Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

What relevance does past natural cycles have with recent global warming?

What the science says...

Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans.

Climate Myth...

It's a 1500 year cycle

“Every one of them [climate records of the past] show this (roughly 1500 year) cycle.  It was first discovered in ice cores in Greenland.  Then it was seen in ocean sediments in the Atlantic.  And now it’s been found everywhere, including in stalagmites in caves. […] it could well account for the current warming.” (Fred Singer)

For someone to state that the global warming we’re experiencing is actually part of a 1500-year natural cycle of global temperature variation is interesting for two reasons. First — in contradiction to the great majority of sceptic arguments that actually deny global warming — this argument requires that the person promoting this explanation must first agree that climate change is, indeed, happening.

 Second, they must also refuse to accept the greenhouse effect, a theory first proposed more than 100 years ago and which even many sceptics of the human contribution to climate change, readily accept.

The 1500-year cycle in question has been observed mainly through ice core data as a warming in the northern hemisphere matched at precisely the same time by a cooling in the southern hemisphere. So it’s a heat distribution issue:  a global temperature ‘see-saw’ effect. The total heat in the global system remains constant.

In contrast, human-produced global warming has been caused by the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 200 years — rising over 400 parts per million after remaining below 300 parts per million for the previous 800,000 years. And unlike natural heat variations, the current temperature increase caused by CO2 is being recorded occurring all around the globe – on the ground, in the air and in the oceans.

Last updated on 16 October 2018 by John Russell. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further viewing

Comments

Comments 1 to 41:

  1. The evidence that average global temperatures measured for the entire 20th century and to the present actually are a natural cycle with no influence whatsoever from carbon dioxide is shown at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. There is no Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (and therefore no ACC) from added atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is a mistake to believe that there is.
    Response: The paper (written by Dan Pangburn) you link to (here's a direct link to the PDF) proposes that just the effects of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and solar activity are sufficient to explain temperature trends over the last 130 years. This argument is fundamentally flawed. Over the past 50 years, the planet has been in positive energy imbalance. Globally, oceans have been accumulating heat.

    PDO is an ocean cycle that causes internal variability, where heat is exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere. The PDO cannot explain the strong energy imbalance. Changes in solar activity do affect the planet's energy imbalance but over the last 50 years, the sun has showed a slight cooling trend.

    Lastly, we have experimental observations confirming an enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 and CH4. Pangburn's explanation fails to explain what's happened to all the warming caused by increased greenhouse gases.
  2. That is the point. As the paper shows, increased greenhouse gases did not contribute significantly to global warming. The methodology and links to the source data (all measured) are given. Do the exercise yourself and discover that many (not all) Climate Scientists have made an egregeous mistake and a lot of people have been misled.
  3. Anyone interested in how a cyclical signal should be detected may want to read this short and nice explanation. And those who think that a natural cycle is superimposed on a linear trend may want to read this.
  4. "In contrast, current global warming is occuring in both hemispheres and particularly throughout the world's oceans, indicating a significant energy imbalance." The fact remains that in the natural cycle of climate change we are (were?), when the phase of growing - rising - warming in NH - which show modern statistical data ("For smoothing we use local linear regression ...") presented here: http://www.rni.helsinki.fi/research/info/sizer/fig2big.jpg. It’s not Cherry Picking. "Many palaeoclimate records from earth's North Atlantic region depict a millennial-scale oscillation of climate, which during the last glacial period was highlighted by Dansgaard-Oeschger events that regularly recurred at approximately 1,470-year intervals (Rahmstorf, 2003 )."(by Idso K. and C., 2006). "The 1500 year cycles, known as Dansgaard-Oeschger events, are localized to the northern hemisphere and accompanied with cooling in the southern hemisphere." NIPCC, skeptics, We draw attention to a hypothetical series of circa 4.2 thousand. years (3 x Bond Events). Impact is stronger here - and the SH is only (weaker) warming; and circa 6 thousand. years solar cycle. We propose the following scheme for research: warming causes an increase in water vapor content of atmosphere - K.E. Trenberth, J. Fasullo, L. Smith, 2005: Trends and variability in column-integrated atmospheric water vapor. Fig 11. in this paper: here - on the map - we see that the place of the strongest growth of evaporation are related with the strength and reach of the north of THC (vitally affecting the AMO and AO). We know that present not only evaporation but also the strongest warming - it’s in the Arctic. This results in increased emissions of CO2 from the Arctic Sea, but also warming of Tundra: "Lloyd and Taylor (1994) found that the relative sensitivity to temperature change is much greater for soils at LOW temperatures than for warmer soils. For example, in the absence of moisture limitations, an increase from 0 to 1 deg C would result in a 22% increase in respiration, while an increase from 25 to 26 deg C leads to a 5% increase.", "Thus, modest global change scenarios resulting in a 1 to 2 deg C increase in mean temperature would have the most significant effect on the 60 g C/m2 year respired by tundra. [... and in the tundra - c. 1 / 5 land area - where the temperature has risen the most - from 2 to 3 deg C; and soil detritus is a great weight - most of the accumulated 21,6 kg C x m -2 (average) ...] (http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/ajm21/intro.html). At present, oxidation occurs at the age of detritus of several thousand to 10. thousand years. The ratio of carbon isotopes 14/13/12C - so here is similar to the fossil carbon. We believe that the cyclicality of the climate (in this and the Millennium) have a decisive influence solar cycles - direct; and through its impact on the moon - an indirect (LNC-LNO). We recommend to discuss in particular, the work: - http://ansatte.hials.no/hy/tide/default.htm, - Lunar nodal tide effects on variability of sea level, temperature, and salinity in the Faroe-Shetland Channel and the Barents Sea (Yndestad H. at al., 2008); - The 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle and surface temperature variability in the northeast Pacific (McKinnell, SM , and WR Crawford; 2007 ), - The impacts of the Luni-Solar oscillation on the Arctic oscillation (Ramos da Silva, R. , and R. Avissar; 2005 ), - Trends and anomalies in sea-surface temperature, observed over the last 60 years, within the southeastern Bay of Biscay (Goikoetxea N.; 2009), - Solar Forcing of Changes in Atmospheric Circulation, Earth's Rotation Solar (Mazzarella A.; 2008).
  5. "Changes in solar activity do affect the planet's energy imbalance but over the last 50 years, the sun has showed a slight cooling trend." The fact is, however, that before the sun was at its highest activity of 8 thousand. years (max - XIX solar cycle) http://www.aanda.org/images/stories/highlight/vol471-1/7704Usos.gif. We also believe that the sun gives its energy through the ocean - with a delay caused by the cycles presented here (solar, LNC: influencing THC - AMO, PDO, EN(LN)SO, NAO, AO, etc.). We believe, that global, hypothetical most probable period of delay is c. half of the Gleissberg cycle. F.e: light cool twenty-first century may be the result of the extended time of local solar minimum weak, from the 60s twenty century (XX solar cycle).
  6. John, I've been reading through Motl's rebuttals to your counterarguments, and I think he does have a point about this one. The title "It's just a natural cycle" implies that the page discusses natural climate cycles in general (including solar cycles, orbital cycles, etc). But your response only deals with the claim that we're experiencing something analogous to a Dansgaard-Oeschger event. Thus the title is a bit of an oversell.
    Response: I know, this argument started as a focus on the 1500 year cycle but when I started the Global Warming Links directory, I splintered it off into the more general natural cycle and the more specific 1500 year cycle. But I haven't got around to answering the more general argument. Problem is people have already started adding links to the 1500 year cycle argument so I can't go back to the way it was. Long story short, I painted myself into a corner with my argument structure and the only way out is to find the time to write detailed rebuttals to both. Okay, now where is that time, I know I left it around somewhere...
  7. Can we trust that the ice core data is collected and interpereted correctly? Counting those fine lines using a variety of techniques and extrapolating climate way back into the past may sound straightforward to the average laymen but how much error is there in the graph? All it takes is a slight shift in the assigned timeline for one of the ice cores and viola the bipolar climate becomes global. Thanks for the video but you will need to present the graph with links to the source and a brief explanation of the methods and reliability of this data. :)
  8. No one seems to be interested in a discussion about the quality of data presented in this video. I would like to add to my above comment that the error in assigning years to layers in any ice core is intrinsically cumulative. If you assume a conservative error estimate of say 1%. That is only 1 in every 100 annual layers is misassigned, then at 50 kyr BP when the most recent of the most striking DO events are suppossed to be taking place you have a +/- 500 year window within which you can align peaks. Given the peaks are so difficult to distinguish in time as they are currently portrayed, what does that tell you about the quality of work in the field of "Climate science"? Even in their current format the two datasets are not opposed but actually aligned at the first DO event at ~90-95kyr BP! But the video is trying to say they are not! Even the trail off from this initial "global" peak is the same in both hemispheres! The further in time we go back from 50kyr the worse (more cumulative) the error. Are there any obvious or striking DO events between 0 and 50 kyr BP? Even at 1% error is there a large enough window to align the supposedly bipolar peaks in this more recent region of time? Are we being too conservative at 1% error? Is "Climate science" really science?
  9. Re: daniel (7 and 8) Merely asserting something could be wrong and alleging impropriety doesn't make it so. If you have something of substance that will stand peer review that supports your allegations - bring it on. Or better yet, publish it. I'm sure you'll find many "skeptical" organizations will be glad to provide you with technical copywriters to assist you as well as financial support for your time to do so. Just remember to document your sources and provide links as well... I also suggest you actually do a little research on the background of paleo temperature records. Here's just one place to start. There are many more. In the meantime, you're blurring the line between skepticism and denial.
    "Is "Climate science" really science?"
    Hence the use of the word "SCIENCE". Pay attention. The Yooper
  10. Dr. S Fred Singer should have check his work before spreading it. There is absolutely no empirical evidence that 1,500 year ocean cycle is causing warmining. When was the last time Dr. S Fred Singer published original research in a peer-reviewed journal?
  11. I am having a hard time buying claims that ancient climate cycles do not matter. The glacial cycle has been rolling along for millions of years, like clockwork, without any CO2 input from mankind. For the past 800,000 years, the glacial cycle has been on a 100,000 year period. We appear to be about 14,000 years into this glacial warming phase. Looking at the graphs of the previous seven warming phases makes this one look pretty similar. It looks to me like most of the global warming we've been seeing is a natural result of the glacial cycle. A picture of the ice age cycles over the past 800,000 years may make it more obvious that a graph of the ice extent is a repetitive waveform http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milankovitch_Variations.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation These graphs of the ice age cycle sure look like repetitive waveforms to me http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitc Given the glacial cycle's documented longevity, and huge influence over our climate and geology, I'm more inclined to believe that it continues on. Chris Shaker
  12. The current Milankovitch cycle direction is cooling, yet the world is warming. Besides, how does a steady millenial cycle explain a decadal trend? That is why the soundbite response is "it's irrelevent."
  13. We reached temperatures 4.5C warmer than today during the previous glacial warming phase, without mankind's CO2 influence. We know that from ice core derived temperature proxy data. So how can you claim that today's global warming is NOT caused by the glacial cycle? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070705-antarctica-ice.html If the current glacial cycle trend is really toward cooling, we ought to be emitting more CO2, and hoping that the AGW believers are right. None of you seems to realize how rare these warming phases are, nor the devastating effect that the cooling phases of the glacial cycle have had on land based life. Will human civilization survive the next cooling cycle? Advancing ice will reduce arable land. The cooling climate will result in reduced plant productivity and massive crop failures. It seems that starvation and reduced populations will result. Probably war over surviving arable land. Probably another dark ages. Consider the dramatic impact of the little ice age on human civilization. It was quite devastating. For an example of what the cooling cycle can do to animal populations, consider the Cheetah. It's genetic inbreeding problems are believed to result from greatly reduced populations during a cooling cycle: http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=8475057 http://animals.howstuffworks.com/endangered-species/endangered-cheetah-info.htm/printable I'm pretty sure that rising sea levels from global warming will not wipe out civilization. The cooling cycle may. Chris Shaker
  14. #13: "how can you claim that today's global warming is NOT caused by the glacial cycle?" Easy. Open your eyes and look: We've blown our way out the top of the 'natural cycle'.
  15. #13 "We reached temperatures 4.5C warmer than today during the previous glacial warming phase, without mankind's CO2 influence." And the sea level then was ..... ? And the agricultural productivity then was ...... ? And the human population then was ...... ? I'm very interested in what the planet can do long before and long after human society was around. I'm much more interested in us doing our best to maintain the best of what we've got. Has it ever occurred to you that if the climate was warming or cooling for reasons beyond our control, say the sun or global tilt or whatever, that we could then still use our intelligence and our activities to extract or introduce CO2 into the atmosphere to counteract, ameliorate or delay the worst effects? CO2 is the one thing we *can* control.
  16. Another hockey stick graph of CO2 going sky high only means something to AGW believers. The graphs I was talking about show temperature and ice extent, derived from the ice core. The temperature graph is what I care about. AGW believers don't seem to want to admit that the glacial cycle is happening, as it has been happening for millions of years. We're supposed to believe that the glacial cycle has magically stopped working just because the CO2 level is elevated. Chris Shaker Chris Shaker
    Response: This thread is inappropriate for the specific topic of impending glaciation that you have focused on. Read the post "We’re heading into an ice age," which answers some of your questions and contentions. If you still have comments, make them on that thread, not this one.
  17. Obviously, you did not catch my remarks about needing to emit MORE CO2 and hope that the AGW believers are right. You must not have caught the AGW believer's claims that we're supposed to be starting the cooling phase of the glacial cycle. If that is true, and if the AGW theory is true, CUTTING CO2 emissions would be a really dumb idea. Unless you''re actually interested in bringing about the collapse of agriculture and the failure of mankind's civilization, as occured during the dark ages. Chris Shaker
    Response: Please do not use all caps. Use italic, or if you must, bold.
  18. #16: "graph of CO2 going sky high only means something" Actually, such a graph means quite a lot, if you understand such measurements. "We're supposed to believe that the glacial cycle has magically stopped" Who told you that? Open eyes, look at graph. The right-hand edge of the red curve suggests that we might turn colder due to 'natural cycles' sometime in the next 10-20000 years, but if that's what you're planning on, good luck with it. "you did not catch my remarks about needing to emit more CO2 " Yeah, I caught it. Pop fly to short. Next batter?
  19. Re: cjshaker (13)
    "We reached temperatures 4.5C warmer than today during the previous glacial warming phase, without mankind's CO2 influence. "
    Were you aware that the study cited in that article used 1950 for its "today"? Have a look-see for the warming since 1950: The climate during that interglacial was warmer than today, sure. For known, natural reasons. Said known, natural reasons are not the same today. But...if CO2 were as high then as now: Then conditions then would have been dramatically higher still. As muoncounter (14) ably says,
    "We've blown our way out the top of the 'natural cycle'."
    You would do well to ponder the comment made by adelady (15). If you had any idea of the radiative physics of CO2 and the temperature anomaly already in the pipeline (and it's very obvious you don't), you wouldn't be making the comments you do. The Yooper
  20. cjshaker - please see comments to you on this at We're heading into an ice age where this comments belong (the ice cycle is not a 1500 year cycle).
  21. I don't have any idea where the 1500 year cycle claims come from. I take exception to the claim that "Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans." Chris Shaker
  22. The numbers I see for temperature increase caused by man claimed by the IPCC is about .7C. We reached 4.5C higher during the previous glacial cycle. I think the bottom line is that climate modelers don't really understand the glacial cycle, nor how it really works. Chris Shaker
  23. My further comments are posted at We're heading into an ice age http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=53 Chris Shaker
  24. Re: cjshaker (22)
    "I think the bottom line is that climate modelers don't really understand the glacial cycle, nor how it really works."
    I have responded to this over here. The Yooper
  25. "In contrast, human-produced global warming has been caused by the rapidly increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 200 years -- rising over 390 parts per million after remaining below 300 parts per million for the previous 800,000 years." This is strictly dependant on the proxy that is being used to evaluate the concentration of CO2 in the atmoshphere. Ice cores show one of the largest sensitivities to CO2 whereas Stromata and the B/Ca ratio show much lower sensitivities. Therefore this comment can be easily argued by using Alkenones from Pagini et al. 2005 and 2010 show much higher historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
  26. msqrd #25, you've served a double fault here, Pagani shows no such thing. The quoted CO2 concentrations are not strictly dependant on the proxy as you imply, and you missed that Pagani et al 2005 were reconstructing CO2 levels from the mid-Eocene to late Oligocene, some 25-45million years ago. Ice core CO2 measurements go back some 800,000years, so the two ranges do not even nearly overlap. From Pagani et al 2005:
    We used stable carbon isotopic values of di-unsaturated alkenones extracted from deep sea cores to reconstruct pCO2 fromthe middle Eocene to the late Oligocene (∼45 to 25 million years ago). Our results demonstrate that pCO2 ranged between 1000 to 1500 parts per million by volume in the middle to late Eocene, then decreased in several steps during the Oligocene, and reached modern levels by the latest Oligocene. The fall in pCO2 likely allowed for a critical expansion of ice sheets on Antarctica and promoted conditions that forced the onset of terrestrial C4 photosynthesis.
    You'll also see how the level of CO2 is implicated in some crucial changes, notably the expansion of Antarctic ice sheets. You might also want to read Pagani et al, 2010, a paper discussing the Pliocene climate, and see if it supports your conclusions. You might want to consider what the climate of Earth was like the last time CO2 levels were this high
  27. 1500-year cycles... It is the iceberg armadas (Heinrich events) that show the 1470-year cycle. The Dangaard-Oschger events are the fast (10yr) cooling and even faster (2-4yr) rewarmings of 10C, several dozen in the last ice age. As Stefan Rahmstorf noted, some coincide with the iceberg armadas, some don't. It is not correct to speak of a D-O Cycle. The rapidity of the warming is thought to be due to the albedo positive feedback, same thing as is getting started in the Arctic Ocean today but involving the entire North Atlantic Ocean.
  28. I'm NOT a climate change denier NOR an AGW denier but wish to express the logical conclusion that BOTH the 1470-year cycle AND man-made greenhouse gas emissions could be the drivers of modern era warming. I take Prof Brian Cox's point of view : The Issue With Climate Change, South China Morning Post, 23rd May 2019. He talks about the framework of science being our best understanding of how the world works. The quantitative amount of energy from gravity via the coriolis effect and via the Moon's gravitational interaction across the entire planet's body giving rise to the enormous power of ocean tides dissipating heat from the equator to the higher latitudes, is much greater than solar radiance combined with AGW. Why are these two driving forces of our climate not quantively compared? Why is gravity missing from the Global Warming Debate? 

    I'd be surprised if there's a single scientist in the IPCC that actually knows the ocean tides move due to the flexing of the Earth's lithosphere. The oceans move due to being pushed from the ocean floor. Nobody is measuring the mid-ocean to see whether deep ocean tidal mixing is making it cooler, for example. 

     

    People like Prof Brian Cox should also inform the public that gravity itself is under scrutiny within the physics community and that it's possible for new physics to have a major bearing on future climate modeling.

  29. Alan Lowey @28 ,

    the sun's energy absorbed by the Earth is approx 1.1x10^17 watts (based on TSI times 71% absorption times Earth-cross-sectional area).

    Tidal energy (lithosphere and oceans) dissipated into heat, is calculated (Na & Lee, 2014 ) as approx 3.5x10^12 watts.  So roughly the same as world total electrical generated power.  And roughly a third of the heat generated by the radioactivity of the Earth's core.  And roughly 1/30,000 th  of the solar radiational heat absorbed by the earth's surface.

    The core heat rising to the surface is so tiny (for climate calculations) that it is usually ignored.  And the ocean tide heating effect is even smaller than the core heat loss.

    I do not understand how you can say: "tides dissipating heat ... is much greater than solar radiance combined with AGW."  You seem to have gotten that back to front.  Or were you meaning a comparison with that fraction of extra heating produced through the greenhouse action of human-caused CO2/methane/etcetera?  Yet even there, your "tidal" heat is at least a couple of orders of magnitude too small.

  30. Thank you for the response Eclectic.

    I don't agree with your statement "Tidal energy (lithosphere and oceans) dissipated into heat..", I'm talking about the energy required to move an ocean of water is greater than the energy of the sun's irradiance. Simple kinetic energy that moves an entire ocean is orders of magnitude greater than the sun's heat we receive. Surely?

    Response:

    [DB] Part of what makes this site a treasure for most is the reliance upon using credible evidence to support one's claims.  For credibility, you will have to do that.  Citations to the primary literature work best, either via direct link to the URL or by providing the DOI of the published research and the name of the source article you feel supports your contentions.

  31. The second paragraph at the top of this topic should be amended because it is a false statement. I'm a strong believer in the AGW climate emergency but also believe in the 1,470 year lunar induced climate cycle but via new physics. This view IS scientific in principle. I studied Simulation Modelling at MSc level at Brunel.

    The third paragraph is dismissive of the significance of hemisperical heat distribution. The extremes of rapid climate change recorded in ice age data should be of deep concern to modern day climate change. The see-saw effect doesn't have a well defined mechanism in standard climate modeling. A new physics lunar model can explain this with increasing tidal energy being greater in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern. I have a background in Astronomy and obtained my BSc degree from the University attended by Sir Patrick Moore.

    Perhaps you need a new section for people like me?

  32. Alan Lowey @31 ,

    With all due respect Alan, your views on the science of climate are seriously out of touch with the mainstream science of the past 200 years.

    The 1000+ year cyclic lunar control of climate; your intuitive & mind-bogglingly vast over-assessment of the relatively minuscule energies involved in tidal sloshing of oceans; your darkly mysterious allusions to "gravity and New Physics" . . . all point to a major problem you have, which you seem unaware of.

    Please educate yourself on the mainstream science.  Please consider the possibility that the thousands of expert scientists (working over many decades) may know something that you do not know.

    However, if you feel that Urania, the Muse of astronomy and science, has uniquely gifted you with new scientific revelations . . . then you are welcome to present the evidence [repeat: evidence ] in the appropriate threads here at SkS.  Probably not this thread.

    Possibly you have failed to notice it ~ but there have been several "contrarian" scientific challenges to mainstream climate science, and published in mainstream journals, too . . . but each and every such challenge has eventually fallen flat on its face, because it clashed with the evidence.

    <"Perhaps you need a new thread for people like me?">   Well, in a manner of speaking, there is such a new section, but it was found necessary to host it on its own separate website.  You will find it under the title: WattsUpWithThat.   WUWT is keen to publicize any and all ideas which run counter to the established evidence-based science, despite those ideas clashing with each other.  The disadvantage of it, is that you will find yourself rubbing shoulders with a mutually-argumentative bunch of commenters, half of whom are in complete denial of basic physics (especially the physics of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gasses) . . . and most of the other half suffer from anger issues & extremist political views (as well).  Still, you might find yourself enjoying such a website, if you don't mind its Bizarro tendencies.

  33. I see on the SkS team that Klaus Flemlose of Denmark has a keen interest in storm surges, sea level and the tides. I'd love to hear his probability on my assertation that the tidal bulge of the Earth is increasing at a faster rate in the northern hemisphere compared to the southern hemisphere. It could be relatively easily tested using satellite technology imo.

    Response:

    [DB] You are off-topic for the subject of this post.  Many threads here deal with SLR (use the Search function to find one more appropriate).

  34. A.L "1,470 year lunar induced climate cycle."The chief hypotheses on D.O. events and Bond events involve long term ocean currents and deep mixing events, or fresh water injections, not the moon. Whereas I found a wealth of papers involving oceanic processes, I could not find one mentioning a lunar component.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI3437.1

    https://authors.library.caltech.edu/16947/1/Eisenman2009p6441Paleoceanography.pdf

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117310351

     

     

  35. Stefan Rahmstorf, the originator of the 1,470 year cycle, noticed that the data was like 'clockwork', indicating an orbital origin. The obvious choice of a lunar origin was derided by his contemporaries, although none of them had the foresight to envisage new physics to fit the data.

    Response:

    [DB] You are certainly welcome to your own opinions, but this venue is science-based and to be taken seriously here you will need to up your game and start providing citations to the peer-reviewed published evidence that you feel supports your contentions.  Otherwise it will be assumed that you are simply making things up, AKA, sloganeering.

    Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right.  This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.

    Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit off-topic posts or make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
     
    Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.  If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.

    Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it.  Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.

    Sloganeering snipped.

  36. Your term "sloganeering" and deleting of my posts, not just ruling them through, is against the very foundations of science-based intellectualism, namely, natural philosophy.

    Response:

    [TD] Moderation complaints deleted.

  37. The "obvious choice of a lunar origin" is discussed by Rahmstorf himself in the paper that you mentioned without referencing it, and apparently did not read because it does not support your hypothesis at all. From the conclusion section:

    "The closest cycle known so far is a lunar cycle of 1,800 years [De Rop, 1971], which cannot be reconciled with the 1,470‐year pacing found in the Greenland data. The origin of this regular pacing thus remains a mystery."

    Copied from: Rahmstorf (2003). Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock. Geophysical research Letters, 30 (10).

    https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL017115|

    The Rahmstorf (2003) paper and others that I linked earlier explore why the weak forcing associated with this cycle fails to produce D.O. events in the Holocene. The climate effects are entirely owed to ocean circulation, especially salinity changes. There is other litterature suggesting that the cycle is still present but has not produced any noticeable climate effect since the last DO event. I am not impressed with how much you have explored the subject. This stuff is not hard to find.

  38. The DOI link above doesn't seem to work. Paper is accessible here:

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017115

  39. Philippe Chantreau 

    Thank you for the link. The last two lines of the paper, as you've quoted, are the most relevant to my thought experiment.

    Rahmstorf didn't consider combining the 'problem with gravity' with the 'problem of fitting a lunar cause'. There's some wonderful YouTube explanations of The Problem With Gravity. If the fundamentals of how we think gravity works is wrong, then it's possible to assign the Moon as the cause of the 1,470 year cycle. 

  40. You do not expose anything like a "thought experiment" in your ramblings. You stated this in post  35 above:

    "The obvious choice of a lunar origin was derided by his contemporaries,..."

    This was a complete fabrication, as was clearly exposed by Rahmstorf himself in the paper you couldn't bother to read despite using it for your argument. The last 2 lines of the paper are not relevant to any thought experiment. You seem to confuse thought experiment with hypothesis. You're trying to make it look like we are somehow in agreement and that you kind of knew what Rahmstorf said, when in fact it is clear you had no clue whatsoever.

    The fundamentals of how we think about gravity is called General Relativity, it has withstood every test thrown at it for the past 100 years. Just like Newton's theory, when it is shown not to be the best explanation, it will still remain valid for all practical purposes within a given domain of application. You are making a bold assertion, and contradicting Rahmstorf himself. It is incumbent to you to support such assertion. A YouTube video does not cut it. You're claiming all the scientists at NASA, NOAA and elsewhere have it wrong, show your work. Without that, you've got nothing but hot air. I can't wait to see how you reduce 1800 years to 1470.

  41. Since this whole pile of  nonsense relies on a very exact timing and Rahmstorf's interpretation in the paper above of a rigid cyclicity with a 1470 years period, let's consider the state of the science following the Rahmstorf (2003) paper.

    The timing of D.O. events has been in fact the subject of considerable debate. Obrochta, Miyahara, Yokoyama & Crowley (2012) injected much doubt as to the true cyclic nature of the events and the duration of the period. They have some pretty strong language:
    "Our new results suggest that the “1500-year cycle” may be a transient phenomenon whose origin could be due, for example, to ice sheet boundary conditions for the interval in which it is observed. We therefore question whether it is necessary to invoke such exotic explanations as heterodyne frequencies or combination tones to explain a phenomenon of such fleeting occurrence that is potentially an artifact of arithmetic averaging."

    In addition, solar cycles are pretty good candidates to figure as the initial forcings in the events: "Results from the most well-dated, younger interval suggest that the original 1500 ± 500 year cycle may actually be an admixture of the ∼1000 and ∼2000 cycles that are observed within the Holocene at multiple locations. In Holocene sections these variations are coherent with 14C and 10Be estimates of solar variability."

    Another European team 5 years earlier came to even stronger conclusions about the timing and cyclicty of the events. P. D. Ditlevsen, K. K. Andersen, and A. Svensson (2007) state: 

    "Here we present statistical significance tests of this periodicity. The detection of a periodicity relies strongly on the accuracy of the dating of the DO events. Here we use both the new NGRIP GICC05 time scale based on multi-parameter annual layer counting and the GISP2 time scale where the periodicity is most pronounced. For the NGRIP dating the recurrence times are indistinguishable from a random occurrence." So, in other words, when dating is refined in the ice core, the periodicity evaporates.

    It should be furthermore noted that D.O. events belong in a rather ancient past, as there has not been any since the last one observable in the GRIP/GISP cores, about 25,000 years ago.

    The Holocene shows another cycle of Bond events, of much smaller magnitude, most of them without a clear climate signal. The periodicity of the Bond events is closer to 1,000 years. Perhaps Alan's creative gravity maths can take us from 1800 to 1500 to 1000.  All this can be found through a quick search of D.O. events, Heinrich events and Bond events. 

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us