beat with the solar rotation of 27.03 days is important in relation to the QBO. Given that the QBO is the reversal of an equatorial stratospheric windstream which encircles the whole globe, it’s not obvious to me why day/night affects it, unless it’s a ‘Pacific vs Africa to South America’; Ocean vs mainly-landmass-plus-Atlantic thing?
Maybe it’s worth noting that 11.859/5=2.3718. I mention that because the periodicity of the reversals of the QBO windstream direction is similar to the Chandler wobble periodicity and that is half the QBO whole-cycle period.
1.1859 years is 433.157 days, which is around a month longer than the Earth-Jupiter conjunction period at closest approach. I haven’t finished playing with the QBO dataset yet, but there may be a hint of a 9.3-18.6 year period in the amplitudes. That might indicate an effect of lunar declination. I’m also going to try calculating the net gravitational acceleration on the Earth from Jupiter-Venus to see if there’s any correlation with the timings of the QBO reversals.
Hi. I am way behind in reading your gear had a play around with some earlier information
from a perspective of my own interests
Here are a few points of interest from some research tonight
“Learnt that Leif has a nice power spectra map of the sun spot for a LONG time series
( thanks! paul vaughan for the link)
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/WavesAndHarmonics#6023212869537804018
source
you can see the mean sunspot cycle length clearly at 10.8 yrs ( 1 schwabe cycle)
and of interest is the LAST of the power peaks in the series of ..1024 yrs
There appears to be a sort of linear pattern from about 50 yrs to 1024 yrs. quite pronounced !!
and leif explains in his paper that their are multiples involved.
Of interest is that this multiples of…. is not chaotic but ordered
Fractions of 1024 .. 1/1024, 2/1024, 3/1024 gives the peaks
Not surprising re “: multiples , as l noticed this phenomena much earlier in cycle studies( nesting/subsets/constructive amplification)
This gives weight to the notion of some sort of additive resonance or constructive amplification strongly come post 50 yr power spectra, according to leifs graph
BTW..1024 yr power peak /100 = 10.24 ( close to one schwabe)
——————————————————————————
Other reading was a jog over to Ian wilsons where he recommends his papers on the 1470 yr lunar cycle
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html
a time series picture l snapped here from his page
https://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/MOON#6023232044408073250
———————————————————————–
I wanted to know what the longest possible cycle was for one full rotation of the planets ( aligned to aligned)
Some googling yielded
The next ~planetary alignment is the year 2438 and the previous one is 500BC
That yields a planetary solar system maximum cycle length of 1938 yrs
Now, how many mean solar cycle lengths fit into this period?
1938 ( one solar system cycle) / 10.8 ( mean solar cycle schwabe ) = 179.44 (JOSE? Chandler wobble cycle?)
This means there are 179.44 solar schwabe cycles in one planetary solar system cycle..
NICE
————————————–
Leif from his power sunspot graph above has the maximum power peak/ max cycle at 1024 yrs
1938 Solar system cycle /2 = 969yr (is half way )
969 is 55 yrs short of the 1024 maxpower peak in the sunspot number
So pretty much 1/2of the planetary solar system cycle is where the power peaks build in a semi linear fashion or as leif says in multiples 1/1024, 2/1024 etc
and the down side/flip side of the 1938 planetary cycle, there is only one power peak at 1024 yr( 55 yr past the half way mark)
coincidently the same number power spectra in his graph where the power peaks commence on the upslide ..curious hey!)
——————————–
I can’t find a planetary cycle longer than 1938 yrs?
Ian wilsons lunar 1470 cycle falls within the boundaries of the 1938yr planetary cycle
ratio.. 1.3
some arithmetic of Ian’s lunar phases of 184 yr in proportion to the planetary 1938 yr cycle
There is some common multiples in here .Whole half and quarter fractions
1938/184 =10.53
1938/369 =5.25
1938/554 = 3.49
5 ‘lunar’ phases + 46 yrs = (1/2 of planetary cycle) and (55yrs short of leifs 1024 sunspot power peak)
1938/739 = 2.62
1938/923 = 2.099
——half way through the planet cycle 969yr……………
sun spots power peaks finish here at 1024yr
)then they subside logarithmically eventually at the 200 yr ( de vries threshold) into 10,000yr))
1938/1107 = 1.75
1938/1291 = 1.5
1938/1475 = etc
1938/1659
1938/1843
1938/ 95 yr remain
————————————————————–
Hope to read the rest of the comments in the coming week. Real good stuff .awesome!!
trying not to miss anything!! and that takes time
If 1938 yr is the longest possible cycle in the solar system planetary orbits ,anything longer like the Milankavovitch 100.000 yr might be confounded from outside our solar system?
Galaxy rotation or arm density?
I agree re: volcanoes SDP. Big enough clusters could envelope the earth with dust, sulphur > cold ice, death of plants and living things
What could shake the earth so violently? An abrupt density /pressure change? or?
BTW , TB
If you do eventually post on the QBO in another week or so , l have some stuff for you l did a few years ago on the QBO/ENSO .It ‘s sort of off topic here . Your line of inquiry sounds exciting .
Look forward to your results
Oldbrew and I have identified potential planetary cycles extending beyond a million years.
Try a search for ‘4627’ here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/gray-stevens-planetary-effects-on-solar-activity/
4627 years = 233 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions = 27 Uranus-Neptune
The astronomical cycles just don’t do it for me (other then Milankovitch cycles and angular momentum to some degree) because they don’t explain the climate shifting and staying in a particular climate regime over x tens of thousands of years , in addition to not being able to be reconciled with abrupt climate changes, some of which can take place in LESS then a decade.
Global Man Made Warming is also wrong along with the thermohaline circulation changes apart from solar changes. To name a few of the more popular ones.
The only theory I subscribed to is the following:
The main factor which determines climate change is solar variability and the associated secondary effects, which sometimes will bring the climate to a threshold(abrupt change) while other times it will not(slow change or no change) which in turn is related to the degree of magnitude change of the solar variability and duration of time of that solar variability.
This is why the climate shows such a random chaotic pattern , and then to make it more complex is the fact the climate is non-linear.
Add to the above the earth magnetic field strength, initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles to a degree .
‘the climate shows such a random chaotic pattern’
There is plenty of empirical data showing recurring patterns of one kind or another.
Surely science should investigate that?
but oldbrew i don’t see recurring patterns unless the climate is in a particular climatic regime.
If you look at the climate historical record the climate keeps shifting from one climate regime to another let alone recurring patterns.
If it was easy there wouldn’t be much to discuss 😉
This article below proves my point that a random climate system can’t be linked or reconciled to clock work astronomical cycles which are far to SLOW and repeat not OFTEN enough to account for all the sudden chaotic random out of the blue climate changes.
THE ARTICLE
Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age and in the 10,000 years that followed, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they happened before CO2 began to rise sharply around 1945. This paper documents the geologic evidence for these sudden climate fluctuations, which show s remarkably consistent pattern over decades, centuries, and millennia.
Among the surprises that emerged from oxygen isotope analyses of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores was the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. The ice core records show that such abrupt climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Climate shifts, up to half the difference between Ice Age and interglacial conditions, occurred in only a few decades.
Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years. The intensity and suddenness of these climatic fluctuations is astonishing. Several times, temperatures rose and fell from 9-15° F in a century or less.
The dramatic melting of continental glaciers in North America, Europe, and Asia that began 15,000 years ago was interrupted by sudden cooling 12,800 years ago, dropping the world back into the Ice Age. Continental and alpine glaciers all over the world ceased their retreat and re-advanced. This cold period, the Younger Dryas, lasted for 1300 years and ended abruptly with sudden, intense warming 11,500 years ago. The climate in Greenland warmed about 9° F in about 30 years and 15° F over 40 years. During the Younger Dryas cold period, glaciers not only expanded significantly, but also fluctuated repeatedly, in some places as many as nine times.
Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods.
Both Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have long been well established and documented with strong geologic evidence. Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn’t take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used. As shown in the 1,900 published papers, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age most certainly happened and the Mann et al. ‘hockey stick’ is nonsense, not supported by any credible evidence.
The oxygen isotope record for the Greenland GISP ice core over the past 500 years shows a remarkably regular alternation of warm and cool periods. The vertical blue lines at the bottom of the graph below show the time intervals between each warm/cool period. The average time interval is 27 years, the same as for time intervals between Pacific Ocean warm and cool temperatures as shown by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (see below).
A highlight from the article. Reconcile that with astronomical cycles? It does not work because astronomical cycles are to slow and do not occur or repeat often enough.
Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years.
Solar variations bringing about climate thresholds sometimes and not at other times through primary and secondary effects does explain the above in my opinion, or is the BEST explanation out there.
A random chaotic sun equates to a random chaotic climate. All prolonged solar minimums are not the same or do they have the same effects on the climate.
‘Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years’
Looks like an average 1500-year cycle, as discussed earlier.
The Gleissberg cycle could be the ’60 in 5000 years’.
http://vladimir_ladma.sweb.cz/english/cycles/period/cgleissberg.htm
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/gleissb.htm
Salvatore Del Prete wrote: “… astronomical cycles? It does not work because astronomical cycles are to slow and do not occur or repeat often enough.”
Did you consider the daily tides are too slow or do not occur often enough, or that the lunar orbit is not influenced by the planets, per year, century, millennia? Astronomy is not, IMHO, a field of study where bodies can be considered in isolation; instead, all the bodies always make concerted advance and that brings about non-linear phenomena.
More info on this ~60-year cycle…
‘Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Is A Naturally Occurring Cycle’
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation-is-a-naturally-occurring-cycle/
Ok. Thanks TB .. Planetary cycles into millions of years is good.. This would incorporate the Milankovitch cycles easily.
However as to the SOLAR link to earths climate.. Leif in power spectra identifies a max power band at 1024 yr .. Nothing after that?? in the time series to 10,000 yr
This would indicate the planets can only influence the sun to the order of 1024 yr.
If this were true
The larger earth climate cycles like Halstatt and D/O Milankovitch etc would be caused by planetary/ galaxy? motion and maybe some strong amplification factors like volcanoes
What Leif was saying l believe, is that the max cycle that can be caused from solar sunspot contribution has a maximum limit at 1024 yr.. decaying into time ( 10,000yr) at a steady rate at the the 200yr de Vries frequency
So.. Solar sunspots correlations with earths climate can be out ruled past the 2,000 yr mark
weathercycles: one to ponder here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event
Time difference between these events = 2300 years = Hallstatt period
Interesting discussion with graphs etc. of known cycles by the USGS here:
SDP
Your description of the apparent chaos in the earths climate history as per say (the spikes up and down on a long time series graph) is a pertinent point. However signal analysis clearly reveals a high magnitude of order in BOTH solar system dynamics and Time series graphs of elements/variables of the Earths climate
Chaos is no doubt embedded within the cycle transitions
I find the mechanisms and links of solar system dynamics to the earth climate are far more difficult to decipher and confirm
We can describe the solar system cycles as a cohesive clockwork, geared phenomena which can be mapped precisely into the past , now and into the future.
The challenge is to make conclusive physical links to the planetary motion, solar, plasmas, electromagnetic, gravity , solar wind etc to the earths climate.
I agree thresholds seem to play a large part in this puzzle . The saw tooth wave form is too frequently evident in earths historical data and just intuitively speaks thresholds
If you can mathematically signal analyse the long history of our isotope time series and produce wave forms of a significant order . I think by mathematical definition the proof is order not chaos.
Anyway. Found this graph. Showing the various variables that may effect glaciation cycles
Looking at each factor. If l was to pick the best fit. I would choose ECCENTRICITY as the main driver and the other factors may affect or modify the amplitude of each event
source
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Milankovitch+cycle
cheers
W/C: ” Leif was saying”
Leif has no idea what the sun gets up to on timescales longer than his own lifetime.
I note that a few misinterpretations &/or misunderstandings have arisen since I last commented, but my focus is way too distracted this week to facilitate further discussion. I have just enough time to comment on one key thing:
The reason to carefully study cycles (for me) is not to facilitate forecasting. It’s to get a handle on the differential backbone structure of the turbulent spatiotemporal framework from which sampling & aggegation occurs. Conservation laws that can be applied to fluids to arbitrate climate disputes only apply to certain classes of sampling & aggregation.
The level of ignorance &/or deception about this in the climate discussion (e.g. at CE, RC, WUWT, Tamino’s, etc.) is what leads me to decisively conclude that:
The climate discussion is permanently & fatally corrupted. It cannot be resolved.
I’m thankful that the Talkshop exists, as it gives a place where people can explore & discuss natural climate patterns without being incessantly harassed by excessively rude climate activists.
Hi Oldbrew
My June 9, 8:32 pm post has a math error on line 11.
says:
(J * 35) * (18.60433691 * 42) / ((J * 35) – ……………
should say:
(J * 70) * (18.60433691 * 42) / ((J * 70) – (18.60433691 * 42)) = 1472.018317 * 9
Sorry about that, keying in numbers can be risky business.
[reply] Correction applied, thanks for pointing it out.
All I want to say is this is the best web-site and I think all of us in total are on the correct path in that there is a bit of truth in everything we are saying. The problem is to what degree and how to reconcile it.
I am not saying astronomical cycles do not have some kind of influence apart from solar variability (which I am sold on 100%) but it is so hard to quantify all of this. Even solar variability probably the most straight forward approach to showing why and how the climate may change is challenging.
Other astronomical cycles are that much harder.
from oldbrew
‘Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years’
Looks like an average 1500-year cycle, as discussed earlier.
MY REPLY
You are missing my point which is during some of those cycles the earth stayed in glacial conditions while at other times it stayed in interglacial conditions , the earth might have had an abrupt climate change but not enough to make it change from a glacial to an interglacial period.
Further since the end of the last great ice age the last significant abrupt climate change was the Younger Dryas. Why if the 1500 year cycle is so powerful has there been no further abrupt climate changes similar in magnitude to the Younger Dryas if the same astronomical cycles which caused the Younger Dryas are still( obviously) in place today as they were back then?
Why did the climate not revert back to another Younger Dryas since the last one? After all the same astronomical processes are still in play.
I say it is because it is not the only cause at all. Perhaps a very small player but more ,much more is at play here.
Don Easterbrook argues that the Younger Dryas was a collection of events rather than a single event.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/19/the-intriguing-problem-of-the-younger-dryaswhat-does-it-mean-and-what-caused-it/
Of course no-one has to agree with everything in that post, but it’s an interesting discussion.
weathercycles said:
‘Looking at each factor. If l was to pick the best fit. I would choose ECCENTRICITY as the main driver and the other factors may affect or modify the amplitude of each event’
Clive Best had a recent post called ‘Does the Moon trigger Inter-glacials?’:
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=5464
First line:
‘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’
I would say the four factors that start or end Ice Ages, are solar variability , earth magnetic field strength,Milklankovitch Cycles , and most important the INITIAL STATE OF THE CLIMATE in relation to the other three factors.
The Moon as a cause for climate change I rate as a ZERO.
Eccentricity is part of the Milankovitch Cycles which I believe has a part but only in major glacial and inter-glacial periods but does little to nothing in explaining abrupt climate changes.
I subscribe to solar variability super imposed upon the initial state of the climate and the earth magnetic field strength as an explanation that can explain all abrupt climate changes.
That still leaves us looking for the factors behind solar variability.
And Earth magnetic forces may well be linked to solar magnetic ones via the solar wind.
What Leif was saying l believe, is that the max cycle that can be caused from solar sunspot contribution has a maximum limit at 1024 yr.. decaying into time ( 10,000yr) at a steady rate at the the 200yr de Vries frequency
So.. Solar sunspots correlations with earths climate can be out ruled past the 2,000 yr mark
Absurdity which is as usual from Leif. He is the most CLUELESS person I have ever come across when it comes to the climate. He needs to stay with astronomy.
There is only one external force that drives the climate of the earth (the sun) which can change often enough to create the necessary thresholds to change the climate from one state to another state. Sometimes thresholds can be accomplished sometimes not which is depended upon these other factors which are Milankovitch Cycles, Initial State Of The Climate and the Magnetic Field Strength of the earth.
When the initial state of the climate is close to the threshold boarder line between glacial/inter-glacial conditions given solar variability can accomplish a climate regime change much easier (if other factors are in place ) or at the very least an abrupt climatic change.
If the sun drives the climate in all aspects then it stands to reason if the sun exhibits a change and if that change is long enough in duration(prolonged solar minimum period) and degree of magnitude that it in turn will manifest itself in the climate system of earth by driving it in a different manner through primary and secondary effects.
Anyone know the source of the ice age plot shown by Weathercycles?
Reason: I have a one for one between orbital parameters and the marked ice ages. If I can plot this I can put up a quick article for discussion.
This one/
benthic carbonate data does not seem to match yet that seems to be what it is.
I did post the source of that image TC
it is
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Milankovitch+cycle
scroll down a bit
——————
Regardless of Leif’s views. He has used maths , a precise science to calculate the power spectra of long time series sun spots. His results from those calculations can’t be overlooked.
I have no problem with his suggestion that the sun spot numbers power bands have a ‘ceiling’
It makes sense that his results are within the bounds/ceiling of the planetary solar system cycle ( alignment- to alignment )of 1938 yrs
I think Leif’s finding adds weight to the notion that the planetary positions on the solar plane are directly correlated with the power spectra of the sunspots.
His findings support the TB blog hypothesis that planetary motion controls sunspot production
That’s how l saw it anyway
Nice lively discussion here. Enjoying the read
On orbital eccentricity
“Over the next 10,000 years, northern hemisphere winters will become gradually longer and summers will become shorter. Any cooling effect in one hemisphere is balanced by warming in the other — and any overall change will, however, be counteracted by the fact that the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit will be almost halved , reducing the mean orbital radius and raising temperatures in both hemispheres closer to the mid-interglacial peak.”
————————-
The bi-polar see saw is mentioned above.
Some interesting long term forecasting in that oaragraph as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
@ weathercycles June 12, 2014 at 5:20 am
You’ve missed a lot of discussions here if this is what you’re thinking. You’ve totally & completely missed the reason why I linked to that paper. Sorry for being so blunt, but I find your comments very offensive.
Paul Vaughan: ” I find your comments very offensive.”
I usually take misunderstanding as a failure on my part to communicate with sufficient clarity, rather than taking offence.
In your case this is doubly so, since you rarely accede to any requests for explanation in a clear way that makes sense to the average reader, or even at all.
Sorry for being so blunt.
Okay, thanks.
I’m not happy with the data.
This is a test. Word press will no longer let me post comments to this site.
OK, that worked so we will try the real comment next.
Salvatore Del Prete,
You might like William McClenney’s recent review of the Paleoclimate Science lit. Inception: the climatic ‘madhouse’ (You will have to google it since Word Unimpressed did not allow the link)
This especially:
@ Chaeremon, weathercycles
Some numbers to consider:
366 Moon orbits = 9999.727 days (~10000 Earth rotations)
and
1/27.321661 (one Moon orbit) = 0.0366009 i.e. 1/10000th of 366 days
[366 is also 3/5ths of Fibonacci number 610]
***
19.618 x 346.62 days (Draconic year) = 6800 days = 18.6174 years (18.618y = 6800.225 days)
[Note: as Heath points out, 18.618² = 346.63 days]
Obviously 19.618 – 18.618 = 1 as per the link, and 19.618 x 18.618 = 365.248
***
800 Earth years = 843 Draconic years (843 – 800 = 43)
43 x 19.618 = 843.574
43 x 18.618 = 800.574
and
843 / 43 = 19.60465
800 / 43 = 18.60465
***
Finally:
1469 x 19.618 = 1470 x 19.60465
Is this Ian Wilson’s 1470 year Moon cycle?
http://picasaweb.google.com/110600540172511797362/MOON#6023232044408073250
(see link above – weathercycles says: June 10, 2014 at 12:52 pm )
TB: don’t forget Paul Vaughan did say yesterday ‘I’m thankful that the Talkshop exists’ 🙂
Oldbrew
Thank you for the link to notalotapeopleknowthat.
There’s a nice graph of the AMO there.
The J/S beat 60.94838271 has troughs at 1902,1963 and 2024.
The AMO graph bottoms out at 1914 and 1975.
Looks like a 12 year delay between the two.
This might explain why we’re in a pause,
if the AMO isn’t going to bottom out till 2036.
Well…. an explanation for me, since I was expecting a faster cool down.
OB: I mostly don’t have a problem with Paul speaking as he finds.
I hope he won’t mind us doing the same.
oldbrew asked: Is this Ian Wilson’s 1470 year Moon cycle?
I can confirm that for your 1470 calc: (K-J) = 79.0~ and (J-M) = 166.0~ very accurate integers indeed 😎 FWIW: (K-M) = 245;1/8 seems a bit off but this is theory here and not measured against the reality of inevitable pertubations 😉
K = revolutions of line-of-nodes, M = revolutions of line-of-apse, J = of revolutions sidereal, they all have around ~1/2 as decimal.
Unfortunately the picassaweb.google.com pictures all come up empty ? 😦
Chaeremon says: (K-M) = 245
1470 / 245 = 6
Coincidence or…?
Pic link works for me, but you can also find it at Ian Wilson’s website:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/are-dansgaard-oeschger-d-o-warm-events.html
(it’s the last diagram in the post)
old brew all Ian Wilson is doing is making it fit. The article I had just sent shows this is not the case. I will send it again.
To old brew Ian Wilson is on the wrong pathand here is why
This article below proves my point that a random climate system can’t be linked or reconciled to clock work astronomical cycles which are far to SLOW and repeat not OFTEN enough to account for all the sudden chaotic random out of the blue climate changes.
Again why are the astronomical cycles (lunar in this case)not having the same effects on the climate for the past 10000 years or for the Holocene Era , as they did previously or for that matter why did glaciation only start up again as recently as just 2 million years ago while remaining absent for millions and millions of years prior to this time if astronomical cycles govern the climate?
Why has not the ebb and flow of glacial/inter glacial not been in a steady ebb and flow for say the last 500 million years to pick a number if governed by these astronomical cycles?
If one gets into it even the beginning and ending of recent glaciations they even all do not conform to Milankovitch Cycles which are much more convincing and based on much firmer grounds then the lunar tidal influence theory on why the climate may change, which I give very little credence to. It is as bad as global man made warming in my opinion.
ARTICLE
Numerous, abrupt, short-lived warming and cooling episodes, much more intense than recent warming/cooling, occurred during the last Ice Age and in the 10,000 years that followed, none of which could have been caused by changes in atmospheric CO2 because they happened before CO2 began to rise sharply around 1945. This paper documents the geologic evidence for these sudden climate fluctuations, which show s remarkably consistent pattern over decades, centuries, and millennia.
Among the surprises that emerged from oxygen isotope analyses of Greenland and Antarctic ice cores was the recognition of very sudden, short-lived climate changes. The ice core records show that such abrupt climate changes have been large, very rapid, and globally synchronous. Climate shifts, up to half the difference between Ice Age and interglacial conditions, occurred in only a few decades.
Ten major, intense periods of abrupt climate change occurred over the past 15,000 years and another 60 smaller, sudden climate changes have occurred in the past 5000 years. The intensity and suddenness of these climatic fluctuations is astonishing. Several times, temperatures rose and fell from 9-15° F in a century or less.
The dramatic melting of continental glaciers in North America, Europe, and Asia that began 15,000 years ago was interrupted by sudden cooling 12,800 years ago, dropping the world back into the Ice Age. Continental and alpine glaciers all over the world ceased their retreat and re-advanced. This cold period, the Younger Dryas, lasted for 1300 years and ended abruptly with sudden, intense warming 11,500 years ago. The climate in Greenland warmed about 9° F in about 30 years and 15° F over 40 years. During the Younger Dryas cold period, glaciers not only expanded significantly, but also fluctuated repeatedly, in some places as many as nine times.
Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods.
Both Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have long been well established and documented with strong geologic evidence. Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn’t take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used. As shown in the 1,900 published papers, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age most certainly happened and the Mann et al. ‘hockey stick’ is nonsense, not supported by any credible evidence.
The oxygen isotope record for the Greenland GISP ice core over the past 500 years shows a remarkably regular alternation of warm and cool periods. The vertical blue lines at the bottom of the graph below show the time intervals between each warm/cool period. The average time interval is 27 years, the same as for time intervals between Pacific Ocean warm and cool temperatures as shown by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (see below).
I much prefer solar variability, continental drift , beginning state of the climate, THC circulation changes, Milankovitch Cycles, earth magnetic field strength and all the primary and secondary effects associated with these items from volcanic activity, cosmic ray changes ,atmospheric circulation changes ,sea ice changes ,snow cover changes etc
oldbrew wrote: (K-M) = 245, 1470 / 245 = 6, Coincidence or…?
One of K,M, I think it will turn out to be K the line-of-nodes, is so very tight in resonance with the Earth’s axial tilt (other commenters have mentioned this before). I’m working on this, mainly by accentuating the planets connection and see what comes out (or not). As repeated often before: my focus is on seasons (=climate). This is a work in progress but could result in an article for posting.
Ah, and b.t.w. the K,M,J differences hold good for more than just one month, tricky eh? No worry about accuracy after the first decimal zero 🙂
‘Why has not the ebb and flow of glacial/inter glacial not been in a steady ebb and flow for say the last 500 million years to pick a number if governed by these astronomical cycles?’
It’s highly unlikely the Sun is behaving exactly as it was 500 million years ago.
Oldbrew, thanks for the link to Ian’s article; yes the pictures are impressive 😎
He’s good, a master of this field of study; look at this example with his 177 yrs basic cycle:
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/lunar_eclipses/xLE_GoogleMap3.php?Ecl=+18371013&Acc=2
http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/lunar_eclipses/xLE_GoogleMap3.php?Ecl=+20141008&Acc=2
The spatial distances are 0.367938 and 0.365662 Gm, resp., not bad for my 1st blind shot into years CE 3999 – BCE 2999 😉 FWIW the 2 full-moons are at opposite nodes (and so their max. inclined quadratures shovel the waters northwards / southwards, resp.).
Ian W says: ‘The 1,832 Lunar tidal cycle proposed by Keeling and Whorf (1998) cannot be reconciled with the 1,470 year spacing found in the Greenland ice-core data’
Or maybe it can – just replace 1832 with 1829 and the numbers work.
1829 x 3 = 5487 = 31 x 177 (lunar perigee x 10) = 295 x 18.6 (lunar node cycle)
Then refer to – oldbrew says: June 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
86 x 1829 = 157294y
107 x 1470 = 157290y
Salvatore Del Prete says: @ June 12, 2014 at 7:55 pm
To old brew Ian Wilson is on the wrong pathand….
E. M. Smith (ChiefIO) has an explanation of what Ian Wilson is talking about and it does make sense as one of the ‘pieces’ that affects climate
E. M. has several more essays on the moon and its possible effects on the climate with links to papers.
A couple more papers: The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate
An Article:
This last article has a listing of a lot of papers on the subject.
I really do not think you can rule out the moon’s effect.
If one just goes back just 2000 years from the present one can count many modest climate changes that have taken place over time periods of a few hundred years , which have nothing to do with the lunar cycle .
Roman Warm period around 200ad , Dark Ages cold period around 500 ad , Medieval Warm Period around 1000 ad ,Little Ice Age from about 1300ad-1850 ad, Modern Warm Period 1850ad-present.
All these shifts all taken place within 1500 years, NOT just one shift in the climate but several. No relationship at all to the so called 1500 phantom climate cycle. Which has not been able to account for the many modest climate shifts of the past 2000 years let alone any climate event even close to the Younger Dryas event for the past 10000 years. While prior to 10000 years back to 20000 years dramatic climate shifts were plentiful.
Through which all of this time (20000 years ago-present) the same astronomical cycles were and are in place, while the climate is constantly in a state of flux with no real regularity but rather displays a pattern of randomness..
From me to Oldbrew
.‘Why has not the ebb and flow of glacial/inter glacial not been in a steady ebb and flow for say the last 500 million years to pick a number if governed by these astronomical cycles?’
It’s highly unlikely the Sun is behaving exactly as it was 500 million years ago.
My reply, that is my point.
Gail, I much prefer solar variability, Milankovitch Cycles, Earth Magnetic Field Strength, and Beginning State Of The Climate, which all super impose themselves on the climate though primary and secondary effects.
It makes sense because the climate is random and chaotic and non linear and to try to put a cycle to such a system in some kind of lock step is not going to work . It does not pass the test of time, indeed even Milankovitch Cycles don’t hold up 100% and they are pretty much straight forward.
Gail, In addition to most Bond Events not having a clear climate signal( very important fact) I see no 1500 year but rather some cycles being less then a 1000 years while others are in excess of 2000 years.
But that aside Bond Events don’t even have a clear climate signal all of the time.
List of Bond events[edit]
Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
No.
Time (BP)
Notes
0 ≈0.5 ka See Little Ice Age;[11]
1 ≈1.4 ka See Migration Period;[11]
2 ≈2.8 ka early 1st millennium BC drought in the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly triggering the collapse of Late Bronze Age cultures.[12][13][14]
3 ≈4.2 ka See 4.2 kiloyear event; collapse of the Akkadian Empire and the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.[15][16]
4 ≈5.9 ka See 5.9 kiloyear event;
5 ≈8.2 ka See 8.2 kiloyear event;
6 ≈9.4 ka Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[17] as well as with a cold event in China.[18]
7 ≈10.3 ka
8 ≈11.1 ka transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal.[19]
See also[edit]
I meant 1500 year cycle not 15000 years.
[mod note – amended]
Due to preoccupation with the paid-work week, I cut corners communicating, hoping people would remember details of past discussions here. I accept responsibility for this particular misunderstanding.
Sorry if l offended you PV. I value reading your posts. I myself have other commitments and have not read all the material.
We all come on here with various expertise and research interests and sorry if l am ‘one eyed’ on my own research studies of the ‘schwabe triplets’ and have inadvertently re-directed discussion.
Great robust discussion going on as usual.
————————————————-
Can you map ALL the planetary pairs like this ( peaks and trough (sine waves))? TLMango
The J/S beat 60.94838271 has troughs at 1902,1963 and 2024.
any links ?
Would be good to map the peaks and trough of the planetary pairs and overlay them and get the constructive / destructive amplitude sum.
I have wanted to do this
as well as mapping the planets on the solar plane on quadrants over a time series to test a theory of solar system density by quadrants over time
Maybe a good topic for a new one day in the future
———————-
keep up the great debate.. cheers all
[reply] @ weathercycles & PV – thanks guys
Re Keeling and Whorf, this is their well-known paper:
‘The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change’
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18099/
‘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.’
Reported yesterday:
‘Study discovers link between climate change and ocean currents over six million years’
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-link-climate-ocean-currents-million.html
Photo caption says:
‘Climate-related sediment cycles at Punta Maiata, Sicily. These are some of the sediments on which the record discussed in the paper is based. The clear sediment cycles are expressions of climatic variations due to orbital cycles, and underpin the strong chronology of the Mediterranean record.’
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18099
The climatic shifts do not conform to this theory.
I for one appreciate what Paul Vaughn is doing in this field . As I have said this site has great posters .
– If Lunar causes are the cause for climate changes why did nothing take place from 55 million years ago to 2 million years ago, as an example? Why did Ice Ages start and end on a regular basis post 2 million years ago?
Answer I think is twofold continental drift and the initial state of the climate which became closer to the threshold levels between glacial and inter -glacial due to the arrangements of the continents and oceans around that time in contrast to earlier times. This in turn caused some astronomical cycles such as solar variability to have a much greater impact upon the climate.
Nevertheless the inter- glacial periods and thus the unset/ending of glacial periods vary greatly in length and DO NOT conform to clock work astronomical cycles no matter how one tries to fudge the data. That is the problem with that kind of an approach it does not hold up.
FROM ARTICLE
Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the earth’s climate system has in the more distant past exhibited major switches in mode of operation that are simply not understood. Notably, the past climate has oscillated between hothouse climates lasting tens of millions of years, when there was little or no permanent polar ice, and icehouse climates like those of the present and the Pleistocene. Both states have occurred throughout geological history. The most recent period of increased warmth continued throughout the Cretaceous (65 million years ago) into the Eocene (55 million years ago) and terminated with the onset of major ice ages about 2 million years ago. However, there were also icehouse periods earlier in the earth’s history, including times during the Carboniferous and the Neo-Proterozoic. Although it is generally believed that geochemically mediated changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide played a major role in such transitions, there has been little success in reproducing the key features of hothouse climates by increased carbon dioxide alone. Concentrations of carbon dioxide high enough to prevent permanent polar ice in models generally lead to simulation of tropical oceans warmer than suggested by available data (Manabe and Bryan, 1985); the realism of both the tropical temperatures and the very high carbon dioxide levels are still under debate (Pearson et al., 2001). It had been hoped that better understanding of dynamic ocean heat transport would solve the problem, but recent work on Cretaceous and Eocene ocean dynamics does not support this idea. Moreover, even in simulations with increased carbon dioxide, continental interiors become too cold in the winters to reconcile with the equable climate that the fossil record demands. The problem of hothouse-icehouse transitions underscores that as-yet-unidentified mechanisms for mediating radical changes, some of which could well be abrupt, are lurking in the climate system.
Compounding the mystery of initiation and maintenance of the above “hot” mode of the climate is the growing evidence that the earth has fallen into an extremely cold “snowball-earth” state, in which the entire planet became ice-covered. The most recent occurrence of a snowball state was in the Neo-Proterozoic, about 600 million years ago. The circumstances in which the Snowball can be triggered are hotly debated but almost certainly
The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
Research Tools Cite
Rights and Permissions Rights & Permissions
‘The climatic shifts do not conform to this theory.’
Shouldn’t that be the other way round 😉
.
Why not the theory does not conform to the climate shifts.
More variability in the climate record below.
The 110,000-year-long ice-core records from central Greenland (Johnsen et al., 1997; Grootes and Stuiver, 1997) confirmed that the Younger Dryas was one in a long string of large, abrupt, widespread climate changes (Figure 2.5). To a first approximation, the Younger Dryas pattern of change (size, rate, extent) occurred more than 24 times during that interval; additional evidence from marine sediments indicates similar changes over longer times in earlier ice-age cycles (McManus et al., 1998).
Such climate oscillations have a characteristic form consisting of gradual cooling followed by more abrupt cooling, a cold interval, and finally an abrupt warming. Events were most commonly spaced about 1,500 years apart, although spacing of 3,000 or 4,500 years is also observed (Mayewski et al., 1997; Yiou et al., 1997; Alley et al., 2001). The name Dansgaard/ Oeschger oscillation is often applied to such changes on the basis of early work by Dansgaard et al. (1984) and Oeschger et al. (1984). The terminology can be inconsistent; the warm times associated with these during the ice age originally were termed Dansgaard/Oeschger events, but evidence of cyclic behavior suggests that oscillation is more appropriate.
tallbloke (June 10, 2014 at 9:20 am)
“Maybe it’s worth noting that 11.859/5=2.3718.”
I suspect that most Talkshop regulars have long been aware of this since Ian, I, & others have pointed to the Mayan framework so many times, but of course there can always be newcomers who aren’t aware.
–
tallbloke (June 10, 2014 at 9:20 am) wrote:
“Paul: Nice work in your pdf file.
I’m interested to know why you think the diurnal beat with the solar rotation of 27.03 days is important in relation to the QBO.”
That’s not exactly what I’m thinking. I’m looking at this as a sampling & aggregation mystery (that can be solved by the mainstream rather than ignored for political reasons).
More than once I’ve outlined a calculation of the QBO period based on an amalgamation of comments I received directly from Richard Gross & Piers Corbyn. (I can point to those calculations again if anyone needs a refresher.)
I understand the logic in the above so maybe it is possible.
I should say I do not buy into the lunar /1470 year climate cycle rather then just not having any regard for a possible 1470 year climate cycle. Nevertheless have a hard time finding such a cycle maybe it is lost in the NOISE of the climate system.
oldbrew (June 9, 2014 at 4:47 pm) suggested:
“On that basis: tropical = multiples of 8 years, anomalistic = multiples of 13 years”
Careful. We’re dealing here with event series, so it doesn’t work exactly like that. It is simple, but it’s not that simple. If you factorize down to prime, you do get 2 & 13 as roots, but strong annual alignments only make it down to 128 (the leap year (4 years) is a much weaker alignment than 128) & anomalistic alignments only make it down to 104 (64 & 52 for semi-annual). It also isn’t so simple going the other way. For example 389 beats out 416 on the anomalistic framework going upward from 208.
I’m thinking a lot more than what I’m saying here. Grossly insufficient time is preventing clearer communication. Having insufficient time is beyond my control, but I can still take responsibility for a good number of (but not all) related misunderstandings.
There may be a simple way to visually aid discussion of event series moving forward. (With extension to multivariate it would have helped people understand Ulric Lyons’ many comments.) I will give the matter some thought. Since I left the university, I don’t have ftp to server. If I still had that there would be so many less obstacles to efficient visual communication. Maybe someone in the community has an efficient solution to this? (It has to be efficient to be viable.)
Here’s an odd one:
366 x 12 Mars rotations (@ 24.6229 hours) = 13 eclipse years (@ 346.62 days)
And 2 Jupiter orbits = 25 eclipse years.
That’s just a selection from about a dozen.
Oldbrew wrote: Here’s an odd one … 2 Jupiter orbits = 25 eclipse years.
Yes that’s on my list as well: 2 Jupiter orbits = 293.5 syzygy with lunar\+solar eclipse at each end (and this pattern extends in both temporal directions multiple times). This suggests that 1 x Jupiter appears near lunar quadrature, quite reliably, and due to the planet’s slow pace one can choose which quadrature to take as next point of reference.
But since the ancient astronomers, in particular the expert scouts among them, must have been so much more stupid than white wise men in their academic theatre, nobody can have noticed this relation earlier than the ‘classic’ Greeks who were ‘found’ in Arabic scriptures…
Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the earth’s climate system has in the more distant past exhibited major switches in mode of operation that are simply not understood.
My commentary
And this is where we all are including myself.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/chapconf/bond_abs.html
several episodes of climatic warming and cooling between ~14,400 and 12,800 years , from the article below..
question how does this reconcile with the 1470 year climate cycle?
The Intriguing Problem Of The Younger Dryas—What Does It Mean And What Caused It?
watts Up With That? ^ | June 19, 2012 | Guest post by Don J. Easterbrook
Posted on Thursday, June 21, 2012 1:11:38 PM by Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is a follow up posting to Younger Dryas -The Rest of the Story!
Guest post by Don J. Easterbrook
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University.
The Younger Dryas was a period of rapid cooling in the late Pleistocene 12,800 to 11,500 calendar years ago. It followed closely on the heels of a dramatically abrupt warming that brought the last Ice Age to a close (17,500 calendar years ago), lasted for about 1,300 years, then ended as abruptly as it started. The cause of these remarkably sudden climate changes has puzzled geologists and climatologists for decades and despite much effort to find the answer, can still only be considered enigmatic.
The Younger Dryas interruption of the global warming that resulted in the abrupt, wholesale melting of the huge late Pleistocene ice sheets was first discovered in European pollen studies about 75 years ago. Terrestrial plants and pollen indicate that arboreal forests were replaced by tundra vegetation during a cool climate. This cool period was named after the pale yellow flower Dryas octopetella, an arctic wildflower typical of cold, open, Arctic environments. The Younger Dryas return to a cold, glacial climate was first considered to be a regional event restricted to Europe, but later studies have shown that it was a world-wide event. The problem became even more complicated when oxygen isotope data from ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland showed not only the Younger Dryas cooling, but several other shorter cooling/warming events, now known as Dansgaard-Oerscher events.
The Younger Dryas is the longest and coldest of several very abrupt climatic changes that took place near the end of the late Pleistocene. Among these abrupt changes in climate were: (1) sudden global warming 14,500 years ago (Fig. 1) that sent the immense Pleistocene ice sheets into rapid retreat, (2) several episodes of climatic warming and cooling between ~14,400 and 12,800 years ago, (3) sudden cooling 12,800 years ago at the beginning of the Younger Dryas, and (4) ~11,500 years ago, abrupt climatic warming of up to 10º C in just a few decades. Perhaps the most precise record of late Pleistocene climate changes is found in the ice core stratigraphy of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP) and the Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP). The GRIP ice core is especially important because the ages of the ice at various levels in the core has been determined by the counting down of annual layers in the ice, giving a very accurate chronolgoy, and climatic fluctuations have been determined by measurement of oxygen isotope ratios. Isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core suggests that Greenland was more than~10°C colder during the Younger Dryas and that the sudden warming of 10° ±4°C that ended the Younger Dryas occurred in only about 40 to 50. years.
SdP: I linked to Easterbrook 2 days ago [June 11, 2014 at 6:43 pm]
In my first comment on this thread I quoted a paper Judith Curry liked:
‘Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) cycles are the most dramatic, frequent, and wide-reaching abrupt climate changes in the geologic record.’
On that basis it seems to me unwise to dismiss them as unimportant.
Re this:
‘It’s highly unlikely the Sun is behaving exactly as it was 500 million years ago.’
– [SdP] ‘My reply, that is my point.’
My question: why was the Sun behaving differently – if it was?
We need to know if it tells itself how to behave – with no external influences – or if it can be and is subject to other factors, whether planetary resonances, angular momentum changes, magnetic/electrical forces or anything else.
A SUMMARY OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF ONE MY EARLIER POSTS AT TALLBLOKES
Since: 5/4×DY = (1/10)×TJ
and
SJS – TJ = 5×SVE
then
12 ½×DY = SJS – 5×SVE
therefore
Earth’s climate Moon Jupiter Venus/Earth & Jupiter/Saturn
2×CW = QBO = 2 ½×DY = (2/10)×TJ = (2/10)×SJS – SVE
where
DY = the lunar draconic year
TJ = Sidereal orbital period of Jupiter
SJS = Synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn
SVE = Syndoic period of Venus/Earth
CW = the period of the Chandler Wobble
QBO = the mean period of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation
Salvador Del Prete said:
“To old brew Ian Wilson is on the wrong path and here is why
This article below proves my point that a random climate system can’t be linked or reconciled to clock work astronomical cycles which are far to SLOW and repeat not OFTEN enough to account for all the sudden chaotic random out of the blue climate changes.
Again why are the astronomical cycles (lunar in this case)not having the same effects on the climate for the past 10000 years or for the Holocene Era , as they did previously or for that matter why did glaciation only start up again as recently as just 2 million years ago while remaining absent for millions and millions of years prior to this time if astronomical cycles govern the climate?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
response:
This is speculation at this point Salvador but I propose that the simple reason for Moon’s tidal effect not being consistently present throughout geological history is the fact that the influence of the lunar tides only become important when its effects begin to dominate over other contributing factors e.g. continental drift, changing deep sea currents, long term variations in solar output either intrinsic to the Sun, or induced by long-term changes to the Earth’s orbit etc.
The effect of long term changes in Lunar tides upon the Earth’s climate may be amplified by a near resonance between the precession of the line-of-apse of Lunar orbit with respect to the tropical year and long-term changes between the orbits of Venus and the Earth. I will elaborate on this topic in the paper that I am about to submit to peer review.
Weathercycles,
I extracted the 60.94838271 year beat from an equation.
The proof is in a full page graph.
If you’d like, I’ll e-mail it to you.
A MS Word 2003 attachment.
e-mail me and tell me where to send it.
[co-mod: snip, email addresses not allowed
use admin as a go between –Tim]
@ TL Mango
That would equate to 29 x 60.94838271 years (1767.5y) per ‘Grand Cycle’ as Hans Jelbring named it in the PRP papers.
(para. 4.5)
That’s 89 Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions (also = 60 Saturn and 149 Jupiter Orbits) in ~1767.4y.
Note also that 93 Metonic cycles (19y) = 95 Lunar node cycles (18.6y) = 1767 years.
Also 1618 Jupiter-Earth falls in that timeframe (1767 – 149) = golden ratio x 1000.
Hi!
I was debating someone today and they said this link proves the GE. If you scroll down to the two black and white satellite photos of Earth. Claim is the IR photo proves the GE. Is this true? Also, if so how does it prove man caused it?
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/5Spectroscopy.html
Thank you.
@Ian Wilson: thanks for the comprehensive summary, your relations are appreciated 😎
My focus is on naked eye observations, found that the TJ time-frame shows a clear difference of 1 day when measured from: quadrature to lunar eclipse duo, versus: quadrature to solar eclipse solo (averaged over BCE2999 – CE3999).
This is a great article.
IAN
This is speculation at this point Salvador but I propose that the simple reason for Moon’s tidal effect not being consistently present throughout geological history is the fact that the influence of the lunar tides only become important when its effects begin to dominate over other contributing factors e.g. continental drift, changing deep sea currents, long term variations in solar output either intrinsic to the Sun, or induced by long-term changes to the Earth’s orbit etc.
My reply
I agree with this response 100%.
tropical year = 365.24219 days
sidereal year = 365.256363 days
harmonic mean = 365.2492764 days
beat with nearest subharmonic of 1 day:
(365.2492764)*(365) / (365.2492764 – 365) = 534811.9792 days
(534811.9792) / 365.24219 = 1464.266708 years
Other side of the coin = Milankovitch axial precession
tropical year = 365.24219 days
sidereal year = 365.256363 days
(365.256363)*(365.24219) / (365.256363 – 365.24219)
= 9412756.388 days
(9412756.388) / 365.24219 = 25771.27354 years
What we are all doing here is coming up with reasons( lunar included) that probably are all playing a role in the climate. I think noise in the climate system makes it exceptionally hard to see the reasons we claim that effect the climate are so. In addition to noise the climate system often will have factors going on at the same time which are trying to throw the climate in a different direction and some of these factors at times exert a bigger influence then at other times on the climate and sometimes some of these factors can bring the climate to a threshold which then really makes it next to impossible to see how the other factors are still influencing the climate.
At the same time the given beginning state of the climate is constantly in flux which then either enhances or moderates all the factors that are playing a role in the climate.
The end result is we have a discussion with many points of view.
My best shot once again which I am sure some will agree with , disagree with or half way agree with.
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.
25771.2 years / 8.85y = 2912 (13×224 or 8×364) – a whole number of lunar perigee cycles.
Oldbrew
Pierre Bretagnon’s Jup/Sat ‘great inequality’ is ~883.21 years.
883.21 x 2 = 1766.42.
Paul V
25771.27 years is within .2 years of Hilton’s estimate. Nice.
We need more articles dealing with abrupt climate change on this site. My suggestion.
[reply] Noted. Put ‘Holocene’ in the ‘search this site’ box and a few will pop up. Tim Cullen had an interesting theory (Jan. 2013)
Paul in simple terms what do you think it is that is driving the climate what combination of factors and which do you put more emphasis on? I am still not clear on your take.
I think you think one factor is the QBO/solar tie in, which I agree with.
I also think you are into astronomical cycles and there relationship to the climate.
thanks
[mod note] – see http://www.billhowell.ca/
Salvatore,
Modeling unconserved quantities gets us nowhere.
Climate isn’t a univariate time-only phenomenon. It’s spatiotemporal, multivariate, & nonuniform.
The conserved mass motions are coupled to heat content motions, but the coupling isn’t 1:1. Rather it’s multiaxial.
I can suggest focusing less on (unconserved univariate) driving & forecasting and more on (multiaxially conserved) sampling & aggregation.
Framing of “noise” & “internal chaos” as dominant climate drivers tells us more about US election cycles than climate.
Yes there’s turbulence in the system, but in conserved multiaxial aggregate the turbulence is bounded.
The quick answer to your question:
1. orbital
2. solar (includes differential insolation tides & consequent gradient-driven circulation)
3. lunisolar
in that order.
1 & 2 are drivers, whereas 3 is only a mixer.
The distinction between 1 & 2 is misleading. 1 & 2 aren’t orthogonal. Moving forward 2 is best regarded as an extension of (revised) Milankovitch theory (revised to address the ignored role of gradients in circulation).
–
I might post a few more exploratory calculations if/when I can find time to help stimulate better focus on sampling & aggregation.
One thing that concerns me with proxy records is the potential to blindly alias very strong (annually aggregated) diurnal depositional (circulatory) signals.
I’m particularly concerned that 10Be records are being severely misinterpreted.
I should add that academic separation of 1 & 3 can also be artificially misleading to those not recognizing the dependence of 3 on 1.
For example, Jupiter & Saturn play a central role in both Milankovitch & lunisolar theory. We would have to be darkly obsessed with the outcome of US election cycles to dismiss the 1470 year coincidence.
We didn’t finish the work in this thread, but I think we pointed it in the right direction: (In central limit) Jupiter & Saturn define the attractor governing the boundary conditions limiting ice tipping-points on Earth.
TL Mango said: ‘Pierre Bretagnon’s Jup/Sat ‘great inequality’ is ~883.21 years.’
For me that looks like a ‘half-period’ because it’s not an exact multiple of Jupiter orbits.
Double it and you have 149 Jupiter, 60 Saturn and 89 (149-60) J-S conjunctions.
(150:60 would be an exact 5:2 ratio)
Paul I noticed you did not mention the earth’s magnetic field strength as a player in the climate. Why?
Thanks for your thoughts in the earlier post.
The climate puzzle (additive thoughts) commentary appreciated
Ice climate dynamics tied into the beginning state of the climate needs to be addressed when one is considering abrupt climate change or climate change in general.
The magnetic field of earth must be included because it will enhance or moderate solar effects, along with the position of the continents versus oceans and how vastly they differ from the N.H. versus the S.H.
All these factors I take into consideration.
With prolonged solar activity the atmospheric circulation is likely to become much more meridional , result more extremes in climate or at least persistence. Can have compounding effects if persistent enough.
Oldbrew
I know that 883.21 doesn’t look right because its not an even multiple.
But…. Over long time scales the Jupiter and Saturn epi-trochhiod pattern
does return to the top of the ecliptic (in an irregular way), averaging 883.21 years.