From the LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY and the department of tilt-a-whirl, comes this Milankovitch moment.
![milankovitch[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/milankovitch1.jpg?resize=720%2C405)
LSU paleoclimatologist Kristine DeLong contributed to an international research breakthrough that sheds new light on how the tilt of the Earth affects the world’s heaviest rainbelt. DeLong analyzed data from the past 282,000 years that shows, for the first time, a connection between the Earth’s tilt called obliquity that shifts every 41,000 years, and the movement of a low pressure band of clouds that is the Earth’s largest source of heat and moisture — the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or ITCZ.
“I took the data and put it through a mathematical prism so I could look at the patterns and that’s where we see the obliquity cycle, that 41,000-year cycle. From that, we can go in and look at how it compares to other records,” said DeLong, who is an associate professor in the LSU Department Geography & Anthropology.
With research collaborators at the University of Science and Technology of China and National Taiwan University, DeLong looked at sediment cores from off the coast of Papua New Guinea and stalagtite samples from ancient caves in China. DeLong’s data analysis revealed obliquity in both the paleontological record and computer model data. This research was published inNature Communications on Nov. 25.
The standard assumptions about how the variations in the Earth’s orbit influences changes in climate are called Milankovitch cycles. According to these principles, the Earth’s tilt influenced ice sheet formation during the Ice Ages, the slow wobble that occurs on a 23,000-year cycle as the Earth rotates around the sun called precession affects the Tropics and the shape of the Earth’s orbit that occurs on a 100,000-year cycle controls how much energy the Earth receives.
“This study was interesting in that when we started doing the spectral analysis, the 41,000-year tilt cycle started showing up in the Tropics. That’s not supposed to be there. That’s not what the textbooks tell us,” DeLong said.
This finding shows that the tilt of the Earth plays a much larger part in ITCZ migration than previously thought, which will enable climate scientists to better predict extreme weather events. Historically, the collapse of the Mayan civilization and several Chinese dynasties have been linked to persistent droughts associated with the ITCZ. This new information is critical to understanding global climate and sustainable human socioeconomic development, the researchers said.
Additionally, climate scientists have begun to recognize that rather than shifting north and south, the ITCZ expands and contracts, based on this information.
###
it’s the Chandler Wobble wot did it. btw, what the hell is a “mathematical prism”?
Fourier transform?
Well, you put your data in, do your maths/stats bit and then select colour of the preferred output
http://chronicle.su/wp-content/uploads/prism1.jpg
Or Eureqa machine learning.
gymnosperm
Exactly, run over and over, than choose the formula.
Nutonian version of the ‘mathematical prism’ is not exactly instantaneous as the above illustrated Newtonian optical version.
I run it for some hours on the annual sunspot data, it never came close to what I got long before I ever heard of it, see front page of my website.
I might be wrong, but it may be some time before a ‘machine’ will outdo human intuition.
what the hell is a “mathematical prism”?
It’s the Fourier detergent thingie Willis Eschenbach uses as he separates delicate whites from harmonic colors in the climate data wash and spin cycles. At times it has landed him in hot water but most often he’s managed to toss cold water on hot headed theories. He has recently used it to remove sunspots.
It is used in conjunction with other tools to cleanse piss-poor assumptions baased on research data that has “high” p-value, such as is found in homes with shag carpet, small children and pets.
#B^)
Interesting spin cycle.
If possibly having some – who knows what – over-arching archive action at base.
Or not – of course.
Auto, terrifically impressed by a sound track number from the ‘Curse of the Were-Rabbit’
I kinda like that phrase. It’s a lot easier to explain than “Fourier”.
It’s a metaphor for obfuscation!
As they blame ‘climate change’ for everything these days I wonder when we’ll see the well funded ‘peer reviewed’ research paper proving that the Earth’s tilt is caused by ‘climate change’?
Hot-UTC, tilt caused by ‘climate change’?
Real old school, 1982.
Polar wandering and the forced responses of a rotating, multilayered, viscoelastic planet
Roberto SabadiniDavid A. YuenEnzo Boschi
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JB087iB04p02885/abstract
Sabadini and Peltier [1981] have constructed a physical model in which they found that a net polar wander could occur as a result of the periodic forcing by active glaciation and deglaciation. This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 1. Previous work by McElhinny [1973] and Jurdy and van der Voo [1974] have concluded that the amount of true polar wander (TPW) during the last 55 m.y. has been quite small, about 2ø. However, recent reanalysis of paleomagnetic data by Jurdy [1981] and Morgan [1981], using a reference frame based on hot spots, have revealed that TPW of between 10ø to 15ø had occurred since the Cretaceous. Furthermore, Morgan has proposed boldly that, in fact, 5ø-10ø of this polar wander must have taken place in the last 10 m.y.
Copyright ¸ 1982 by the American Geophysical Union
Makes you wonder if that this change in Axial tilt, is taken into account in the current Milankovitch Cycles vs time?
Gobbledegook.
It is what a geographer/anthropologist calls spectral analysis.
Well that is a suprise. NOT (because, “the science” is never settled)! But will the MSM report this?
Only when the alarmists can spin the story to show that CAGW is causing the tilt to be worse than we thought.
well they already blamed it for the tides….now they have this to chew…next…Solar Flaring..
I saw a ‘report’ stating just that. According to the ‘scientist’ all those melting glaciers are speeding up the earth’s tilt. Don’t ask me for link, as I ignored it as quickly as I read it.
isn’t it all those Chinese people moving weight to their end ?
So just how much axis tilt happened in the last 18 years and 9 months, to stop the global warming in its tracks ??
Nobody would believe the earth’s axis has anything to do with climate. In Kevin Trenberth’s view, earth doesn’t rotate, so any diameter can be considered the axis, so it can’t have anything to do with climate.
g
Nah! Get away!
“New research shows Earth’s tilt influences climate change’
Please leave out the the word “Change” climate always changes . To me it it is inherent..
+1
I am always making this point.
Climate consists of a large number of parameters, temperature being just one of many, which parameters are never in stasis and constantly varying, such that change of any one parameter, is not in and of itself Climate change. That is what Climate does and is simply what Climate is.
The debate is half lost when people argue ah but climate change is natural, climate is always changing. The truth is that change is not Climate change, because change is at the very essence of what Climate is.
Further, Climate is regional; not global. On a ,global basis there are only 3 Climate states; glacial, nearly ice free (more recently labelled hot house to fit in with greenhouse warming), and inter-glacial.
We should not let the warmists get away with global warming/climate change since there is nothing global about this. Some parts of globe appear to be warming, others appear to be cooling (eg the US), and others appear to be undergoing no (Antarctica) or little change (the tropics).
Further, the consequences and impacts of Climate change (to the extent it is happening) is felt on a regional basis, with each region being impacted to different degrees depending upon their own geography, topography and their own climatic regime.
The only reason that warmists claim this to be global is so that they can claim that we are all in this together (which is clearly not the case since many countries would obviously greatly benefit from a warming), and we need world governance and control.
If Climate was acknowledged to be regional with impacts being experienced differently on each region, then self interest would come to the fore and it would not be possible to get the world governance and control that the movers and shakers are after.
So true! For example, Canada has everything to gain from global warming, and very little to lose. Yet our new socialist government uses our tax dollars to try to convince us that CO2 ‘pollution’ is destroying our air and our health.
Jeff in Calgary,
It never ceases to amaze me why anyone in Canada would even consider fighting global warming. I’d think they’d be better off fighting anyone trying to stop it.
thanks for debunking the “global” label. i always thought it was a bit brazen and puffy in nature to label changes as global.
Richard, I think you nailed it. Your observation that ” global climate change” is actually “regional climate change” is a refreshing departure from the one-size-fits-all notion that posits that “We are all in this together.” I am further intrigued by the connection between Global Alarmists and the One World crowd. It makes perfect sense. This concept needs to be thoroughly investigated and disseminated widely and promptly.
Thank you for sharing your insight.
Richard
Very good points, “climate change” is indeed a vacuously redundant phrase. It’s a bit like saying “evolution change” or “growth change”.
Ed Lorenz in 1961 showed through one of the first ever computer simulations of climate that it continually evolved in a way that was unpredictable and fractal. This means that it was impossible to describe an average climate state over any length of time.
The scientific importance of Lorenz’ simulations has never been surpassed by any subsequent computer modelling of climate even with trillions of times more processing power; it probably never will be.
NEW Research ?
“It must be borne in mind that great changes of climate have always been in progress, that have sometimes stimulated and sometimes checked life”
Written in 1919 by HG Wells in the opening chapters of his series of essays (later to be published in two volumes “The outline of History”) this quote is not the science fiction that he is more famous for but a considered, intelligent and balanced opinion based on the science of the time. The book continues on to cover history right up to 1919 when it was written but chapter 5 caught my attention “Changes in the world’s climate”. Starting with a discussion of the “record of the rocks” that show changes over millions of years, in particular the changes of climate that are plain to see in this record.
“A complete account of the causes of these great climactic fluctuations has still to be worked out,.. Prominent among them is the fact that the earth does not spin in a perfect circle around the sun”
Wells goes on to discuss (with a long lost literary style), climate conditions caused by astronomical influences such as maximum eccentricity of orbit, maximum inclination of equator to orbit and winter at perihelion leading to extreme climate conditions and equable climate conditions cause by a near circular orbit, least inclination and spring at Aphelion.
“Here are three wavering systems of changes all going on independently of each other; the precision of the equinoxes, the change in the obliquity of the equator to the orbit, and the changes in the eccentricity of the orbit. Each system tends by itself to produce periods of equitability and periods of greater climatic contrast. And all these systems of change interplay with each other.”
From the article:
Historically, the collapse of the Mayan civilization and several Chinese dynasties have been linked to persistent droughts associated with the ITCZ.
So now a 41,000 year planetary wobble has an influence on a 4000 year dynasty in China? or a 800 year old South American kingdom?
Sorry to post twice, I am getting really, really tired of all of these debates,
To me It is called weather. But how do I get funding?
400 years … That’s within the 1000 years that M. Mann says the climate didn’t change at all. I think this is actually good news.
800 years. Doh.
Climate Change natural? Limited effects of Humanity upon the Earth’s CLimate? Naah!
The article http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151125/ncomms10018/full/ncomms10018.html
Thanks!
Interesting! I was asked in another thread why scientists sometimes feel the need to add a disclaimer to their research noting that they believe climate change is real (I’m an environmental scientist myself). I answered that this is because sometimes interesting research on something climate related that doesn’t immediately point towards the ‘CO2=bad hypothesis’ is posted on blogs like this as proof that climate change is bullshit, even when the authors of that paper themselves don’t agree with that conclusion. So they’ll just put a little footnote in the paper to prevent such a discussion. Now I have no idea whether this is true for this paper, but it is a nice example of mainstream science being featured on a climate change deniers blog, and it would be really interesting if Mr. Watts would actually contact the authors to see what they have to say themselves.
Cheers,
Ben
benbenbenben,
Name-calling seems to be your primary argument. Skeptics are not “climate deniers” (whatever that stupid phrase means to you). The climate always changes — naturally. It is your side that denies that fact.
Your problem is simple: all you have are assertions; opinions that [dangerous] AGW is happening. But you have no real world measurements. So you put your faith in models, which are contradicted by empirical measurements.
Your belief amounts to a fairy tale. For almost twenty years there has been no global warming. Your predictions were flat wrong, but you’re not man enough to admit it. None of you are. So we get lame arguments like you make here.
If the CO2=AGW canard was admitted then there would be no more debate. Without “carbon” to demonize, the alarmist cult has nothing. So people lke you, a putative ‘environmental scientist’ (hey, last week you were just a student; congrats on your self promotion) carry their water for them.
Instead of parroting the ‘evil carbon’ narrative, you need to either show via real world evidence that man-made CO2 causes ‘climate change’, or you need to accept the fact that man-made CO2 is entirely beneficial, with no downside. Because that is what all the evidence shows.
So far you’ve just been running interference for the alarmist crowd. That may be fine at the failing realclimate blog. But here we need something you just don’t have: measurable evidence showing that human-emitted CO2 causes global damage or harm. With zero such evidence, all you’re left with are your opinions.
I think it causes some change. Damage or harm, not so much.
Evan,
Quantify any change, please. With measurable evidence. Thanks.
Small. ~1.1C per CO2 doubling (we’re adding ~0.4% per year to the atmospheric sink).
No proof, but pretty good evidence, I think. We have the Arrhenius lab experiments, and recently the CO2 effect of absorption and random redirection of LW has been physically observed. And it correlates pretty well.
Perfectly said dbstealey. I love it. Thanks.
Ah, hello dbstealey. I must say, I’m always looking forward to your replies! I do apologize for any offense by using the word denier.
My comment was that it would be really interesting to see whether the authors of this paper agree with being featured on a climate change skeptic blog. That is not so strange, right? I’m sure they would be happy to provide a comment. And otherwise a ‘no comment’ is also interesting to add. Standard practice in journalism, so not at all strange to request that here.
I know you like discussing CO2/AGW with me, but I’m not trying to convince you of anything. It seems you are having a discussing with a hypothetical green activist more that react to what I actually write: I just want to know if the authors of the study would comment to mr. Watts! I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that topic.
Finally, with regards to your accusations of selfpromotion, last week I said I’m a postdoc. This week I’m still a postdoc. I’ll be a postdoc for at least a couple of years more. I think finishing your PhD is generally accepted to be when you start being taken serious as a scientist. But you disagree… so at what point in a scientific career would you stop calling someone a student and start identifying him/her as scientist?
Cheers,
Ben
benben
Well, “I” will consider EVERY “scientist” worth her self-proclaimed title to be a student EVERY day …. until they stop learning and start preaching. At witch point they are now a member of a self-selected theocracy preaching what they learned and were indoctrinated into as a younger man or woman, and burning their opponents (er, the scientists who either disagree with their opinions, or who are competing for next year’s funding grant). The ONLY real progress in science is made by those who do NOT consider their reputations among their self-selected “peers”, but who FORCE themselves to continue to learn.
There is nothing funnier, more ironic, more iconic, than a government-paid, full tenured, peace-loving Marxist professor of economics, history, politics, or religion living in a rent-controlled apartment and traveling no further than the manicured artificial greenery and boulders of Central Park, one so fiercely and bloodily competitive against all her enemies when fighting for HER money against the priests and gatekeepers of her own primitive tribe, but who walks inside an artificial classroom and screams at her captive audience about the evils of capitalism and freedom.
benbenben,
You comment without ever taking a real stand. I guess I have a problem with such wishy-washy posts. What do you believe? Or do you just like to clutter up threads?
Either the rise in CO2 (the central issue) is a problem for which national and international assets and resources must be re-directed, or it isn’t.
Which?
CO2 causes greening. That means there are plants where they didn’t previously exist. There was a kid living near the sahara who stubbed his toe on a plant, tripped and skinned his knee. The scourge of spreading vegitation is a serious problem.
Hi Ben
I wonder how your views will evolve over your career. It seems many climate scientists that disagree with the consensus have “emeritus” at the end of the title. Just like in all professions they may have had an epiphany or the observations they have accumulated over decades shade their perceptions and make them more cautious. I would bet many in here have a vast amount of experiences and more prone to skepticism solely due to having seen it all, in many facets of life.
An interesting longitudinal study for inquiring minds would be to start tracking views of young climate scientists and analyze the changes in their views over the course of their life.
Unlike some of us you will be able to see how the models performed in the next 40 or 50 years. Best of luck with your career.
I still find it very strange that the assorted commenters here use the fact that I work at a university as an excuse to say all kinds of random things about how people other than the followers of this blog are dumb/vacant/communist, while completely ignoring the thing I was actually asking for: that mr. Watt ask the scientists themselves for a comment, and if they refuse to comment add a little ‘the authors did not want to further comment’ note. Basic journalism. I’m sure we can all agree that this is an acceptable request, right?
[Many of the original authors have commented. Most choose not to do so. It is their choice to do so, it is their choice and responsibility to monitor the web for their own name and the titles of their own papers. It is not our host’s job to inform each original author. And, by exposing each original author to review and comment and criticism by hundreds of thousands of knowledgeable readers, rather than a few dozen of a single “soon to be filed in a shelf in the cloister” scientific paper, we have found most original author prefer to not answer. To repeat, it is not our host’s job to inform each original publicly-tax-paid author when their assumptions, errors and conclusions are scrutinized in public. .mod]
If you hadn’t noticed, Mr. Watts (notice the ‘s’!) is rather busy these days at the AGU convention.
He often gripes about press releases that don’t include a URL for the actual paper, this looks like one of those. I’ve hunted those down myself, but don’t have time this morning. Why don’t you do that yourself, I imagine your university has keys to whatever paywall may be in the way.
The spirit of of the original ARPAnet was that people offered as much as they used, that lives on in many blogs, like this one, where readers often contribute to the discussion. Instead of asking Anthony to answer your question, please answer it yourself and share the knowledge.
[trimmed]
But Ben, you have to understand the core theme here, whether it be climate related or liberty related, is that this site is all about absolutism. No one here is 80% or 90% sure of their views, they are all 100% sure and everyone else is wrong with 100% certainty, despite the basic axiom, the future is uncertain.
Speaking of parroting the evil carbon narrative, the BBC has been claiming for a week that the pollution in Beijing is caused by CO2. I kid you not. Because of the still air and unseasonably cold weather of the past few weeks, it has been a hard time for the Jing-Jin-Ji region – directly caused by the improper combustion of coal and a mass of vehicles (in the Beijing portion of it). With daily, nay hourly trips to their correspondent in Beijing we were shown scads of photos of the skyline taken through telephoto lenses which makes the PM problem look worse than it is. Each morning during the dying days of the Climate conference, we had morning smog thick with fog on the telly with claims that it is caused by ‘CO2 pollution’. I think their average UK viewer must have the scientific maturity of a 6 year old or something. Certainly it isn’t aimed at adults.
So yesterday, it was very much better here in Beijing so what did the BBC have to put on? A talking head who said, “You may be interested in what the air quality is like today in Beijing – it is still really bad! [trust me]”. In fact it was really improved so they had nothing to show and lie about; parrot, as it were.
This morning I could see from the 23 floor breakfast room mountain ridges stretching to the horizon perhaps 70 km away, clear as a bell, cleaner view than the Blue Ridge Mountains.
So did the BBC show what the air looks like on a normal breezy day instead of a still foggy morning? No way. When there is absolutely nothing to parrot, confirmation bias prevents honest reporting. Tonight I could see the stars (again) and the new moon.
What is the solution to this anti-scientific garbage? There is no solution to the BBC. It is sick. Burning coal completely instead of partially is the solution. Why? Because it is not difficult to do, and provides more domestic heat, more cooking and more efficiently than any other way of combustion it. Anyone who thinks China and India and South Africa and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and Mongolia and so many other countries in Asia are going to stop burning coal because the BBC says it causes a thick fog of “CO2 pollution” needs their head read.
The BBC apparently can’t afford to be honest – they have a ‘climate agenda’ and disqualify themselves from rendering an impartial opinion. What a loss! What a loss! Parroting fire and brimstone catastrophist narratives like a third rate preacher simultaneously misleading and screwing his trusting flock. It is as clear as the blue skies over Beijing.
Evan, there is no evidence to support the belief that a doubling of CO2 will cause 1C of warming. All the science indicates that climate is dominated by strong negative feedbacks. When all is said and done, sensitivity will most likely be in the 0.2 to 0.3 ranger. Perhaps lower.
LNeraho:
Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black.
BTW, while there are posters here who are 100% certain, the vast majority aren’t. Too bad you aren’t intelligent enough to actually understand what those who disagree with you are saying.
“the need to add a disclaimer to their research noting that they believe climate change is real”.
Reminds me of the soviet jokes which comprised ending all statements whether positive or negative with “and for this we thank the great Comrade Stalin”.
Such as “Winter is now over, and for this we thank the great Comrade Stalin”.
So, all papers, we must now see something akin to, “and for this we thank, the great climate change consensus.”
Antartica is gaining mass, and for all this we thank the great climate change consensus.
Antartica is losing mass, and for all this we thank the great climate change consensus. etc.
I think out of respect to the IPCC and the climate change consensus we should append all posts with these words. Or in relation to the great masterminds of global transition, “and for all this we thank, the great Al Gore/Laurent Fabius/Christiana Figueres.”
And we could start now on recrafting all soviet era jokes:
“We may not live long enough to see a perfect transition from modern fossil fuel energy.”
“No, but our children… our poor children.”
It is quoted that in the late nineties, Jasper Kirkby head of CERN’s CLOUD experiment was quoted as having claimed that cosmic rays + the suns magnetic field + aerosols = clouds, may account for most or all of the C20th warming.
Since then he has learned that these words could get him sent him to the Gulag. The gulag called funding withdrawal or “discrediting” or publication refusal.
So now he has made this video to praise the “great climate change consensus”:
May I offer my kind thanks to our glorious leaders, Michael Mann and John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky, for setting me back on the path to collective fulfillment.
Nice video. No mention of vulcanos? There are probably 1500 active onshore ones.
Relax, Ben. We know that this one bit of evidence of natural climate change, by itself doesn’t threaten your dearly-held
scientific concensus. It is always amusing to see Warmist scientists “stumble” on evidence of natural climate change. It’s like watching a child discover he has fingers – and now toes! Oh my!
Hmm it seems that some major earthquakes have a greater and an instantaneous effect on our planets obliquity. Twice in the last 11 years!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1365821/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Earths-day-length-shortened-axis-tilted-25cm.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/jan/HQ_05011_earthquake.html
Where are the adjustments for those?
Here’s something you can’t deny, Ben–experts assert worldwide foodstuff production has increased roughly 15% due to the additional CO2 that’s been added to the atmosphere over the past half century–supposedly caused by burning fossil fuels.
A rough estimate of the world-wide GDP from growing food is around $10 Trillion (roughly 1/7 of the total GDP), so that CO2 is worth ~$1.5 Trillion annually!
You can deny the benefits of CO2 if you want, but that would make you the only denier on this thread–the rest of us study climate change to death and understand it much better than you do. Alternatively, your approach of reducing CO2 would cause the death of many, many people through famine.
Congratulations, you perpetrator of genocide.
(Things get deadly serious when taken to logical conclusions, wouldn’t you say?)
Very well stated.
About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
This science news site feature original content from myself as well as several
read the about page benben. Mod should have caught you on this
[The mods have read, are reading, his comments. .mod]
Dear Bruce E. Maneke,
I’m not sure I’m saying anything that would require moderator intervention.. but I apologize if I did! Isn’t my request for a quote from the authors of the paper discussed in this post something that would be of interest to everybody, you included?
(on the topic of moderation, why not make a comment about RockyRoad accusing me of genocide, in the post above…)
Cheers,
Ben
benben
technically, you are correct. Genocide is a policy of demanding widespread killing of great mass of innocent people because of their race, religion, ethicity (often mixed with race) or belief system by a more powerful group.
You are calling for the mass slow death by disease and poverty and lack of food, clothing and shelter and clean water and sanitation of millions of innocents not because of what THEY believe or want, but because of what YOU believe and want and needlessly fear. Because you are being paid by your government to create and promulgate those groundless fears and propaganda so you can feed yourself and so you can live a more luxurious lifestyle with greater promotions and opportunities.
ah, sorry, I didn’t see the mod’s comment above. Thanks for the answer mod 🙂
well… to be accurate RACook, I was calling for authors of scientific papers to engage a bit more with the public. But mass slow death by disease and poverty of millions of innocents is another way of putting it.
It seems a reasonable suggestion to at least try to encourage lead post authors to indicate in their posts whether they will not respond to any questions by commenters or whether they will consider (but not guarantee) responding to some (not necessarily all) questions. And if they say they will consider responding to some questions then they could tell us if responses will be in comments here or to comments at their website or if they will respond to emailed questions, etc.
John
That would be an excellent idea. Although from the mods comments I surmise that they try and often authors don’t want to participate. Too bad!
Ben
Policy based on errant science typically has negative consequences. Consider this:
A while back, atmospheric CO2 reached 400 ppm and it has apparently stalled. Have we reached peak CO2?
If you ask the Obama administration and all the participants at COP21, the answer would be a hopeful “Yes”. And if the guidelines just adopted by COP21 are followed, we can expect to see a decline in CO2. That’s the plan.
What will be the consequences?
Answer: A reduction in world-wide foodstuff production. There will be insufficient food to feed 7 billion people.
A wise COP21 would encourage the utilization of fossil fuels to get as much carbon in the bio-carbon cycle as possible since their populations depend on it. But no, we have wrong-headed (nefarious?) representatives from practically all the nations that are certainly not looking out for “the folks”.
They’re far more interested in subjugating the world’s population to achieve their own self-serving goals.
Whether a large number of people die in the process seems to be of little concern to them. They’re just “bumps in the road”.
How sad.
Ever thought about contacting the authors yourself?
Interesting Janice. Many years ago I asked the same question here as benben and got a similar response from the Mods. For a long time after that I made a point of contacting the Authors and inviting them to WUWT so they could join the discussion and respond to questions. Only one Author ever respond by email to me saying that the ‘Press release” didn’t represent then science he had done. He seemed annoyed by this. As far as I could determine no Authors ever commented at WUWT as a result of my invitations.
To be honest, I suspect the main reason why scientist don’t like to appear on a place like this is because of the incredible vitriol. I asked a neutral question above, but the mere fact that I work at a university already caused several commenters to accuse me of perpetrating mass murder and genocide. Debates are a lot of fun when done respectfully, but I imagine most people just wouldn’t want to be exposed to that kind of commentary.
Oh, please, Ben–save us from your deceptions. The real question is whether you’re complicit in a quasi-genocide by perpetrating lies about global warming–anybody that calls us “deniers” supports CAGW and you call us “deniers”.
Surely you are aware of the connection between this “Global Warming” meme and how it impacts the poorest among us? People are starving and that will accelerate if COP21 successfully implements their plan.
I’m willing to shout from the rooftops that what the US government and many others are doing is serious stuff–deadly serious. Apparently it bothers you to the point that you’re trying to wiggle out of the association.
It wasn’t the fact that you work at a university that prompted me to group you with the “anti-deniers” and their nefarious scheme. However, your association is not surprising since many universities have become hotbeds of CAGW thought since they’re wholly funded by the CAGW cause.
It saddens me that you won’t man up and state your position, but a declaration from you isn’t necessary and plethoric discussion of it is pointless.
The truth will set you free but it will make you miserable first. What will you do in your misery? Continue to be a meaningless CAGW lackey and feed at the tax-supplied grant trough your entire career? Or do something productive with your PhD?
The choice is yours: 40 years from now you can be satisfied with your life, or you can look back at opportunity lost.
Maybe that’s why many scientists, snared by the money, would rather avoid the truth and this site.
The warmunists claim that CO2 is the only thing that matters where climate is concerned, it dwarfs all other things.
So any science that finds significant other things that influence climate is a direct attack on the warmunist ideology. Even if you don’t wish to see it as such.
The money shot: “The current build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases has the potential to affect the future position of the ITCZ and corresponding climate5. An in-depth reconstruction of the position, structure and migration of the ITCZ is thus critical to our understanding of global climate and sustainable human socioeconomic development.” http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151125/ncomms10018/full/ncomms10018.html
Oops… there we have it. Now the MSM can safely report that man is making it worse.
Except for the fact that it would be an admission that natural variability does in fact occur. Besides I doubt too many of their “science” corespondents ever hear of Milankovitch cycles or could explain what precession is off the top of their head.
Rah: I doubt that too many of their science correspondents ever heard of science.
So reducing CO2 will stop the wobble? Or the wobble was caused by CO2? Or “pass me the money” (or the sick bucket).
Pass me a sick bucket filled with money.
Babies have this death grip on anything they grab. Ask any mom with long hair that is careless and lets the little tot yank it (um…like myself!).
Ah the ol chicken or the egg paradigm…I’m hungry
They are just paying homage to the current dominant theory. They know, as everybody else in the field, that ITCZ migrations depend on changes in latitudinal gradient of solar energy, mainly between northern and southern hemispheres, while CO2 warming is mainly homogeneous and thus cannot affect ITCZ migrations.
These days you are expected to introduce such a line in your work, to confirm to editor and referees that you are not going against dogma, and to make it easier to request funds from climate change studies that’s where the dough is these days. You cannot infer what they actually think from the inclusion of that line.
No, they do it for the money. When proposing to make a computer program (little is real research) they latch onto the global warming theology to raise funds from our government. The University loves this process, it is like stealing candy from babies.
[Rather, it’s like giving candy to a baby; or handing over power to a politician. .mod]
it is like stealing candy from babies.
Hmm. Have you ever tried to steal candy from a baby?
They cry something fierce and their mothers slap your hand
Don’t try stealing candy from Maggie Simpson.
Didn’t the mythbusters do an episode on candy and babies?
It seems almost a standard requirement of those working in this area that no matter how irrelevant or unscientific you make it clear that you are ‘of the faith ‘ in your work , otherwise your career may hit a ‘pause ‘
This perhaps one of the worst elements of the entire scare, the way its corrupted whole sections of science.
From the article:
This is nice incremental knowledge. We knew precession was setting the pacing for ITCZ migrations, we now know that obliquity also has some role in some areas.
It is not really worth reporting to the non-specialist, and most people are unable to grasp even what it means as can be judged by the low level of the comments. It is also irrelevant for climate changes over a few centuries as the obliquity half cycle is 20,500 years.
I’d like to think we all get that.
CO2 is heavy and the buildup in the northern hemisphere poses a danger of tipping the planet over. Something must be done!
They should study if Uranus was tilted at a 90 degree angle by CO2! 🙂
“…study if Uranus was tilted at a 90 degree angle by CO2! ”
Seems the whole CO2 thing is designed to bend taxpayers at a 90 degree angle to expose their wallets (and Uranus ).
Some say the world will end in Eccentricity
Some say in Obliquity
But many of my generation
Tend to favor Inclination
So we are left to wonder when
Until our earth returns through dust
And will again
As so it must
If you made this poem up, BRAVO. HAHAHA.
Back in 2009. A repost, I’ll admit. But I thought it was the appropriate time for the cycle to repeat.
I have done a few over the years, but so far I have never compiled them.
evanmjones,
Nice spin off of,
John
It appears that the precipitation line for the January ITCZ follows the Earth’s geomagnetic equator (green line, bottom illustration) across the large part of the Pacific, S. America, Atlantic and Africa.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151125/ncomms10018/images/ncomms10018-f1.jpg
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/MgEq.jpg
Cause or coincidence?
More research needed (don’t send the money)
We’re about the middle of the tilt range and the ITC clearly moves north and south with the seasons. They think the ITC doesn’t increase movement but rather gets fatter with increased tilt. Maybe their prism has found yet another 41kyr cycle.
Another computer program latched onto ‘climate change’ to make money for a university! Wow. Will wonders never cease? The earth’s tilt, by the way, happened way long ago during the creation of the planet out of the chaos of our Local Star’s formation when planetary junk spiraled all out of control and one smaller planet smashed into our planet.
Ever since then, the earth is tilted and has some ‘wobble’ to it but others were hit even worse, one planet of our solar system is totally sideways! Ooops.
Maybe the rulers of our planet can spook everyone about the fact that our planet is tilted. Tax us for longer winter nights, for example. Or a sun tax for people during the northern summer cycle.
Well, yes, exactly. It isn’t ‘fair’ that people in the northern hemisphere get more sunlight & more warmth in the summer than those in the Southern Hemisphere. We should compensate them so that the temperature differential will be more equitable.
Solar social justice! Did I just coin a term? Can I keep?
the BBC were ahead of the game for a change.
2011- “Currently the earth tilts at an angle of 23.4 degrees. But over a 41,000 year period it changes, wobbling between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Back when the Sahara was green, the tilt was close to its largest possible angle, 24.2 degrees. Which meant that 8000 years ago the Sun shone more directly, more intensely over the Northern hemisphere”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/23degrees/2011/06/will_monsoons_once_again_retur.html
Also means we should adjust the angle of PV panels every few thousand years too.
Data going back 282,000 years to look for a 41,000 year cycle? That is not even seven cycles. Interesting, but how accurate is the proxy data with respect to indicating what they are actually looking for? — John M Reynolds
The 41,000 year cycle is very easy to find many million years back. For example it shows up very clearly in the 250 million year old lake deposits of the Newark Group in New Jersey. It affected tropical rainfall back then too….
I’ve run my own ad-hoc experiements that show even with noisy signals and signals near the frequency of the one you are looking for, 5 cycles is sufficient.
If you can find a link to the raw data here (ha!) I’d be glad to check out this particular claim.
Peter
“the tilt of the Earth plays a much larger part in ITCZ migration than previously thought, which will enable climate scientists to better predict extreme weather events.”
Seriously? Is this some kind of boilerplate nonsense that all press releases about studies even remotely related to ‘climate change’ are required to contain. How exactly does a 41,000 year cycle help ‘scientists’ predict local weather events?
Meanwhile these same people tell us the Local Star is totally uniformly the same all the time, never changes output or other events and thus can be disregarded as a major player in our climate and sheer survival.
Ahem…. generally…. There will be some weather….. Some of it will be extreme…. It will generally happen here and there. … Dahdah….
Oops and obviously CO2 will make it worse… much much worse…. pass me the grant cheque 😉
If this effect is real, it would be interesting to compare the ITCZ during glaciation as opposed to inter-glacials.
The real story here is that the paleoclimatologists are as addicted to speculative modelling, without any understanding of the actual physics (“physics” is short for “physical cause and effect” explanations), as are climate and atmospheric scientists.
The obliquity, for example, doesn’t “shift” every 41,000 years, that is a stupid, careless description of a theoretical continuous, sinusoidal variation; nor does the “expert” today–nor did Milankovitch in his time–know, as I do from historical measurements and an overwhelming mass of ancient testimony, misunderstood and dismissed throughout history, that the obliquity almost certainly does not change anywhere near as much as from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees, as shown in the illustration above–it is in fact essentially constant, BY DESIGN), I think this addiction today of replacing experiment with observationally unsupported models–and in particular, replacing solid physical models with “frequency analysis”–is a glaring symptom of the entrenched incompetence in the earth and life sciences today, across the board.
But who will open up for that debate, when science has allowed radical, deluded ideology to run rampant, and install actual tyranny over truth-seeking? Where is the desire for truth over easy, dogmatic speculation, in the scientific community today? Everyone thinks they know the “basic science”, the “settled science”. Little do you all know, the central theories of the earth and life sciences have all already been overturned. You are trying, at every turn, to understand based upon the ignorant assumption of false dogma. It has been a long-nurtured incompetence.
Oh my god, yet more “me too science”. This has been well understood for decades. Of course monsoons and tropical rainfall [are] influenced by axial tilt. How could it not? Didn’t these geniuses think about what the word “tropic” actually means? It is the northernmost/southernmost latitude where the sun is in zenith at solstice = axial tilt!
If they wanted to really discover something new they might have a go at why ice-ages followed this 41,000 year cycle until about a million years ago and then switched to a 100,000+ year cycle.
This is such a familiar concept that geologists colloquially speak of the “41 kyr World” and the “100 kyr World” (Google “41 kyr World” if you want proof)
I’ve been thinking and I think we are looking at this problem all wrong.
It is a good thing to discover transistors and wotnot and all that shiny stuff looks good and nicely designed but then I think, well, nature has had billions of years to conduct almost infinite number of experiments and look there they all are around us.
for example a glowbug produces light ( like a cigarette end ) a few of them are probably enough to read by and I imagine they live on grass or something that lives on grass.
If you take a saucer of mung beans and keep them moist in 3 days you will have a bucket of sprouting beans, plenty for an organic lightbulb I would say.
that should be the direction we should go, not trying to hammer nature into submission.
When I was a boy, the researchers at Oak Ridge sent out a call to the children of the US to catch fireflies. The result of that research are found in the various glow sticks and such, as the mysteries of “cold light” were revealed.
Fireflies, aka ‘lightning bugs’, here in the Eastern United States snack on slugs and snails.
The problem with alternative energy forms is that they are too diffuse. We humans require a lot of energy. We’re not “hammering nature into submission”. Nature has given us fossil fuels, and metals, which are shiny, and silcon for chips. Even atoms to split for nuclear.
yes I know, I hope technology gives us the santa claus machine. Life is diffuse, perhaps learning to live with that might also work.
” and silcon for chips.”
Crunchy. I prefer to make mine out of potatoes.
It’s funny how Science eventually catches up what could be called “metaphysics”! For those of you who might have had the audacity to read “The Secret Doctrine” by H P Blatvatsky (1888) – a notorius book, regularly derided by people who have never read it – the book, in its more scientific/metaphysic chapters is full of gems from the future, ie yet to be properly discovered or confirmed such as the Ring of Fire in the pacific and shifting continents ie tectonic plates – both only confirmed many decades after the book was published. As a layman, I’m pretty good with what I know together with my own instinct but I’d love to plough through parts of the book with a real physicist to really discover more. Take this gem on p165 Vol 1:
“Mars has two satellites to which he has no right. . . . . Phobos, the supposed inner satellite, is no satellite at all…”
Now what could possibly have been meant by that back in 1888? Of course you will now find youtube videos that argue that phobos is not a moon but an alien construct..
.
Anyway coming back to the subject of the article, I never get tired of quoting this passage about climate changes (p329-331 Vol 2):
“Science confesses its ignorance of the cause producing climatic vicissitudes and such changes in the axial direction, which are always followed by these vicissitudes; nor does it seem so sure of the axial changes.”.
She also goes on to say:
” The circuit of the ecliptic is completed in 25,868 years. And, with regard to our Earth, it is calculated that the equinoctial point falls back fifty minutes ten seconds, annually. But there is another cycle within this one. It is said that “as the apsis goes forward to meet it at the rate of eleven minutes twenty-four seconds, annually,” (see the article on Astronomy in Encyclopaedia Britannica), “this would complete a revolution in one hundred and fifteen thousand three hundred and two years (115,302). The approximation of the equinox and the apsis is the sum of these motions, sixty-one minutes thirty-four seconds, and hence the equinox returns to the same position in relation to the apsis in 21,128 years.”
” Every sidereal year the tropics recede from the pole four degrees in each revolution from the equinoctial points, as the equator rounds through the Zodiacal constellations. Now, as every astronomer knows, at present the tropic is only twenty-three degrees and a fraction less than half a degree from the equator. Hence it has still 2 1/2 degrees to run before the end of the Sidereal year; which gives humanity in general, and our civilized races in particular, a reprieve of about 16,000 years.*
Attention Anthony, or MODS
Why is that if I try to LIKE your page on Facebook, Word Press tries to change my home page ?? That is not a good thing and discourages people from LIKING your page !!
It’s also very irritating !!
(Sorry…..think Star Wars ..) IS THAT A DEATH STAR ? We are DOOOMED !!
“Additionally, climate scientists have begun to recognize that rather than shifting north and south, the ITCZ expands and contracts, based on this information.”
Have begun???
The shrinking or extending of the meteorological equator was demonstrated by Prof. Marcel Leroux in his seminal 1993 paper!!!!
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
Figure 11 and Figure 13.
In fact, I think it would be a perfect footnote link to this post.
Thank you.
Here is a much more interesting article and evidence that scientists still have so much more to learn and explore; hopefully no one will be accused of genocide by commenting on it.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151215-the-most-violent-events-since-the-big-bang-itself
DeLong’s data analysis revealed obliquity in both the paleontological record and computer model data.
How in h*ll did it get programmed into the models before it was discovered?
They have a MODEL for that !! LOL
I thought this stuff died.
Spectral analysis was all the rage in geology at that time. My adviser was one of the big cheerleaders for this research. His opinion changed once he visited Belize to study modern sedimentation in relationship to what he was doing. His research there crushed every assumption he had used in the previous 10 years and destroyed his own dissertation. Around the middle of the last decade, everyone realized what a load of crap it was, and spectral analysis was abandoned because none of the assumptions held up in the real world.
Everyone still believes Milankovitch Cycles has some effect on climate, and that the geological record has some signal in it that shows this. I don’t think anyone knows, however, how to tease it out without unrealistic assumptions.
It sounds like the researchers used spectral analysis. If you all knew some of the insane assumptions behind this, you would be banging your head against a table.
Dear,oh dear ,oh dear !. Throwing around so many assertions with free abandon is not going to solve any of this even when there is an opportunity to model effects by altering the main component behind planetary climate.
Everyone listening –
All planets possess a climate and therefore common traits are used to distinguish one planet from another.
There is a climate spectrum between 0° inclination and a maximum 90° inclination.
0° inclination represents a totally equatorial climate much like the planet Jupiter.
90° inclination is at the other end of the spectrum and represents a totally polar climate much like Uranus.
The Earth,with its 23 1/2° inclination has a largely equatorial climate with a sizable polar input. An increase in inclination towards 90° would introduce polar conditions over a greater surface area of the planet with the same heat budget . The idea of ‘polar’ doesn’t mean colder but rather greater swings between summer and winter with less Spring and Fall conditions.
There is no audience for this measured approach at the moment but eventually observers will come around to the narrative which re-introduces climate to a wider audience by expanding perspectives to include all planets.
I tried to follow the analysis, but their seemingly deliberate obfuscations lost me. For example:
Neodymium isotopic compositions were measured by a multi-collector ICP-MS, Thermo Fisher Neptune, in the HISPEC. The measured 143Nd/144Nd ratios were normalized to 146Nd/144Nd=0.7219 using an exponential law. La Jolla standard was measured at 0.511811±0.000014 (or ±0.27 ε; 2σ, n=13). All 143Nd/144Nd ratios were calibrated to the reported value relative to the La Jolla standard value of 0.511858 (ref. 57). Sample 143Nd/144Nd ratios [(143Nd/144Nd)sample] are expressed as ε notation defined by an equation of εNd=[(143Nd/144Nd)sample/(143Nd/144Nd)CHUR−1] × 104, where the 143Nd/144Nd ratio of CHUR standard for Chondritic Uniform Reservoir [(143Nd/144Nd)CHUR] is 0.512638
They claim accuracy of 0.511811±0.000014, which I find questionable. And looking at their images of before and after artist drawings…
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151125/ncomms10018/images_article/ncomms10018-f4.jpg
…makes me wonder what the big deal is.
And:
At low obliquity, the ‘pressure-push’ forcing, strengthened by the capacious Asian landmass, is weak and the northerly wind intensity and ITCZ shift tends to follow precession-dominated insolation. The peak northerly wind and Australian low occur at high precession (~20, 70, 115, 185 and 230 kyr BP; Supplementary Fig. 8). However, these precession-induced changes are not more vigorous than ones at intervals with high obliquity…
The forcing is the same at both high and low obliquity? I wonder how much time they spent finding that out?
If I were a peer review referee, I’d probably pass this because while it seems pretty pointless, maybe there’s a grain of value in it. Or not. But who can really tell?
The way to find out is with predictions. If they’re repeatable and correct, there is value. But I don’t see any predictions here.
I predict that in 10,000 years this study will be just as meaningless as it is today !!
” mathematical prism ” is as concise and elegant a description of a Fourier analysis as I have ever seen!
To me, this seems to be something intuitive. Or am I misreading something here? I would think that if the earth’s axis tilt changed, weather patterns would change also. And therefore, over time, so would the climate.
The latitudinal shifting or changes in size, shape or intensity of the main high and low pressure cells (including the ITCZ) is actually the negative system response to changes in the proportion of solar energy that reaches the surface and/or gets into the oceans.
If that proportion changes for whatever reason then global temperature will change but the shifts in the atmospheric circulation minimise the thermal effect for the system as a whole.
The temperature of the system will always be controlled by atmospheric mass, gravity and the proportion of solar input that gets absorbed whilst passing through the system. Conduction from surface to the air above is the overwhelmimg process of absorption for Earth.
Radiative capability within an atmosphere only alters certain characteristics of the global air circulation pattern and not average surface temperature simply because the thermal effect of GHGs occurs off the surface rather than at the surface as per the new work of David Evans and as per my work here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/for-discussion-can-convection-neutralize-the-effect-of-greenhouse-gases/
Simply put, the effects of GHGs in distorting lapse rate slopes cause convective adjustments that neutralise the net thermal effect of those GHGs.
Really?
I seem to recollect the effect of the Earth’s tilt and orbital eccentricity on climate was taught at school in the 1950/60s…
I think this is a great site, of enormous value in educating on climate matters. Having said that, one thing that bugs me here quite often is the implicit acceptance of the practice of lumping of unmeasured/inferred “numbers” and measured observations.
Uncritical reproduction of a phrase like “data from the past 282,000 years” falls into this category. What’s being referred to here is “measurements from the last 30-300 years (in the case of supernovae dates and suchlike, maybe a little longer)” and “guesses, extrapolations, or other estimates for the previous 281,700+ years”.
I apologize if this point has already been made above or elsewhere. I do think it’s important to keep in mind.
Interesting article. As I read it, and addressing some other points, all it points out is that apparently the ITCZ doesn’t move north or south as was thought, it expands or contracts depending on where we are in the cycle. With regards to droughts in Central America and China and a connection to the cycle, it seemly means that at that point in the cycle, the ITCZ has shifted in a direction that resulted in drought at a particular latitude. I don’t see why that is inconsistent with a 41,000 year cycle. Theoretically at least, the ITCZ today is the same as it was 41,000 years ago. 4,000 years from now, it will have contracted or expanded and it’s effects on climate at particular latitudes will be different than it is today. However, I think leaving out the other Milankovich cycles is an error as the 23,000 year precession cycle should alter the changing tilt effects. It isn’t hard to create a chart that shows the combined affects of the three different cycles at a particular latitude. Depending on how they line up, you could get some really nasty winters at one pole or the other when you get a conjunction of an extreme aphelion, maximum tilt away from the sun, and a wobble that makes that tilt even more. Brrrr. And a blazing summer when the opposite occurs.
For a lot of the time, hot/cold effects will have some cancellation, but I’d like to see if the peak effects are reflected in the glacial record and temps in the northern and southern hemispheres. I’ve done some searching to see if anyone has tried to find a correlation but I’ve been unsuccessful.
“New research shows Earth’s tilt influences climate change” Not any more. With the conclusion of the Paris climate agreement, all climate change has suddenly ended for now and all time. Physics no longer matters. Milankovitch cycles nor anything else, including a super nova of the sun, can possibly affect our climate because of the Paris climate agreement. The agreement fixes all of our current climate and weather problems for now and for all time and we here in the USA do not have to pay anything for it because we are a very poor nation with a huge national debt, huge trade deficit, and huge unfunded liabilities.
Promise?
Keith Minto December 15, 2015 at 1:31 am
Thanks, Keith. I can’t say that I was impressed by the correlations shown in the paper. I’m taking a deeper look now … at least they archived their data.
w.
Difficulty. They’ve used a strange program called “redfit” to estimate the spectra of the unevenly sampled data. It’s a bizarre method. The method I use gives the spectra of unevenly sampled data directly.
I do NOT find the peaks that they find in the MD05-2925 G. ruber δ18O (‰, VPDB) data. I also do not find any adjustment for autocorrelation, nor any Bonferroni correction.
Onwards,
w.
And it is open access.
The paper intrigues me, the drill studies off New Guinea and in Australia, but linking Siberia / Australian weather is a stretch.There are too many other weather factors going on here to be clear about this study but good on them for the attempt. Look forward to your analysis.
So. How are we going to blame human flatulence for the variability of the tilt, not to mention changes in perigee and apogee and orbital parameters….that will, of course, result in billions of research grants to support the whole AGW religion searching for an impossible solution?
From the article above: Word and punctuation are unchanged, only paragraph structure is modified.
I could not find any reference to Fourier analysis nor even to any mathematical prism. The only reference to ‘spectral’ was an oblique reference to spectroscopic analysis.
Searching the actual research ‘Obliquity pacing of the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone over the past 282,000 years’ for the above referenced author’s name ‘DeLong’ finds her down under affiliations.
The main authors are
‘Yi Liu’, High-Precision Mass Spectrometry and Environment Change Laboratory (HISPEC), Department of Geosciences, National Taiwan University and
‘Li Lo’, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
Kristine L. DeLong’s contributions are not specifically identified or quantified that I could locate. That mathematical prism type analysis is still unidentified.
Nor could I find out what a stalagtite is. The cave formation used are stalagmites. Normally in a typo, one can quickly see the error, but ‘t’ is not near ‘m’ on a keyboard. Confusion and/or comprehension are likely; Thinking stalactite while copying stalagmite and ending with with stalagtite is possible (confusion)…
Bringing up a next problem, DeLong’s reference to ‘paleontological’. Paleontological is valid when referring to studying dead critters in sediment cores, but not when studying stalagmites which would fall under geological studies.
More confusion, blame confusion on the press release authors, not poor ms. DeLong.
It’s nice that Willis is planning to learn new things while studying the archived data; but with the frequent mention of ‘models, simulated and simulation through the linked research, Willis may not enjoy much beyond the High-Precision Mass Spectrometry approach, I don’t hold much hopes for the data.
ATheoK December 15, 2015 at 7:30 pm
I always learn new things, and since I just learned about complete ensemble empirical mode decomposition (CEEMD) I thought I might as well apply it to their data. Not to their model of precipitation 250,000 years ago, but to the long-term g. ruber ∂18O records from the drill site MD05-2925.
?w=640
?w=640
Now, this is a fascinating decomposition. Note the large differences in the spacing of the observations, with recent observations being much more frequent.
Now, their claim is that there is a signal at ~41,000 years, congruent with the obliquity changes. However, I don’t see anything like that. Here are the spectra of the intrinsic modes 1-8;
As you can see, the majority of the signal strength is in the longer-period intrinsic modes, with little strength in the shorter-period modes. I see no significant 41,000 year cycles.
w.
+2
Very quick and very cool use of the CEEMD method Willis.
Those spectra periodograms showing some frequency signals in the 150K-500K years section of the core. Those signals appear to accelerate in frequency as age decreases.
I have to wonder about their sampling techniques, for it appears that as compaction and density increased, their samples, while defined as one age, represent a much longer interval as age increases.
The complete ensemble decomposition is very intriguing. What 41,000 period? What cycles?
Trying, just trying to find any excuse for a cycle, the C1 and C3 ensemble members show what appears to be a cardiac murmur of a very rough 20K year basis. It is not sinusoidal, especially in the original data where it appears the increase in g. ruber ∂18O causes the murmurs in C1 and the echoes in C3.
Yes, very cool Willis! Thank you.
It has always been my understanding that the obliquity cycle goes from 24.5 to 21.5 not 22.1 as depicted in the graphic . Has this been verified as an official change? Or are they using the 22.1 because it fits their narrative better? Using 21.5 means that there is one degree of change every 6,833 years. Using 22.1 takes that out to 10,250 years and I have never seen that number before.
This may well be an important scientific paper. But sadly, under the new world order belief system, carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is the key driver of climate change and nothing else matters.
In 1992, 350 years after Galileo’s death, the Roman Catholic Church finally repealed the ruling of the Inquisition against Galileo, and admitted the heliocentric theory of Copernicus was correct.
It remains to be seen whether it will take 350 years for the United Nations to acknowledges its IPCC mantra was false.