Scafetta & Mazzarella: Spectral coherence between climate oscillations and the M ≥ 7 earthquake historical worldwide record

Posted: January 28, 2015 by tallbloke in Earthquakes, solar system dynamics
Tags:

Nicola Scafetta has co-authored a paper with Adriano Mazzarella on the correlation of the spectral frequencies of M7 and greater earthquakes and oceanic oscillations and length of day (LOD). He ascribes those oscillations and the LOD variation to the astronomical forcings identified in earlier papers which have similar spectral frequency peaks.

2015fig9

Abstract

We compare the NOAA Significant Earthquake Historical database versus typical climatic indices and the length of the day (LOD). The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) record is mainly adopted because most of the analyzed earthquakes occurred at the land boundaries of the Pacific Plate. The NOAA catalog contains information on destructive earthquakes. Using advanced spectral and magnitude squared coherence methodologies, we found that the magnitudeM7earthquake annual frequency and the PDO record share common frequencies at about 9-, 20-, and 50- to 60-year periods, which are typically found in climate records and among the solar and lunar harmonics.

The two records are negatively correlated at the 20- and 50- to 60-year timescales and positively correlated at the 9-year and lower timescales. We use a simple harmonic model to forecast theM7significant earthquake annual frequency for the next decades. The next 15 years should be characterized by a relatively highM7earthquake activity (on average 10–12 occurrences per year) with possible maxima in 2020 and 2030 and a minimum in the 2040s. On the 60-year scale, the LOD is found to be highly correlated with the earthquake record (r=0.51for 1900–1994, andr=0.95for 1910–1970). However, the LOD variations appear to be too small to be the primary earthquake trigger. Our results suggest that large earthquakes are triggered by crust deformations induced by, and/or linked to climatic and oceanic oscillations induced by astronomical forcings, which also regulate the LOD.

Comments
  1. Data shows a very strong correlation between prolonged solar minimum periods and an increase in geological activity. This is part of my reasoning for lower global temperatures as the prolonged solar minimum continues. I expect more intense volcanic eruptions going forward later this decade.

    Data shows that post 1600 AD 85% of all major volcanic eruptions are associated with solar minimum periods to a varied degree.

    The space and science center under Dr. Casey has compiled the data.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Does the paper link the 20-year and/or 60 year period to the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction cycles (19.86 years and 59.58 years approx.)?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction

    Update: this probably answers the question.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1206/1206.5835.pdf

  3. Michele says:

    Dr. Dong Choi say : “Were studied extensively by the author (Choi, 2010; Choi and Maslov, 2010). A comparison of the earthquake frequency curve with solar cycles revealed a very interesting trend (Figure) – an anti-correlation.”

  4. Exactly , the solar/geological connection is supported by data and is the determining factor. That is what matters.

    Piers Corbyn has done good work in this area using solar as a predictor.

  5. Michele says:

    The cause of this anti-correlation awaits further study. One of the most feasible explanations was presented by Gregori (2002) who attributed to the Earth’s core being a leaky capacitor or a battery; when solar activity is high, the Earth’s core is charged, whereas when the Sun’s activity is in low phase, the core in turn discharges energy. Another theory is cosmic rays; when the solar activity is low, the amount of ionized cosmic rays with stronger penetration capability increases (Kirby, 2007, and others); the increased cosmic rays may heat up the Earth’s interior to discharge more energy.

    Quote : “…with possible maxima in 2020 and 2030…”

    De Santis (INGV) EGU2014 :
    http://www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/3395/2013/nhess-13-3395-2013.html

    “….In analogy with critical point phenomena characterized by some cumulative quantity, we fit the surface extent of this anomaly over the last 400 yr with power law or logarithmic functions in reverse time, also decorated by log-periodic oscillations, whose final singularity (a critical point tc) reveals a great change in the near future (2034 ± 3 yr), when the SAA area reaches almost a hemisphere….”

    We live in interesting times.

  6. Muon intensity changes associated with galactic cosmic rays linked with solar is a leading theory as to why volcanic activity may increase with associated prolonged minimum solar conditions.

  7. tchannon says:

    Assuming there is something in a connection I wonder whether there is a switch between fewer large events and more small events? The latter will be poorly or not recorded in history.

    Few candidate mechanisms which would affect stress in the crust come to mind. There is a magnetic linkage with the sun, seems somehow too minor.Gravitational never seems to show much in the way of correlation where the much stronger lunar or seasonal solar ought to figure before tiny effects from remote planets, which anyway are not definitely known to affect the sun.

  8. Michele says:

    I will present a new search in Vienna (EGU 2015).

    Title: Relationship between major geophysical events and the planetary magnetic Ap index, from 1844 to the present

    A clear connection between solar minimum (75%) or maxima (25%) and large geophysical events

    @ Tim
    I think the solution (energy of the large geophysical events) is not in gravitation and electromagnetism but in the electrical potential (Tesla research’s)

  9. Michele says:

    @ Salvatore Del Prete

    Toshikazu Ebisuzaki say : “…. Nine of the 11 events occurred during the solar inactive phase (sunspot numbers < 40), despite the fact that exactly half of the 306 years during the period of interest fell in the solar inactive phase …."

    I agree.

    http://michelecasati.altervista.org/significant-statistically-relationship-between-the-great-volcanic-eruptions-and-the-count-of-sunspots-from-1610-to-the-p.html

    "….Of the historical 31 large volcanic eruptions with index VEI5+, recorded between 1610 and 1955, 29 of these were recorded when the SSN<46…."

  10. tchannon says:

    A cosmic ray effect on latent energy is a strange one SDP. It might be experimentally testable.

    Super – xxx conditions in materials is full of surprises, some abrupt as many discover when the door of the microwave oven is blasted open, or less often seen when supercooled water decides it wants to be ice. Naturally this is going on all the time in clouds.

    A triggering of a catastrophic chain on this scale does though seem improbable.

  11. The data shows the connection is there between solar/geological activity, and it is convincing.

  12. LOD changes in response to earthquakes.

  13. tallbloke says:

    SDP: LOD changes in response to earthquakes.

    Or more likely they both change in response to something else

  14. Maybe, but some studies indicate this to be so.

  15. tallbloke says:

    Large eathquakes do affect LOD, but I think the larger multi-decadal changes LOD are celestially driven.
    Paul Vaughan disagrees.

  16. Tanner says:

    I suggest having a look at the theories of Pier Luigi Ighina regarding the relationship between the sun and the earth as well as the different types of atoms including magnetic atoms!

    He studied atoms by slowing them down whereas “main stream” scientists study atoms by “energising” them and effectively studying an already excited atom!

    His work is in Italian but I have largely translated his book “la scoperta dell’atomo magnetico” into english if anyone is interested?

    There may be some merit in his ideas?

  17. Paul Vaughan says:

    Scafetta & Mazzarella (2015). Spectral coherence between climate oscillations and the M ≥ 7 earthquake historical worldwide record. Natural Hazards.
    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/pdf/10.1007s11069-014-1571-z.pdf

    NOAA NGDC Earthquake Data and Information
    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/earthqk.shtml

    Centennial Earthquake Catalog
    http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/centennial/

    tallbloke (January 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm) wrote:
    “[…] I think the larger multi-decadal changes LOD are celestially driven.
    Paul Vaughan disagrees.”

    Not exactly “disagrees”. But there certainly doesn’t ever seem to be the time (nor does it seem there ever will be the time) to get into a technically detailed comparison & contrast of JEV osculating element stats versus JEV amplitude stats. But I can assert this: It’s the same thing that drives Milankovitch. And 9 = SEV.

  18. Paul Vaughan says:

    Stress on the crust is just a function of what the water’s doing.

    Milankovitch timescale JEV:

    We’re just beginning to realize that water time, space, & state redistribution works the same way at higher frequencies (including bidecadal…)

  19. Paul Vaughan says:

    Solstices precess??? (D’OH!! epic author blunder in recent wuwt “icebox” thread — whoever writes that clown’s cheques is the living definition of a usable tool!)

  20. Roger

    thank you for the post.

    The comments are interesting as usual. I am not sure to have understood Paul’s comments.

  21. gymnosperm says:

    Paul Vaughn, the Milankovitch aspect of your graphic above is not clear to me, possibly because I do not understand the acronym JEV.

    All Milankovitch cycles except eccentricity balance between seasons and hemispheres and the “tropics” extend to both hemispheres. Your graphic time series suggests a fixation with the 100kyr M cycle. What of the stronger and more stable 400kyr cycle that is seemingly absent in the ice and ocean cores?

    Why have you excluded the Indian and Atlantic oceans from tropical SST?

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    JEV = Jupiter-Earth-Venus
    JEV coupling governs Milankovitch cycles.

    Credit for that graph goes to “captain dallas” (not me):
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/the-icebox-heats-up/#comment-1843870

    In his next comment, he stressed “PEAK” equatorial insolation.
    It’s easy to verify that he’s correct.

    The ongoing alarmist + lukewarmist campaign to obfuscate 100ka is a dead giveaway.

  23. Paul Vaughan says:

    Alarmists & Lukewarmists:
    You have more than lost the campaign to obfuscate 100ka.

  24. tallbloke says:

    Willis is such a buffoon. “My faulty analysis doesn’t find what everyone wlse has, so it doesn’t exist”.

  25. E.M.Smith says:

    @Tallbloke:

    Um, that’s a bit strong, IMHO. WIllis admits that not finding anything is not proof of nonexistence, but just embraces it as way to strongly implying “nothing to see…”. I’ve tried on a couple of his threads to point out fairly obvious “issues”, but not seen much of it ‘catch’. (Simple example: When he went looking for a sunspot cycle match and used the AVERAGE length, when it is known that the sunspot cycle is bi-modal with short (near 9) and long (near 12-14) year types and nearly strictly avoiding the average (it’s a dip in the distribution). So looking most where there is a dip is ‘right’ how?… No response…

    So I’d call it more “stubbornly naive” about statistical approach… but maybe that’s what you said in fewer words😉

    On the topic of quakes:

    “Somewhere” I’ve saved a link (that I can’t find now) to a paper that claimed to find quakes linked to displacement of the core vs surface due to external (i.e. planetary / solar ) factors. Sorry to just toss a “go fish”, and I’ll keep looking, but it may take a while.

    At any rate, the paper claimed that core vs crust displacement happened ‘as the solar system turned’ and that then caused more / less quakes.

    I could maybe see it if the core were one density, and the mantle / crust much different. Then as the center of gravity of the Earth / Moon / Sun (whatever else) system moved relative to the geographic center, there would be buoyancy forces working to displace things. Then causing crustal forces and quakes. Think of it as mantle tides… maybe😉

  26. E.M.Smith says:

    The comment I added to the WUWT thread:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/24/the-icebox-heats-up/#comment-1850379

    E.M.Smith February 2, 2015 at 10:32 am

    Just my usual carp about things this approach ignores.

    1) Milankovich is about there being more days of summer and not just how intense the sun is on those days. You can’t just look at June and get anything that matches the actual Milankovich theory. (For example: North Pole is warmed more, and longer, when it points at the sun while furthest from the sun, since the orbital velocity is lower then; thus more days of summer and more melt, not less, despite lower insolation when further away by a small amount.)

    2) Many (most?) planetary / lunar / solar cycles are not single mode. Sunspots tend to avoid the average, clustering on each side. Bond Events are an average of 1470 years, but have nodes each side (that seem to match to a 1500 year average lunar tidal cycle that is really bimodal at 1200 and 1800 years). Statistics that look for a match to ONE cycle frequency will fail on bimodal reality.

    So, to me, it looks like you are inspecting non-Milancovitch theory (just more sun intensity) with unsuited tools (one fixed cycle) and then claiming Milancovitch must be wrong in consequence…

  27. tallbloke says:

    EM: Another fine example of Willis willisfully using inappropriate analysis techniques to dismiss Sun-climate links:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/blam-blam-willis-eschenbach-takes-a-scattergun-to-solar-temperature-datasets/

    The core displacement idea may have some legs. It would fit with the Earth having a N-S hemispheric climate oscillation on multi-decadal timescales.

  28. oldbrew says:

    Resonance can be a strange beast. Maybe it changes re tectonics as sunspot levels vary?

    ‘On 5 July 2011, a 39-story shopping mall called the “Techno-Mart” in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, shook violently for 10 minutes and was evacuated for two days. After study, it was determined that about 20 people performing Tae Bo exercises to “The Power” caused the building to vibrate by creating a mechanical resonance. The tentative conclusion was the consensus among the six professors from an architectural institute and vibration measurement experts who participated in a recreation of the event.’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_(Snap!_song)#Tremors_at_Techno-Mart

    Report of the repeat:

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/19/scientist-tae-bo-workout-sent-skyscraper-shaking/

    “It just happens to be that the vibration cycle caused by Tae Bo collided with the vertical vibration cycle unique to the building” – Prof.

    Another one, from Australia:
    ‘Tests confirmed exercise classes were causing the building to shake. While all buildings are designed to move in response to factors such as wind, the high impact movements of Zumba caused a build-up of “harmonic vibrations”, despite the floor on which the exercise class was held exceeding Australian standards for gymnasiums, officials said.’

    http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/zumba-class-has-office-all-shook-up-20110224-1b73p.html

  29. tallbloke says:

    OB: Nice find! And I agree that resonance is a good candidate for earthquakes.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    “captain dallas” got the memo (on equatorial insolation extremes (not means) & poleward flux):
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/clive-best-does-the-moon-trigger-interglacials/comment-page-1/#comment-65608

    note the epic blunder on the wuwt “icebox” threads: graphing only equatorial June insolation — it’s not naivety — it’s malicious, hateful, deliberate, motivated deception — what schoolchild thinks MAXIMUM equatorial insolation or MINIMUM equatorial insolation occurs in June??? (wtf?????) It’s straight-up deliberate, hateful, motivated deception of totally dumb, compliant audience who did not even call such a SEVERE error. Let’s get real about the mullerous deception.

  31. tallbloke says:

    Max would be 6th Jan wouldn’t it?
    So Min probably near the start of July.

  32. tallbloke says: February 3, 2015 at 4:15 pm

    “Max would be 6th Jan wouldn’t it? So Min probably near the start of July.”

    Note: (equatorial insolation). You are off by 3 months from any POV.

  33. Paul Vaughan says:

    max is currently near spring equinox
    (Jan. 6 is near a min)

    If this isn’t intuitive (as it definitely should be), I very strongly recommend that everyone take a very careful look at the tip I gave on the Clive Best thread. Especially see fig. 2-5 in the paper to which I linked.

    Maybe we should have a minimal discussion about this sometime in the coming weeks.

  34. Rog, here is my explanation. I have two short post to follow and one note

    Here is what I have concluded. My explanation as to how the climate may change conforms to the historical climatic data record which has led me to this type of an explanation. It does not try to make the historical climatic record conform to my explanation. It is in two parts.

    PART ONE

    HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE

    Below are my thoughts about how the climatic system may work. It starts with interesting observations made by Don Easterbrook. I then reply and ask some intriguing questions at the end which I hope might generate some feedback responses. I then conclude with my own thoughts to the questions I pose.

    From Don Easterbrook – Aside from the statistical analyses, there are very serious problems with the Milankovitch theory. For example, (1) as John Mercer pointed out decades ago, the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’ (2) glaciations typically end very abruptly, not slowly, (3) the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are so abrupt that they could not possibility be caused by Milankovitch changes (this is why the YD is so significant), and (4) since the magnitude of the Younger Dryas changes were from full non-glacial to full glacial temperatures for 1000+ years and back to full non-glacial temperatures (20+ degrees in a century), it is clear that something other than Milankovitch cycles can cause full Pleistocene glaciations. Until we more clearly understand abrupt climate changes that are simultaneous in both hemispheres we will not understand the cause of glaciations and climate changes.

    . My explanation:

    I agree that the data does give rise to the questions/thoughts Don Easterbrook, presents in the above. That data in turn leads me to believe along with the questions I pose at the end of this article, that a climatic variable force which changes often which is superimposed upon the climate trend has to be at play in the changing climatic scheme of things. The most likely candidate for that climatic variable force that comes to mind is solar variability (because I can think of no other force that can change or reverse in a different trend often enough, and quick enough to account for the historical climatic record) and the primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability which I feel are a significant player in glacial/inter-glacial cycles, counter climatic trends when taken into consideration with these factors which are , land/ocean arrangements , mean land elevation ,mean magnetic field strength of the earth(magnetic excursions), the mean state of the climate (average global temperature), the initial state of the earth’s climate(how close to interglacial-glacial threshold condition it is) the state of random terrestrial(violent volcanic eruption, or a random atmospheric circulation/oceanic pattern that feeds upon itself possibly) /extra terrestrial events (super-nova in vicinity of earth or a random impact) along with Milankovitch Cycles.

    What I think happens is land /ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean magnetic field strength of the earth, the mean state of the climate, the initial state of the climate, and Milankovitch Cycles, keep the climate of the earth moving in a general trend toward either cooling or warming on a very loose cyclic or semi cyclic beat but get consistently interrupted by solar variability and the associated primary and secondary effects associated with this solar variability, and on occasion from random terrestrial/extra terrestrial events, which brings about at times counter trends in the climate of the earth within the overall trend. While at other times when the factors I have mentioned setting the gradual background for the climate trend for either cooling or warming, those being land/ocean arrangements, mean land elevation, mean state of the climate, initial state of the climate, Milankovitch Cycles , then drive the climate of the earth gradually into a cooler/warmer trend(unless interrupted by a random terrestrial or extra terrestrial event in which case it would drive the climate to a different state much more rapidly even if the climate initially was far from the glacial /inter-glacial threshold, or whatever general trend it may have been in ) UNTIL it is near that inter- glacial/glacial threshold or climate intersection at which time allows any solar variability and the associated secondary effects no matter how SLIGHT at that point to be enough to not only promote a counter trend to the climate, but cascade the climate into an abrupt climatic change. The back ground for the abrupt climatic change being in the making all along until the threshold glacial/inter-glacial intersection for the climate is reached ,which then gives rise to the abrupt climatic changes that occur and possibly feed upon themselves while the climate is around that glacial/inter-glacial threshold resulting in dramatic semi cyclic constant swings in the climate from glacial to inter-glacial while factors allow such an occurrence to take place.

    The climatic back ground factors (those factors being previously mentioned) driving the climate gradually toward or away from the climate intersection or threshold of glacial versus interglacial, however when the climate is at the intersection the climate gets wild and abrupt, while once away from that intersection the climate is more stable. Although random terrestrial events and extra terrestrial events could be involved some times to account for some of the dramatic swings in the climatic history of the earth( perhaps to the tune of 10% ) at any time , while solar variability and the associated secondary effects are superimposed upon the otherwise gradual climatic trend, resulting in counter climatic trends, no matter where the initial state of the climate is although the further from the glacial/inter-glacial threshold the climate is the less dramatic the overall climatic change should be, all other items being equal.

    The climate is chaotic, random, and non linear, but in addition it is never in the same mean state or initial state which gives rise to given forcing to the climatic system always resulting in a different climatic out-come although the semi cyclic nature of the climate can still be derived to a degree amongst all the noise and counter trends within the main trend.

    QUESTIONS:

    Why is it when ever the climate changes the climate does not stray indefinitely from it’s mean in either a positive or negative direction? Why or rather what ALWAYS brings the climate back toward it’s mean value ? Why does the climate never go in the same direction once it heads in that direction?

    Along those lines ,why is it that when the ice sheets expand the higher albedo /lower temperature more ice expansion positive feedback cycle does not keep going on once it is set into motion? What causes it not only to stop but reverse?

    Vice Versa why is it when the Paleocene – Eocene Thermal Maximum once set into motion, that being an increase in CO2/higher temperature positive feedback cycle did not feed upon itself? Again it did not only stop but reversed?

    My conclusion is the climate system is always in a general gradual trend toward a warmer or cooler climate in a semi cyclic fashion which at times brings the climate system toward thresholds which make it subject to dramatic change with the slightest change of force superimposed upon the general trend and applied to it. While at other times the climate is subject to randomness being brought about from terrestrial /extra terrestrial events which can set up a rapid counter trend within the general slow moving climatic trend.

    .

    Despite this ,if enough time goes by (much time) the same factors that drive the climate toward a general gradual warming trend or cooling trend will prevail bringing the climate away from glacial/inter-glacial threshold conditions it had once brought the climate toward ending abrupt climatic change periods eventually, or reversing over time dramatic climate changes from randomness.

    NOTE 1- Thermohaline Circulation Changes are more likely in my opinion when the climate is near the glacial/ inter-glacial threshold probably due to greater sources of fresh water input into the North Atlantic.

    PART TWO

    HOW THE CLIMATE MAY CHANGE

    Below I list my low average solar parameters criteria which I think will result in secondary effects being exerted upon the climatic system.

    My biggest hurdle I think is not if these low average solar parameters would exert an influence upon the climate but rather will they be reached and if reached for how long a period of time?

    I think each of the items I list , both primary and secondary effects due to solar variability if reached are more then enough to bring the global temperatures down by at least .5c in the coming years.

    Even a .15 % decrease from just solar irradiance alone is going to bring the average global temperature down by .2c or so all other things being equal. That is 40% of the .5c drop I think can be attained. Never mind the contribution from everything else that is mentioned.

    What I am going to do is look into research on sun like stars to try to get some sort of a gage as to how much possible variation might be inherent with the total solar irradiance of the sun. That said we know EUV light varies by much greater amounts, and within the spectrum of total solar irradiance some of it is in anti phase which mask total variability within the spectrum. It makes the total irradiance variation seem less then it is.

    I also think the .1% variation that is so acceptable for TSI is on flimsy ground in that measurements for this item are not consistent and the history of measuring this item with instrumentation is just to short to draw these conclusions not to mention I know some sun like stars (which I am going to look into more) have much greater variability of .1%.

    I think Milankovich Cycles, the Initial State of the Climate or Mean State of the Climate , State of Earth’s Magnetic Field set the background for long run climate change and how effective given solar variability will be when it changes when combined with those items. Nevertheless I think solar variability within itself will always be able to exert some kind of an influence on the climate regardless if , and that is my hurdle IF the solar variability is great enough in magnitude and duration of time. Sometimes solar variability acting in concert with factors setting the long term climatic trend while at other times acting in opposition.

    THE CRITERIA

    Solar Flux avg. sub 90

    Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

    AP index avg. sub 5.0

    Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

    Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

    EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

    IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

    The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005.

    If , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

    The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

    Secondary Effects With Prolonged Minimum Solar Activity. A Brief Overview.

    A Greater Meridional Atmospheric Circulation- due to less UV Light lower Ozone in Lower Stratosphere.

    Increase In Low Clouds- due to an increase in Galactic Cosmic Rays.

    Greater Snow-Ice Cover- associated with a Meridional Atmospheric Circulation/an Increase In Clouds.

    Greater Snow-Ice Cover probably resulting over time to a more Zonal Atmospheric Circulation. This Circulation increasing the Aridity over the ice sheets eventually. Dust probably increasing into the atmosphere over time.

    Increase in Volcanic Activity – Since 1600 AD, data shows 85 % approximately of all major Volcanic eruptions have been associated with Prolonged Solar Minimum Conditions. Data from the Space and Science Center headed by Dr. Casey.

    Volcanic Activity -acting as a cooling agent for the climate,(SO2) and enhancing Aerosols possibly aiding in greater Cloud formation.

    Decrease In Ocean Heat Content/Sea Surface Temperature -due to a decline in Visible Light and Near UV light.

    This in turn should diminish the Greenhouse Gas Effect over time, while promoting a slow drying out of the atmosphere over time. This may be part of the reason why Aridity is very common with glacial periods.

    In addition sea surface temperature distribution changes should come about ,which probably results in different oceanic current patterns.

  35. Solar System Dynamics( which influence the climate over a long time span) I covered with Milankovitch Cycles , although any of the others such as lunar for an example, I suppose could be added.

  36. One of the points I am trying to bring out in my piece of how the climate may changes is the following:

    The problem with so many in climate science is that the scientist in this field try to prove their points as to what may or may not effect the climate with specific items, as if they are in ISOLATION, rather then in the context of the entire climatic picture.
    Again a given force and magnitude changes of that force which may impact the climate has to be taken into consideration with the entire spectrum of items that are exerting an influence on the climate at that given time ,along with the state of the climate at that given time in order to get a sense of what impact that specific force may or may not exert on the climate.

    This is why it is so hard to prove and show a simple cause and effect relationship between the climate and items exerting a force upon the climate even though it does exist.

    One last point to follow.

  37. The climate most likely acts as a two tier system in that it has slow moving cycles such as Milankovitch Cycles that gradually move the climate toward a warmer or colder climate but super imposed on this gradual cycle are forces, and events that can create counter abrupt climatic trends especially when the climate is near the glacial/inter- glacial threshold condition which the slow moving cycles in the climatic system bring the climate toward and away from over long periods of time.

    They do not get it. They try constantly to isolate an item that may influence the climate without considering it in the context of the entire spectrum of items that may be impacting the climate at that given time or the state of the climate at that given time and think they can somehow come up with an explanation as to why the climate changes. Wrong , wrong and wrong.

    Rog, this is where I am with the climate and why/how it may change.

  38. Paul Vaughan says:

    I just read “Individual contribution of insolation and CO2 to the interglacial climates of the past 800,000 years”, which crowns CO2 supreme queen (and demotes insolation to bit player).

    From the concluding paragraph:
    “ice sheets will be included in future simulations”

  39. Paul, I have reached the conclusion that mainstream climate scientist are clueless, useless and it is sites like this one with the combined efforts all of us that are making advances as to why/how the climate changes.

  40. Paul Vaughan says:

    “the synchronicity of glaciations in both hemispheres is ‘’a fly in the Malankovitch soup,’”

    This common, serious misinterpretation / misrepresentation / misunderstanding is based on at least 2 false assumptions:

    1. insolation = absorption
    (as if white does not reflect)

    2. northern land-ocean distribution = southern land-ocean distribution
    (as if island surrounded by water = pond surrounded by land)

    definitions
    semantics

    When DIFFERENT people say “Milankovitch theory”, they mean DIFFERENT things. Many are referring to something abstract (e.g. a UNIFORM globe) which does not exist in reality. That’s how they end up thinking synchronicity across hemispheres disproves THEIR CONCEPTION of “Milankovitch theory” (which (let me be completely honest here please) appears politically motivated from my perspective).

    observations
    observations (…never mind theory based on politically motivated false assumptions, I suggest)

    The globe is NOT uniform.
    White DOES reflect insolation (INCLUDING HIGH insolation).
    Land-ocean geometry DOES play a PIVOTAL role in climate:

    Image Credit: Bill Illis

    “ice sheets will be included in future simulations” (!!!)

  41. Paul Vaughan says:

    Rog: Figure 1 in the paper to which I linked from the Clive Best thread might make the time of year of maximum & minimum equatorial insolation even more clear. “Captain Dallas” got it. If/when time/resources permit, I’ll share a single image that makes it crystal clear (no book-length administrative BS needed in a fair court…)

    Best Regards

  42. I can understand how a cooling of the N.H. due to Milankovitch Cycles can impact the whole globe into a cooler mode, despite Milankovitch Cycles within themselves being favorable for S.H. warming.

    The N.H. always being subject to much greater effects from the forces that exert influence on the climate then the S.H. and the effects in the N.H., counteracting any warming effects due to Milankovitch Cycles.

    Correct?

    .

  43. Paul Vaughan says:

    obliquity?
    eccentricity?
    precession?

    Sometimes we need to be more specific than “Milankovitch cycles” when discussing symmetry, asymmetry, & interhemispheric synchronicity.

    For example dry/wet monsoons alternate north/south with eccentric precession:

    If you look up the largely speechless wuwt thread on this, you’ll find a highly informative absence of these telling illustrations. (Unwavering luke loyalty to the nobly spun collective grand delusion of abstract alarmist art is emotionally inspired to dizzying heights …just another easy victim of consensual feel-good contagion.)

  44. Paul Vaughan says:

    China vs. S. America:

    N. vs. S. Africa:

    (sarc) random internal variability (/sarc)

  45. oldbrew says:

    Anything of interest here?

    ‘Last week, researchers at the University of Arizona in Tucson showed that a recent dramatic uplift of the Earth’s crust in parts of Iceland coincided with the rapid melting of nearby glaciers’

    ‘Melting ice spells volcanic trouble’ – by Fred Pearce

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26923

  46. Note this particular chart is from the Antarctica Ice Core, but is representative of charts of temperatures taken from other Ice Cores.

    What stands out is for the last 5000 years or even a bit more, is the fact that the global temperature of the earth has been in a slow gradual downtrend with intervals of warmth. The data indicating the items that drive the climate cycle gradually, those being Land /Ocean Arrangements,The Mean State of the Climate, Initial State of the Climate, Milankovitch Cycles, to name a few are taking the climate in a slow gradual downward trend. They are however being superimposed most likely by solar variability fluctuations which give the jig/saw pattern downward but with intervals of warmth.

    Let me clarify what I mean by Mean State Of The Climate, and how I differentiate it from the Initial State of The Climate. What I am referring to by Mean State Of The Climate , is the temperature gradient between the equator and the polar regions.. An Ice Age having a greater temperature gradient in contrast to Inter-glacial. The greater the gradient the more likely this indicator is pushing the earth into a colder mode.

    Initial State Of The Climate is simply what part of the globe is currently in glacial conditions versus non glacial conditions and how far from the threshold of Ice Age Conditions versus Inter- Glacial Conditions the average temperature of the globe is currently. I would say neutral. From the data I have seen it looks like average global temperatures have been as high as 70F(21.0c approx.) to as low as 48F(9.0c approx.) Currently at about 15C.

    What strikes me at this current climate interval of time are the factors that are driving the climate into a gradual overall cooler trend are still in play , while now being in concert with two factors that will superimpose themselves on those factors driving the climate into a gradual cooler trend. Those two factors being a prolonged minimum solar period with the associated secondary and primary effects ,and a weakening Earth Magnetic Field , which at the very least will enhance solar effects. Galactic Cosmic Ray Penetration coming to mind.

    This period also similar to the start of the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period. The only slight differences this time ,in contrast to that time is the gradual cooler trend of the climate has advanced slightly more ,and the Magnetic Field of the earth is weaker. The big unknown however is how weak will solar become going forward and for what duration of time?

    If solar matches or exceeds Little Ice Age variability into a weaker state then the climate going forward should exceed conditions attained in the Little Ice Age , to some degree eventually all other things being equal. By all other things being equal I mean volcanic activity similar to the Little Ice Age period of time , no random impact ,or perhaps some other unknown factor that could be out there . An example ,galactic cosmic ray concentrations in the vicinity of the earth which I have no idea what they are, and what they were back then in contrast to today.

    With the climate there is always going to be the unknown x factors which make it extremely hard to get it right, but this is my best take on things.

  47. I want to add one last item and that is land/ocean arrangements /Land Elevations in my opinion are extremely favorable for cooling overall in both Hemispheres.

  48. Paul Vaughan says:

    I think it’s helpful to always mention ICE ELEVATIONS along with land elevations. Reading online climate discussions it’s pretty clear that there aren’t many contributors experienced with crossing the ever-moving rain/snow line on the side of a mountain. 1000 meters elevation gain is usually something like minus 6 degrees celsius in local winter. There can be 4 or 5 meters of snow up high and 0 meters at sea level (where rain totals can be massive). The ice sheets may depress the land over time, but it’s the net elevation that gives the cooling orographic lift that sucks monstrous quantities of snow out of the sky. Orographic precipitation — over high land AND OVER HIGH ICE.

    I’ll gather some links to share sometime when we have a dedicated discussion of 100ka (…which can be unified with multidecadal sun-climate relations as/when/if time permits).

  49. I didn’t see this post until recently so my comment is a bit late, but hopefully not too late.

    Scafetta and Mazzarella are using the magintude squared coherence (MSC) estimator to show these relationships. Incidentally, it was I who introduced this tool to Scafetta, see http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1086

    This estimator can have very large bias upwards, regardless of method used for estimation, and thus easily indicate coherence when there is none. Therefore, since there are no confidence intervals in Fig. 6, the value of this plot is very small indeed.

    See my ciriticism of his other use of the MSC for a discussion of this point. I show there that even MSC values as high as 0.95 may indicate insignificant coherence, see Fig. 8 of http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.01611