An Engineer’s Explanation of Climate Change

It Takes a Hammer to Change Climate States

By Ronald D Voisin

In this essay I will attempt to describe an explanation of climate change that may likely pertain to many (most all) time-scales. But before I do, I would like to make some comments about ice-core analysis – salient and significant observations that nonetheless get little to no attention for some very strange reason.

Let’s start with a glaciated Earth while examining the ice-core record of deglaciation. What do we know about this global glaciated state of affairs? Well…it’s colder everywhere, on land, in the oceans and in the atmosphere. The relatively cold oceans have absorbed copious quantity of atmospheric CO2. The relatively cold oceans give up less water vapor to the atmosphere while the colder atmosphere is able to hold less water vapor. The glacial snow extent provides a significant positive change to Earthly albedo (by several percentage points at a minimum). In solar-radiative terms these are big-deals…very much bigger than the tiny solar-radiative perturbations being examined for recent Holocene climate change explanation.

We Electrical Engineers would call this a highly-latched or latched-up-hard cold state. It would necessarily take something big and powerful to change this state. i.e. At a time when visible light is more strongly reflected back to space as unabsorbed atmospheric-transparent high-energy visible light (the albedo change); and when less infrared light is therefore even available for absorption; and when fewer GHG’s are atmospherically available to absorb the diminished infrared light (both CO2 and, far more importantly, water vapor); there is relatively huge solar-radiative forcing to keep this cold-state cold.

A digital latch based on NAND gate logic showing waveforms of states.

But this situation nonetheless suddenly changes amazingly to an abrupt warm interglacial. And it does so each time in just one observational clock-cycle. This is simply extraordinary.

But then again, examining the ice-core deglaciation record, it’s only after the Earth has spent, on average, 800 years into a temperature climb-out that the albedo becomes more absorbing; and more of the incident solar visible gets converted to infrared; and there is more atmospheric CO2 and water vapor to absorb that increased IR. So what initiated and sustained the temperature climb-out process over these first 800 years?

And just what could abruptly change this glacial state-of-affairs in just one clock-cycle (most recently in less than 200 years and maybe, for all we know, every time in less than 200 years)? If we look back to the earliest ice-core deglaciations of ~618, 718 or 818kya a single clock-cycle is many, many years long (thousands and then to 10’s of thousands of years). Nonetheless, the observed climate change abruptness is still geologically extreme. However, if we examine the most recent deglaciation (18kya), a clock-cycle is quite small – maybe only a couple hundred years or even better (smaller). But still we see an extraordinarily abrupt climb-out from glaciation…in a higher resolved two step climb-out…but each of the two steps within one single extraordinarily short clock-cycle.

From an Electrical Engineering standpoint, this highly latched cold state cannot be abruptly changed by the subtle and nuanced solar-radiative perturbations being so widely examined. It takes a hammer – a climate hammer. Somehow, some much more powerful driver has come into play.

On the other side of a deglaciation we have a similar yet somewhat different scenario. The climb-down back into glaciation is more protracted with long-term stair-stepping. But from the start this too is a latched state, though maybe not a hard-latched one, that cannot be easily changed by subtle nuance. The land, oceans and atmosphere are relatively warm. The Earth albedo is lower with much more incident visible solar radiation being absorbed and converted to IR. The warm oceans have provided a CO2 and water vapor rich atmosphere to absorb that enhanced IR. How does all this temperature step-down suddenly happen even if stair-stepped?

From an Electrical Engineering standpoint, any and all of the myriad subtle and nuanced approaches to an explanation could only be viable if supported by unstable, enormously strong positive feedbacks that simply don’t exist and cannot exist in a long-term-stable situation. It’s going to take a climate hammer to change states.

The following may well explain these large temperature change excursions in both directions. I’m going to describe a climate hammer…it is called bulk-Earth-resonance.

Recently WUWT posted an article which shows a very high frequency low-amplitude stair stepping behavior of current Earthly temperature:

A ground-breaking new paper putting climate models to the test yields an unexpected result – steps and pauses in the climate signal

That got me thinking again about a climate driver that is not included in any General Circulation Model that I know of. Back in February, 2015 WUWT posted another article concerning the work of Maya Tolstoy:

Inconvenient study: Seafloor volcano pulses may alter climate – models may be wrong

Maya has shown that current very minor gravitational perturbations modulate subsea volcanic activity. Maya Tolstoy TED Talk here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMoQrLEJe0

For the sake of argument let’s assume that the bulk Earth has resonate modes (a very likely safe assumption); that the appropriate timing of gravitational perturbations can cause the bulk Earth to ring like a bell or resonate; and then that the recent stair-stepping of temperature increases (and the temperature falls during the instrumental period) result from mildly resonant/non-resonant gravitational perturbations that modulate Earth’s internally generated heat release.

Several scientists have Modeled the gravitationally perturbed celestial-mechanics of the solar system going back more than 800ky (the ice-core record) with great accuracy and precision (I’m thinking here of Willie Soon). If these gravitational perturbations were examined in the frequency domain it may well be that a close correlation can be revealed between Earth temperature swings and bulk-Earth-resonance modes/frequencies during the instrumental period of observation.

These same resonant modes/frequencies may then be examined over far greater time spans…in particular, approximately 18kya when the Earth’s annual orbit was approaching maximum eccentricity. This was a time when the amplitude of gravitational perturbation was appreciably higher than today. And likely the Earth’s resonant modes/frequencies haven’t changed at all from 18kya.

My hypothesis: At approximately 20kya the Earth’s annual orbit was approaching maximum eccentricity (a time of growing, relatively high-amplitude, gravitational perturbation); and by 18kya the timing of these high-amplitude perturbations happened to hit bulk-Earth-resonance with constructive interference – a hammer. The Earth temperature consequentially and abruptly shot up (overriding its hard-latched cold state). But before the Earth could attain a Solar-Albedo high-temperature latch, the timing of the continuing perturbations fell to destructive interference (or simply non-resonant) for a period of time; hence the Younger Dryas. Later, resumed constructive interference, lasted long enough that a Solar-Albedo-Latch could occur. And we then have the ensuing Holocene.

As the Earth’s orbit progresses away from maximum eccentricity (and from high-amplitude gravitational perturbation) constructive resonance (and destructive or simply non-resonant behavior) will continue to occasion the Earth but with diminishing amplitude of perturbation. So this then would explain why, within the ice-cores, deglaciation is so abrupt while the returns to glaciation are relatively protracted and stair-stepped.

(A supposition here is that the Solar-Albedo high-temperature latch of an interglacial is itself not long term stable. When the eccentricity and the gravitational perturbations are minimal, Earth’s internal heat becomes largely internally conserved. And then without enough contribution from internal heat release, the Solar-Albedo high-temperature latch eventually fails.)

In my humble opinion, Major Climate Change (100ky time scale) is substantially the result of gravitationally induced modulations to the release of internally generated Earthly heat.  Maya Tolstoy’s work (Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) bears this out.  And if you kindly give this thought process some effort, you’ll see how it is that many i’s-get-dotted & t’s-get-crossed within an evaluation of a broad spectrum of previous climate observations and understanding spanning many (maybe all) time scales.

I predict that a strong correlation might be revealed between a plot of the Younger Dryas “fit/start” deglaciation temperature curve an one that plots celestially induced gravitational perturbations – further enlightened by a frequency-domain understanding of constructive/destructive interference/stimulation with bulk-Earth-resonance.

Finally, to the extent that this line of thinking has merit (and it likely does*), it would have great application to the forecasting of future climate/earthquake/volcanic activity. The amplitude and constructive/destructive nature of these gravitational perturbations could be very accurately modeled into both the near and far future. The Earth’s orbit is now heading toward 70-80ky of near circular, low-amplitude gravitational perturbation. And once a sufficiently long lull to bulk-Earth-resonance happens to occasion, we’ll take the 1st step of several toward the next major glaciation.

*Here’s an appropriate analogy: Think of the Earth as a large self-charging thermal battery with distributed radioactive decay, and possibly a central core fission geo-reactor, all enclosed by several kilometers of thermally insulating rock. On the time scale of ~100ky this Earth thermal battery spends ~85ky charging up with minimal dissipation. But then, every ~100ky or so, the battery gets a gravitationally constructive-resonate kick, stimulating significant discharge. Early on in this discharge, all hell likely breaks out, as would have been the case in every one of the last 60-70 deglaciations including this early Holocene. Over the next ~10ky things stabilize as a Solar-Albedo-Latch then feebly holds the new interglacial in place while the initial heat-of-hell release has steadily calmed down (the thermal battery has become significantly discharged). And it just so happens that human intelligence evolved during the latter part of this most recent climatically stable Holocene interglacial.


About the Author

Ronald D. Voisin is a retired engineer. He spent 27 career years in the Semiconductor Lithography Equipment industry mostly in California’s Silicon Valley with short excursions to London, England, Portland, OR and Austin, TX. Since retiring in 2007, Ron has made a hobby of studying climate change and has been internet-publishing his thoughts regarding climate change since 2005. Ron received a BSEE degree from the University of Michigan – Ann Arbor in 1978 and has held various management positions at both established semiconductor equipment companies and start-ups he helped initiate. Ron has authored/co-authored 27 patent applications which have issued.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
384 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 9, 2017 7:48 am

I truly enjoy reading the comments but I got here too early.

M Courtney
Reply to  Geo Rubik
April 9, 2017 1:42 pm

I’ve done that in the past.
but I’ve never been so witty.
Grrr.

April 9, 2017 7:55 am

Good article, I think a few of the resonate words should be changed to resonant.

Reply to  steverichards1984
April 9, 2017 8:23 am

Quite right

george e. smith
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 12, 2017 10:59 am

Other than Atoms and their sub bits, and of course photons; there’s not really anything in nature that is digital. That is a peculiarly mathematical concept. Well counting is somewhat basic, but not really natural.

But we don’t really observe things in nature that have simply an on/off, up/down, yes/no, true/false, maybe/maybenot, whatever/whateverelse digital sense.

When we observe/measure things, we end up with a single real finite number that we record; so it is a data sample. And no matter what time elapsed while we were performing the measurement / reading the goniometer / whatever, we place that observation at a single time epoch.

As a result, our sample is in every sense an impulse, having no “pulse length” associated with it.

So when we seek to reconstruct some continuous function band limited phenomenon, from those recorded impulse function samples; we are first of all assuming that those sampled observations are in fact representative of any such continuous phenomenon, rather than say unrelated random events; we are taking a giant leap, and we must conform to the well known rules for reconstructing any such function.

Apparently we can do that by simply running the sequence of samples, spaced in time according to their times of recording, through a “brick wall” ideal filter with a cutoff frequency at the appropriate value implied by the Nyquist criterion and the given set of samples.

Such filters don’t exist in the real world, because their response to a square pulse input, is an output that occurs even before the input does, and in fact exists for all time.

Well real events in nature seem to have a start time prior to which there was nothing, and they also have a stop time where we ceased to continue the measurement.

So real band limited functions don’t exist in nature.

An alternative reconstruction process is to simply replace each impulse sample, with an appropriate
Si- (x) function. (sin(x) / x) with appropriate parameters, and at the appropriate time, and then simply add them all up.

Well I won’t bore you with the minutiae; it’s all available in text books or Math classes.

But none of it sanctions just connecting the dots, as a valid reconstruction. The result is quite unreal, and is not an approximation to any real phenomenon that may have occurred.

G

Michael darby
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 12, 2017 11:35 am

George: ” But we don’t really observe things in nature that have simply an on/off, up/down, yes/no, true/false, maybe/maybenot, whatever/whateverelse digital sense.” I’ve observed one….male/female….granted, the edges may be blurred, but DNA doesn’t lie. Heck, the CATG alphabet in the double helix is pretty close to being “digial” as far a codons go.

george e. smith
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 12, 2017 4:21 pm

Well Michael Darby; you may think that you have found an example but that is not what the enforcers think.

They might not even have those two you mentioned, but they do have a formal list of at least 57 recognized alternatives; actually one for each State in the United States of America, and of course also for each “mostly moslem” country on earth.

And that list does not even include hermaphrodites, who are still personae non grata for some reason.

And I learned quite recently that my alma mater has an personage which asserts that it is both of the ones you mentioned; and can morph from one to the other at its whim.

g

brians356
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 13, 2017 2:58 pm

I still find a candidate “resonate” at this late date:

…the bulk Earth has resonate modes

Greg
Reply to  steverichards1984
April 10, 2017 12:24 am

The main problem here is that climate in digital and does not work in ‘clock cycles’. If you want an electronic analogy it should be an analogue circuit with positive feedbacks. The idea of using an analogy is to infer something about the behaviour of the target by looking at the behaviour of the analogue.

A better choice would be an operational amplifier with light positive feedback. This will latch to the limits of the output voltage range in a similar way to the glacial cycles swing from one state to the other. It will not produce the gradual decline as seen in climate so the analogy is still limited but it does demonstrate the idea of a bistable system with small positive feedbacks, limited by dominant negative feedbacks.

If you start out with poor analogy you are not going to be able to make any useful inferences.

Randall Turner
Reply to  Greg
April 10, 2017 1:35 am

Hi Greg, I’m also an older EE and more comfortable with analog, but I’m even less comfortable with any positive feedback arguments. 🙂 Regardless, the “clock” period here is the resonant period, i.e., that period of time either side of the exact resonant frequencies where we’re close enough to get constructive interference. In this case, presumably the gravitational perturbation frequency changes slowly enough that it stays in the constructive interference range for about 200 years. That’s your “tick”.

Ben Wilson
Reply to  Greg
April 10, 2017 4:11 pm

As a lapsed engineer — I have two degrees in engineering in Electrical and Biomedical before I went astray and wound up in medicine and a career in surgery — I would add that a digital system is just a non-linear analog system, just as the described use of an op amp results in a non-linear analog system.

I will also observe that I suspect most dynamic systems have “clock cycles”; in using my engineering background when I was working on software to simulate intensive care patients, two “clock cycles” that were quite obvious were the heart rate and the respiratory rate.

A tip of my hat to the good Engineer. . . .

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Greg
April 12, 2017 9:25 am

With over 360 comments, I’m likely late to the party, so will just put my notes here:

Generally a very good approach with some novel observations. My critique needs to be taken in that context.

The attempt to extend a good idea to cover one anomaly (the Younger Dryas) is a bit forced. From what I have been able to find, that is more like a peak clipping of the normal triangular rise quite likely caused by a large bolide impact into the Canadian Ice. Evidence is plentiful for such an impact, including a large platinim group metals mine near the expected target area. Take that as the explanation and your theory for the rest fits even better.

Florida sediment studies show heat retension during glacials. This shows a rearrangement of ocean currents such that the Gulf Stream cooling of Florida is reduced (and Europe freezes…). Ref in this posting:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/

Incorporating thermal ocean current changes would likely enhance your thesis. Add in also that there is a 400 ish foot change in ocean depth, so structures like the Bering Strait and Drake’s Passage have significantly different influences on ocean flows and heat distribution.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/drakes-passage/

I see these more as op amps in your model than as directly causal, btw.

Milankovitch pretty much worked out the gross drivers, but not the rest of the switch and with some ignoring of things like oceans and volcanoes. The key bit is that interglacials only happen when enough heat is available to start melting the north pole ice. This happens when summers are longest (earth far from sun) so more days of sun in summer. That is correct, but likely insufficient. Add in ocean current rearrangement AND the volcanic heat kicker to start the unlatch, and I think you can solve the last steps of the fit. Max eccentricity causing both the longer summers and more geoheating, then the ocean feedbacks…

Tom Halla
April 9, 2017 7:57 am

If I recall correctly, the magnitude of energy from the sun is much greater than any internal heating. Unless this is some sort of chaotic process, with small inputs having a disproportionate impact, I just do not see how the proposed mechanism works.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2017 8:51 am

Earth’s internal thermal battery may likely have become largely depleted 18kya. But now may charge for 70-80ky.

Pierre DM
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2017 9:58 am

I could be that the drop in sea levels reduce overburden pressures plus exposed more volcanos close enough to the surface to produce a large ash clouds. Combine large ash clouds with lower atmospheric water vapor, cooler temperatures resulting windier conditions and the ash clouds could quickly change the albedo equation when the ash settles on the glaciers.

Gloateus
Reply to  Pierre DM
April 9, 2017 10:00 am

It appears that volcanism increases as the ice retreats.

ferdberple
Reply to  Pierre DM
April 9, 2017 10:20 am

volcanism increases as the ice retreats
==============
perhaps ice retreats as volcanism increases?

Gloateus
Reply to  Pierre DM
April 9, 2017 11:15 am

Ferd,

There might be a feedback effect, but ice retreats globally before an observed increase in volcanism, which has both cooling and (obviously) heating effects.

stuartlarge
Reply to  Pierre DM
April 9, 2017 7:06 pm

The hammer that ends glaciation is Dust.
As CO2 and moisture levels fall off, vegetation dies off and the world becomes a desert dust bowl, this dust gets blown on to the ice and snow causing lowered albedo and melting.

Padmakumar
Reply to  Pierre DM
April 9, 2017 10:39 pm

I guess stuartlarge has a point. Dust may play a big role in deglaciation.

Paul Blase
Reply to  Tom Halla
April 9, 2017 1:11 pm

It works if the Earth’s default state is fairly close to instability anyways. Say, for instance, if the increased volcanism were just enough to melt all of the ocean’s methane hydrates simultaneously.

Reply to  Paul Blase
April 9, 2017 8:32 pm

The Earth’s climate stability varies. I see variability of the surface albedo feedback. If a large area of land that gets a lot of sunlight can have snow coverage or ice sheet coverage change from a change of temperature, then something that affects temperature in such an area of the earth can reinforce itself strongly. And it does not take much time to make a change in snow cover. And an ice sheet forms when a snowpack survives the summer and grows the following winter.

I see this explaining why Earth’s climate has been more stable during interglacials than during glaciations. During interglacials, the variation of snow and ice cover occurs closer to the poles, where latitude zones x degrees wide have less area and have less yearround insolation.

Notably, ice age glaciations and their interglacials seem to have correlated much better with the 96,000 year eccentricity cycle than the other Milankovitch cycles. But that was only since a little over a million years ago. Between a little over a million years ago and a little over 2.5 million years ago, they correlated mostly with a shorter cycle, apparently the 41,000 year tilt cycle, and global temperature varied less from cold times to warm times of this cycle than they did when they correlated with the 96,000 year cycle. I read about this shift in a past WUWT article several years ago, and I remember this change being supposed to have correlated with sea level dropping enough to stop covering the Isthmus of Panama, which would cause a change in ocean currents.

Allen63
April 9, 2017 8:04 am

I like this train of thought. Seems feasible. Worth more investigation.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Allen63
April 9, 2017 12:36 pm

It’s a (mostly) unknown unknown. It’s a come-uppance to arrogant “we can’t think of anything else” arguments f

0ldgriz
April 9, 2017 8:08 am

That’s certainly thinking outside the box. I like it. First rule of engineering. Use a sufficiently large hammer.

Retired Kit P
Reply to  0ldgriz
April 9, 2017 8:51 am

There are rules in engineering?

My first rule is the kiss principle, keep it simple stupid. I started as an engineer using a slide rule.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:06 am

I was halfway through engin-school before I owned a calculator.

And this is simple. Just look at the subtle-nuanced maybe this, with positive feedback, then that, with positive feedback, then something else, then magic, then an interglacial appears.

PiperPaul
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 3:19 pm

What – not an abacus?

The Old Man
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 4:11 pm

Started with the slide rule, but quickly got promoted when the boss realized I had the only Curta precision device in the office. An early adopter of the how to succeed motto: Always move up the food chain to the front of the line. Never look back. Except I still have the Curta and the slide rule, but can’t remember where I put them.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  The Old Man
April 9, 2017 5:05 pm

Old Man,
It strikes me that those scientists who have not yet retired could learn a thing or two from those of use who cut our teeth on slide rules, if they weren’t so impressed with themselves.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 4:12 pm

I had the first HP35 ($350!) on campus. The following year, all engineering/science students were buying HP45’s ($450!).

My HP35 got me through vector analysis. Most times, I was the only student that finished exams on time. They were forced to change the grading schemes after I blew everyone away and scientific calculators became ubiquitous.

Dean - NSW
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:41 pm

Second rule of engineering I learnt.

You’ve told me why it will work, now tell me why it won’t.

If only climate scientists followed this creed…..

george e. smith
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:45 pm

Another rule would be to stick with the engineering that you know and understand.

Real flip flops don’t require a hammer to change state. Just a tickle beyond the noise margin will do it.

G

Leon
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 10, 2017 1:37 am

I like that approach and so did the blonde I met at the bar

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  0ldgriz
April 9, 2017 10:09 am

I thought the rule was, “If at first you don’t succeed, get a bigger hammer.”

joel
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 12:32 pm

No. If it doesn’t fit, get a bigger hammer.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 3:20 pm

We always called them forming tools not hammers.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 4:50 pm

In England, a hammer is known as the “Scottish Adjusting Tool”.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 5:20 pm

And in Scotland? A hammer’s accepted as “Sassenach precision”.

Rob
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 5:38 pm

Hammer = a Manchester screwdriver

Menicholas
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 6:35 pm

In Turkey, they call turkey American bird.

RoHa
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 8:42 pm

My father – an engineer and a Manchester man – regularly called a hammer “an American screwdriver”.

sophocles
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 12:42 am

The Engineer’s Rulez:
If it doesn’t work, hit it with a hammer.
If it stiil doesn’t work, hit it with a bigger one.

When the largest hammer hasn’t worked, read the manual.

Menicholas
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 8:43 am

“Do not force it, use a bigger hammer.”

Reply to  0ldgriz
April 9, 2017 7:29 pm

I couldn’t afford an HP solution. I bought one of the 1st TI-SR-50’s (that’s TI’s slide-rule 50), for $150.

Leopoldo
Reply to  0ldgriz
April 11, 2017 11:09 am

I remember of the times of B/W TV we slapped the TV with a palm to put off the noise or the bands of black and white

rbabcock
April 9, 2017 8:16 am

So we are getting a fairly constant amount of energy every day coming to the Earth from the Sun. Our ocean heatsink and other feedback mechanisms keep the temperatures within a fairly tight range. We have warm spells and cold spells that last (geologically) relatively short times.

Every once in a while things go haywire and we jump up and down in temperatures considerably more than “normal” and the planet freezes or thaws.

We have geological records of large (globally) volcanic eruptions in the past and indications the earth climate changed during/immediately after these. We know the Earth contains fissionable, naturally occurring radioactive elements and these are continuing to decay producing copious amounts of heat in the mantle.

So I would say this hypothesis has merit and is definitely worth pursuing.

Paul Blase
Reply to  rbabcock
April 9, 2017 1:18 pm

The interesting part, now that the author mentions it, is the obvious sawtooth pattern: sharp rise followed by a slower decline. Very much like a sawtooth generator, where a capacitor discharges at a steady rate, and then is abruptly recharged when it reaches a certain floor level.

The question is: is the “recharge” mechanism internal or external? Mr Voisin is proposing an external mechanism where the Earth gets “whacked” every 100k years or so by an orbital resonance condition, sending the Earth to a higher temperature state from which it declines at a fairly steady state.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 9, 2017 1:48 pm

Interesting phrasing, PB. A saw-tooth waveform is quite often generated by a circuit called a Relaxation Oscillator, which has an energy source ( a power supply or battery), an energy (charge)-storage component (a capacitor), a gain component (a transistor), and some manner of selective positive feedback.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 9, 2017 1:55 pm

Well, I guess I should have read a little further down. Preaching to the choir …

Reply to  Paul Blase
April 9, 2017 9:04 pm

As for selective positive feedback: As I have said before, I see intermittent positive feedback, at least variation in the amount of positive feedback. The positive feedback that I see being most variable is the surface albedo feedback. Depending on where the snow cover, sea ice cover and land ice cover are, where they can most easily be changed, and depending on how much sunlight is coming in where this coverage can change and where changing it can make the most difference, the surface albedo feedback could not matter much or it could be enough to make global climate unstable – and an ice age glaciation can advance or retreat at a rapid pace.

As for retreats being majority faster than advances in the past 1 million years according tocomment image: My prime suspect (best guess) is that due to lags, the retreats occur when there is more sunshine on the relevant parts of the world, and thinning of continental ice sheets doesn’t affect their ability to ability to cool by reflecting away sunlight until they start getting smaller.

As for another guess of mine for the sawtooth nature: A melting continental ice sheet makes the sea that its meltoff flows into less salty, and more able to form sea ice and to feed snowstorms with water vapor. But this negative feedback against melting of a continental ice sheet (or at least the temperature causing its melting) ends once the ice sheet is thin with retreating edges.

george e. smith
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 10, 2017 10:55 am

Well a capacitor is a circuit element with the transfer function : i = C dv/dt

So to get a linear (constant slope ) voltage ramp, you need to apply a constant current, and that is no easy to come up with.

It is fairly easy to short a capacitor to ground (or anywhere else) and discharge it rapidly, but you need quite sophisticated analog circuits to generate a constant charging current that does not vary with the capacitor voltage.

Such circuits are used in oscilloscope ” Sweep ” circuits, to drive the electron beam across the screen at a constant time per screen division (talking CRT days). Today’s digital scopes do all of that with logic.

Problem is that a lot of modern and expensive digital scopes, only have 8 bit vertical resolution, so you can’t discern very small waveform aberrations. Well with climate data, who needs any resolution anyway.

Well I guess to get the global average temperature over the last 167 years you need to three significant digits, you need at least 10 bits.

Using electronic circuitry (analog) to explain climate is a pretty big stretch. Analog circuits obey (strictly) rather explicit mathematical equations. Weather and climate don’t do anything of the sort, and almost any causal relationship is likely to be quite non linear.
The sigma (T^4 ) lurks behind many climate phenomena.

I’m not aware of any fourth power analog circuit transfer functions.

G

Reply to  george e. smith
April 10, 2017 11:09 am

The Bode formula is incorporated into climate models for feedback. Of course there needs to be additional energy to get the positive feedbacks. Tipping points ? Runaway green house effects ?

george e. smith
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 10, 2017 11:40 am

“””””…..
rishrac

April 10, 2017 at 11:09 am

The Bode formula is incorporated into climate models for feedback. …..”””””

So do you have one of these climate models that incorporates “The Bode formula”.

What do the cite as the open loop gain of the climate system “amplifier” and what is the gain-bandwidth product ??

I’m familiar with two port systems that can be analyzed by “Bode” methods, but have NO knowledge of any Bode theory of Multi-Port Systems, where there are multiple feedbacks from multiple outputs to multiple input ports.

So what are some of the input ports, and some of the output ports, in one of these climate models that YOU know about ??

G

Reply to  Paul Blase
April 10, 2017 9:00 pm

George, it’s not a common known feedback. It was reported on here in what’s up a while back, I think it came out in a Japanese paper. I am fairly certain ALL of the models use it. That’s why they are all wrong. It requires additional energy. There has been long discussion on the tipping point, when that was a hot topic. In particular was whether we could achieve unity or over unity. By that logic, once I started my car I’d never use any more gas and I’d never have to turn it off. Nobody talks about a tipping point anymore.
When that came out, the tipping point went away. A bunch of other alarmist statements have also quietly gone away. Lake Hatfield in Georgia, is that still empty, from climate change ?

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 12, 2017 9:39 am

Per rise being faster than fall:

This is a mass flow problem. Ice can only form from slow small additions of fluffy snow in a dilute thin air medium. It can leave as nation sized chunks of ice as oceans rise and under cut it, or as calved ice from the 2 mile high glacier then flowing in slush rivers into warmer oceans. It is the assymetry of ice formation vs removal.

AlfMagne
Reply to  rbabcock
April 9, 2017 4:03 pm

We have no exact knowledge of the amount of energy that is produced in the earth’s core. No one tell that we live on top of a gigantic nuclear power plant keeping the earth core hot.

We could be living on a nuclear power plant keeping things hot under our feet:
Take some time reading this article on why the internal heat of the earth is still so hot:

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740
“Our hypothesis may explain why plate tectonics exist on Earth but not on other terrestrial planets, such as Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Earth’s moon.”

Given an internal gigantic exothermal generator, releasing the heat when disturbed by gravitational oscillation, the heat is on as explained in this article.

@

MarkW
Reply to  AlfMagne
April 10, 2017 6:17 am

1) What gravitational oscillations? If the gravity was varying by a big amount, don’t you think people would have noticed?
2) Gravity only matters for fusion, our core runs on fission.
3) While we may not know the amount of energy being generated in the Earth’s core out to 4 or 5 digits, we do know the ballpark amount being generated.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  rbabcock
April 9, 2017 5:33 pm

Volcanic eruptions are too short-lived to sustain climate changes of glacial-interglacial magnitude.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 7:04 pm

Don, What about large scale, slow eruptions? Releasing large amounts of heat with lava , like Hawaiian types but on a vastly larger scale, just the heat and few ashes and other particulates? Is there not evidence of those? Just wondering, I find the logic in this case compelling. There is also this caldera ( and others) under the sea surface of the coast of Oregon/ Washington that are being monitored. What would happen to the atmosphere if a large scale eruption happens there and releases large amounts of water vapor/ CO2 etc, could they have an impact? Just asking questions .

rbabcock
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 7:33 pm

The Siberian Traps seemed to have quite an effect.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 10, 2017 2:13 am

The problem with the climatic effect of volcanic eruptions is that they have short-lived effects, limited to a year or so, are sporadic, and can only cause cooling. The cause we talking about is abrupt and sustained warming.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 10, 2017 5:13 am

Yep. The climatic effects of volcanic events are transient. This even holds for supervolcanoes. Toba didn’t even leave a significant mark in the ice core derived temperatures.

MarkW
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 10, 2017 6:18 am

What if a volcano kicked out enough ash to blanket most of the world’s ice sheets?

April 9, 2017 8:17 am

The GRIP core reconstruction does show show stepped cooling of the last few thousand years,the glacial period is coming inexorably. It started around 3,500 years ago. Before that it was generally stable for thousands of years. Little over 3,000 years ago Insolation anomaly for 65N went negative. It has been cooling down ever since.

The data indicate that we are on the edge of the next significant drop as we are almost at the end of the latest 1,000 cooling trend,that will then cause a short drop in temperature. We are in late Holocene Autumn phase.

From Mr. Voisin’s essay:

“As the Earth’s orbit progresses away from maximum eccentricity (and from high-amplitude gravitational perturbation) constructive resonance (and destructive or simply non-resonate behavior) will continue to occasion the Earth but with diminishing amplitude of perturbation. So this then would explain why, within the ice-cores, deglaciation is so abrupt while the returns to glaciation are relatively protracted and stair-stepped.”

More evidence that CO2 changes doesn’t drive the climate.

Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 8:19 am

The trouble with untestable theoretical concepts is that they are untestable. How can we test such a hypothesis? Does the idea make sense with known climate changes? Well, as I understand the article above, it depends on orbital changes to ‘set off’ a ‘climate hammer,’ but abrupt climate oscillations (such as the Younger Dryas) are a strong argument against orbital causes of climate change.

The article does point out a real enigma–the abruptness of terminations of Ice Ages. For example, the last Ice Age came to an abrupt halt (albeit with a few hiccups) in a matter of only a few decades. It’s like the whistle blew and the game was over. So far we have no explanation for a causal mechanism that accounts for the suddenness of these abrupt climate changes. All of the major glaciations show the same abrupt terminations, but no existing theory of climate change can explain them.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 8:27 am

This is testable. If resonant modes in the instrumental period are found at 18kya, then not, then again at 10.5kya

Paul Blase
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 1:31 pm

You need to look at that data. Talk to Willis.
I note that the sawtooth behavior is very much like a sawtooth generator with a capacitor discharging after being abruptly charged by an external circuit. A variant on your theory would be that the Earth’s rest state is glacial. The volcanism provides a kick to a higher temp from which the climate decays at a fairly steady rate.

The stair stepping could result from several things. As previously noted here on WUWT there are numerous feedback cycles in play in he climate and the entire system is chaotic. When the temperature is falling during the return to glaciation, these feedback events try to keep it at a constant temperature, but eventually fail and the temperature falls another notch. You would have to see (if possible) if the stair-steps occur at the same points every glaciation cycle.

Another possibility is that there is some other cyclical influence which adds just enough energy into the system so that the feedback loops can maintain the temperature at a stair-step level for a while, but not permanently. Say solar output oscillations.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 10:24 am

Don,
As to the abruptness, consider that Ron said, “But then again, examining the ice-core deglaciation record, it’s only after the Earth has spent, on average, 800 years into a temperature climb-out that the albedo becomes more absorbing;” I hadn’t thought about this explicitly before, but the surface area of continental glaciation is more important than the total volume. That is, a warming Earth will cause the loss of ice thickness before the surface area becomes changed significantly. Once the ice is thinned considerably, the exposed ice will start to shrink back towards the principal zone of accumulation. With the retreating ice front, the total reflectivity (I don’t like the use of albedo here) will decrease, causing rapid warming. There will be no vegetation initially to moderate the warming; it will probably take a few decades for vegetation (particularly forests) to get established. What gets exposed will be bare bedrock, glacial till, and outwash gravels, all with reflectivity much lower than ice. Therefore, I would anticipate a pulse (hammer) of anomalous warming at the front of the retreating glacier. The behavior of reflectivity at the front of the glacier is quite different for an advancing glacier overriding existing forests.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 12:32 pm

The rate of re-vegetation of Mt Tarwera after its last eruption might provide a good guide. I have seen massive changes in the vegetation over a few decades.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 12:33 pm

Tarawera not Tarwera

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 5:36 pm

The abruptness and intensity of the warming at the onset of deglaciation is much too great for this kind of mechanism.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 2:17 am

This doesn’t answer the question of how do we get such abrupt ending to ice ages, i.e., beginning in a century or so. It’s the first few centuries we are concerned with, not what happens well into the warming.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 5:48 am

The ice ages are always “primed” to end rapidly.

The summer sun at the southern edges of the glaciers is almost as strong as it is today (and often, even stronger than today).

How many watts/m2 does the sun get to in Chicago in the summer. It is more than twice as strong, 900 W/m2, as needed to melt out the snow and ice, 470 W/m2. It is only on a high 50% albedo glacier that the summer sun is not strong enough to melt the snow and ice.

The southern edges of the glaciers are always melting furiously in the summers. It only takes several thousand years of less build-up in the central spreading areas that the southern edges will melt back rapidly.

Let a Milankovitch upturn continue for 10,000 years or so and the back of the glaciers is broken and they will just keep melting back.

george e. smith
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 11:18 am

When I last climbed Mt. Tarawera (1958) there wasn’t a green thing on it anywhere. I’m still finding chunks of red scoria in my tramping boos, from sliding down it without any leggngs tightened around my boot tops.

The greyish volcanic ash deposits from the 1886 (3?) eruption, all around the bottom seemed to have vegetation except not on the steep walls carved out by water flows. I got my boots full of that stuff too.

But the last time, I saw Tarawera was from across the lake, circa 2004-8, and the lower slopes were surprisingly greened.

I hear tell, they now believe the White Terraces were not blown to smithereens like the Pink Terraces were, and are still there intact under several hundred feet of ash below the lake.

I think there is a plan to provide a virtual tour of the White Terraces, by video, created from high resolution seismic scanning . Somebody thinks it will be almost like you were standing on them, like you can on the Bridal Veil Terraces at Orakei Korako.

G

Gloateus
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 11:34 am

Regrowth around Mt. St. Helens since 1980 has been impressive. Lots of rain and rich volcanic soil.

http://landtrendr.forestry.oregonstate.edu/content/vegetation-recovery-mt-st-helens

Reply to  Gloateus
April 10, 2017 11:39 am

Volcanic soil is sterile.

Gloateus
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 10, 2017 11:36 am

Bill Illis April 10, 2017 at 5:48 am

Yup. All it takes is for the central dome mass to stop accumulating and the edges start melting in summer. Albedo changes and the process feeds on itself.

ferdberple
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 10:33 am

no existing theory of climate change can explain them.
==================
How can that be? A former President and Vice-President tell us the science is settled; 97% of all climate scientists agree; no further debate is required. The Democratic Party has even made this a plank in their political platform. Are we to believe that Climate Science cannot explain how the Ice Ages end, but are absolutely sure about why the climate changes? It doesn’t make sense!

Catcracking
Reply to  ferdberple
April 9, 2017 1:30 pm

How? They lie for political purposes, that’s how!
The sad part is that the MSM is complicit in the agenda regardless of the facts. It’s blatantly obvious now.

jon
Reply to  ferdberple
April 9, 2017 4:36 pm

That’s right. in fact this entire science is obviously a Russian sophisticated espionage exercise created to put Trump in the White House.
Make outlandish claims that fail and the claimers get discredited.
This shows how insidious the Russian control of the UN is!

george e. smith
Reply to  ferdberple
April 10, 2017 11:28 am

Jon,

Apparently, YOU are the only person in the entire US intelligence community that has any evidence that the Russians altered the outcome of the last election, or even tried to get one (even just one) US voter to vote for Donald Trump, which would have been in vain anyway as they would have to get one (more than one) of the 435 electors to vote for Donald Trump, and so far the intelligence community hasn’t found even one of those who was talked into voting for Trump by the Russians; or for that matter for Hillary Clinton.

You are the only person with information on Russian collusion with anybody to fix the US election.

So you will have a wide audience here at WUWT (worldwide) if you tell us what you know, that absolutely nobody else does. No he said; she said; just facts you know about.

G

Gloateus
Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 10:50 am

“Abrupt” is relative. It takes thousands of years for ice sheets to melt, and some still have not yet done so. A remnant of the Laurentide (or Innuitian) IS remains in the Canadian Arctic and the Greenland IS is still largely intact. The Antarctic Ice Sheets have shrunk some, but are yet massive, especially the East AIS, which holds most of the world’s fresh water.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 5:29 pm

You are missing the point here–we’re talking about the abruptness of the onset of deglaciation, not the time for total disappearance of the ice sheets.

E.M.Smith
Editor
Reply to  Gloateus
April 12, 2017 9:50 am

Ice melts at a temperature point. This matters….

Nothing melts until 0.001 C then everthing melts….

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 13, 2017 6:12 pm

Don,

Ice melting starts “abruptly”, but so too does ice formation. Then it takes thousands of years for it to accumulate or melt.

But even initiation and termination in this narrow sense aren’t abrupt. There are fits and starts, such as the Dryas events during termination.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 11:07 am

Don Easterbrook:

You state “all of the major glaciations show the same abrupt terminations, but no existing theory of climate change can explain them”

Actually, they are easily explained.

We know that large volcanic eruptions inject sulfurous gasses into the atmosphere, where they quickly react with moisture to form strongly dimming sulfur dioxide aerosols.

All that is needed to form major glaciations is to have an extensive period of relatively continuous volcanic eruptions.

When the eruptions cease, the sulfur dioxide aerosols settle out within a few years, abruptly causing increased warming due to the cleaner, more transparent air.

Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive to the amount of sulfur dioxide aerosols present in the atmosphere, and reductions in their amounts are the cause of all of the anomalous warming that has occurred since circa 1975.

Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for detailed proof of the above.

getitright
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 9, 2017 11:44 am

“Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for detailed proof of the above.”

I would say, Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for detailed explanation of the above theory.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 9, 2017 5:40 pm

Volcanic activity is far too short-lived to explain the kind of changes that drive glacial/interglacial episodes.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 7:08 pm

Don Easterbrook”

You state that volcanic eruptions are too short to contribute to significant climate change.

The Deccan traps eruptions continued for 500,000 years after the Chicxulub impact, for example. spewing SO2 into the atmosphere, cooling down the earth.

You would need to prove that there have never been other periods of extensive volcanic activity for your statement to be correct.

Padmakumar
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 10, 2017 12:46 am

How does this theory account for the 100,000 year period?

Reply to  Burl Henry
April 10, 2017 5:21 am

There is no geologic evidence of major flood basalt eruptions like the Deccan Traps during the Pleistocene. Nor are such events cyclical.

Toba didn’t even leave a distinctive mark in the temperature record.

george e. smith
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 10, 2017 11:46 am

How about when the eruptions cease, those aerosols settle out in a few days because of the phenomenon called RAIN; which feeds on sulfurous aerosols.

G

Reply to  george e. smith
April 10, 2017 1:25 pm

Most large eruptions inject material into the stratosphere. Not much rain there.

It took about 2 years for the VEI 6 Mount Pinatubo SO2 aerosols to finally settle out, and about 5 years for the VEI 7 eruption of Mount Tambora eruption in 1815

george e. smith
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 12, 2017 4:32 pm

Well Burl, I will agree there is not much water in the stratosphere; so not much cloud formation is going to happen there.

But now we have a dilemma, because those sulphurous aerosols, that you describe, just aren’t all that visible in the visible spectrum that is and if they aren’t obvious to you or me, they clearly are not obvious to incoming solar spectrum radiant energy so you are talking of a wrinkle on a pimple on a sand fly’s a***, when it comes to removing incoming solar energy.

Clouds on the other hand do remove solar radiant energy in copious quantities.

G

Reply to  george e. smith
April 13, 2017 6:07 pm

George E. Smith:

According to NASA’s fact sheet on atmospheric aerosols “Stratospheric SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface, cooling them”.

Human-made sulfate aerosols “absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface”.

(They both have the same climatic effect).

The VEI6 Mount Pinatubo and Mount Hudson eruptions in 1991 injected approx. 23 Megatonnes of sulfurous aerosols into the stratosphere, reducing average global temperatures by 0.5 deg. C.
(And increased average global temperatures by the same amount as they settled out over the course of about 2 years).

The VEI7 Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 injected probably 10X as many sulfurous aerosols into the atmosphere, and reduced average global temperatures by 5.0 deg. C.

Because of the massive quantities of SO2 aerosols involved in an eruption, they have a very strong effect upon the climate, initially cooling it down, then warming it up as they settle out.

The “rule of thumb” for warming caused by their removal is .02 deg. C. of warming for each net Megatonne of reduction in global SO2 aerosol emissions.

This also applies to environmental reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions to the extent that all of the anomalous warming that has occurred since about 1975 has been due to their removal.

Reply to  Don Easterbrook
April 9, 2017 2:23 pm

Right, Don, indeed “The article does point out a real enigma–the abruptness of terminations of Ice Ages.“. But there is more, what the article does not point out is the shifting world from the 41ka dominant cycle prior to one million years ago, and the transition to the 100ka world after that.

Won’t you think that if you could explain that, it also explain the abrupt terminations?

But more importantly, would scientists overcome the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome and be prepared to attempt to listen, at least for a few seconds, to somebody, who suggest that he can explain all that?

Gloateus
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 2:30 pm

That apparent shift is misleading. The 41K cycle still rules. It’s just that earth has gotten progressively colder as the Quaternary has worn on, so that now weaker tilt cycles don’t always break out of glacial conditions. We now have glaciations which last two or three cycles, ie 82K or 123K years, for an average of ~100K for the past eight to ten glaciations.

Javier has explained the so-called “mid-Pleistocene transition” very well, IMO.

Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 2:51 pm

Not sure if we see indeed “glaciations which last two or three cycles”, if we look in detail to the last stadials as of MIS 5, considering that the Weichselian Glacial cycle had a early, middle and late advance, while the ice sheet virtually disappeared in between, during periods were called “interstadials”. However, there is widespread local evidence that those Interstadials were -temperature wise- comparable with today, which is totally opposite the ice sheet- and ODP-isotope records.

Gloateus
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 3:22 pm

Andre,

If the interstadials are so warm that the ice sheets melt, then there’s little difference between them and interglacials, and the 41K/100K “problem” doesn’t really even exist.

In any case, the 41K cycle didn’t go away after about 1 Ma. It’s still evident even within longer glaciations.

Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 3:32 pm

Not exactly.

one may focus for instance on 50-30ka, just in range for carbon dating. Would be only a matter of minutes googling multiple studies that show that temperatures around the world are comparable to today, yet the ice core isotopes force us to think that we are just approaching the Last Glacial Maximum with bitter cold temperatures (not so).

The irony is that Huybers 2006 is so very close, https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3382981/Huybers_EarlyPleistoceneSummer.pdf?sequence=1
he only should have verified his findings against a multitude of local temperature records. Yet he decides to believe the isotopes instead, which are not a temperature proxy.

Gloateus
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 3:51 pm

I just cited Huybers and Wunsch (2005).

Ice persists even when it’s warm because of thermal inertia. It takes a long time to melt all that ice, and in the meantime, the massive sheets still affect climatic phenomena.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 5:41 pm

The 41k cycle is far too slow to explain the abruptness of the climate changes we see in the geologic record.

Gloateus
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 5:46 pm

Don,

I don’t think so. It takes thousands of years for the ice to build up and thousands for it to melt. Very roughly, during the 41K cycle, ice mass builds for ten thousand years, stays up there for around 20K, then melts for about 10K.

Gloateus
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 9, 2017 6:04 pm

If the Laurentide Ice Sheet built up to three klicks in ten thousand years, that’s an average of 300 centimeters or about a foot per year. That’s a lot of snow turned to ice.

More likely only during the LGM did the Laurentide reach such heights.

Reply to  Gloateus
April 10, 2017 1:22 am

Considering the Laurentide ice sheet, a couple of points,
– Note that there was a luscious megafauna of horses, camels and mammoths in the Yukon some 40ka ago. They don’t like ice sheets.

-Note that the Pingualuit crater in N-Quebec shows only little glaciation erosion versus it’s alleged age. What does that signify?

Furthermore:
-The Greenland ice sheet is still there and survived the Eemian/Sangamonian interglacial as well. As ice sheets generate their own climate, it’s not necessary that either the Cordilleran or the Laurentide or the Weichselian ice sheet followed the glacial/interglacial pace. However the early, middle and late Weichselian advances and following (near)disappearance during the late Pleistocene are well documented. Why a triple glacial cycle in a single stadial?

So the pace of glaciations does not seem to match the 100ka cycle too well, many oceanic features do, like the mid oceanic ridges and clathrate/landslides in the nordic sea.

Wouldn’t all those consideration give good reasons to challenge our current temperature interpretations of the ‘water’-isotopes in the ice sheet and the exact nature of the 100ka cycle?

My conclusion/hypothesis is that the 100ka cycle is a tectonic/volcanic cycle, superimposed on, and unrelated to the 41ka main glaciation cycle.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  leftturnandre
April 10, 2017 2:21 am

A 40k cycle is way to slow to explain the abruptness of the warming which brings glaciations to a close.

commieBob
April 9, 2017 8:23 am

Here’s a 1999 paper with another correlation with seismic activity. link

All El Nihos since 1964 have been preceded by anomalous seismicity along portions of the East Pacific Rise.

Here’s a link to a paper speculating that El Ninos are caused by geothermal heat.

I’ve seen this speculation over the years and finally people are putting instrumentation into the ocean that can confirm or refute it.

Reply to  commieBob
April 9, 2017 10:53 am

Thanx for this!!

Reply to  commieBob
April 9, 2017 11:34 am

commieBob:

Every El Nino between 1850 and about 1970 has been closely preceded by a business recession, which causes temporary increases in average global temperatures, due to fewer dimming SO2 aerosol emissions because of reduced industrial activity.

Since 1970, there have been some El Ninos not associated with a recession. They were caused by Clean Air Act reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions.

See my pre print “The Cause and Timings of El Nino Events” at OSF.io

Gloateus
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 9, 2017 11:42 am

Burl,

What about the El Ninos before AD 1850?

The phenomenon has existed for at least thousands of years, if not millions to hundreds of millions.

Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 11:59 am

Gloateus:

Since every El Nino since 1850 was due to reductions in SO2 aerosols, any reductions in the past would have the same effect.

There may have been other causes of ENSO warmings in the past, but there is no hint of what they might have been in the data since 1850.

Gloateus
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 9, 2017 1:27 pm

Burl,

The SO2-El Niño hypothesis has been investigated for decades now, without finding much support.

Handler (1984) looked at all VEI 4 and larger historic eruptions to see if they were associated with El Niño events. He sorted the volcanoes by latitude. He found that low latitude (20 N to 20 S) eruptions were associated with an increase in sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific, the area where El Niños begin. The warmer temperatures last up to three seasons after the eruptions. Handler called for further theoretical work on these observations.

The 1982 eruption of El Chichón produced one of the largest sulfuric acid plumes this century. The eruption was immediately followed by an El Niño event in 1982-83, the largest El Niño of the century up to that time. However, Roback, et al (1995) noted that the 1982 El Niño had started before this wind anomaly. Furthermore, they pointed out that only trade wind collapses in the western equatorial Pacific can initiate El Niños. They concluded that the El Chichón eruption and the large El Niño event were a coincidence.

Roback, et al (1995) used three different models to see if the volcanic eruptions might trigger or enhance the El Niño. One model, involving mid-tropospheric heating, did show a weakening of the trade winds. This change was consistent with observed surface winds north of the Equator in the eastern Pacific.

The two past super El Niños of 1997/8 and 2015/6 weren’t preceded by suitable volcanic eruptions, unless I overlooked something.

Here’s a Jan 2017 modeling result:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD025796/full

Observations and model simulations of the climate responses to strong explosive low-latitude volcanic eruptions suggest a significant increase in the likelihood of El Niño during the eruption and posteruption years, though model results have been inconclusive and have varied in magnitude and even sign. In this study, we test how this spread of responses depends on the initial phase of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) in the eruption year and on the eruption’s seasonal timing. We employ the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory CM2.1 global coupled general circulation model to investigate the impact of the Pinatubo 1991 eruption, assuming that in 1991 ENSO would otherwise be in central or eastern Pacific El Niño, La Niña, or neutral phases. We obtain statistically significant El Niño responses in a year after the eruption for all cases except La Niña, which shows no response in the eastern equatorial Pacific. The eruption has a weaker impact on eastern Pacific El Niños than on central Pacific El Niños. We find that the ocean dynamical thermostat and (to a lesser extent) wind changes due to land-ocean temperature gradients are the main feedbacks affecting El Niño development after the eruption. The El Niño responses to eruptions occurring in summer are more pronounced than for winter and spring eruptions. That the climate response depends on eruption season and initial ENSO phase may help to reconcile apparent inconsistencies among previous studies.

Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 5:10 pm

Gloateous:

You wrote “The 1982 eruption of El Chichon produced one of the largest sulfuric acid plumes this century. The eruption was immediately followed by an El Nino event in 1982-83, the largest El Nino of the century up to that time”

The El Chichon eruption was preceded by the 16 month-long business recession of 7-81 11-82, which triggered the very strong El Nino of 3-82 7-83, so that the El Nino was already in progress
when El Chichon erupted Mar 29 – Apr 4 of 1982. It was NOT followed by an El Nino event, but occurred during an El Nino.

The El Chichon SO2 aerosols had largely settled out of the atmosphere by Nov. 82, so that their dimming effect was greatly diminished, allowing the “masked” El Nino temperatures to rise, peaking in Jan. 83. If El Chichon had not erupted, this peak temperature would have occurred months earlier.

The 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Ninos were both, unfortunately, caused by environmentally-planned reductions in SO2 emissions,

Duane
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 10, 2017 9:15 am

Sorry, Burl, your theory that financial recessions dictate ENSO periods does not survive real world data.

First of all, NASA has calculated total SO2 emissions every year from 1850 through 2005 and posted their data online. The volumes of SO2 emitted during the 19th century are on a consistent uptick through the post-WWI worldwide recession. There are only five significant global downturns in SO2 emissions, in the early 1920s, the early 1930s, in the late 1940s, in the early 1980s, and then a very long decline beginning in the 1990s (when worldwide pollution controls on power plants and industry became a reality), and a current uptick. So it is true that there is a correlation between global recessions, of which there have been only 5, and significant reductions in SO2, with an additional correlation with environmental regulations that limit SO2 emissions.

However, your model falls apart in its correlation with ENSOs, which have always occurred on a 2-7 year cycle since the late 18th century. Since 1900, the period when global recessions first occurred (as opposed to very limited national or regional recessions), there have been 31 ENSO “periods”, that is, significantly long lasting cool/warm cycles that lasted more than a few months. Far more ENSO periods than global recessions or global downturns in SO2 emissions since the age of global recessions began. Your correlation is extremely weak, really just coincidental.

Reply to  Duane
April 10, 2017 10:58 am

Duane:

The correlation which I find is with respect to the National Bureau of Economic Research listing of 31 recessions and 2 depressions (www.Nber.org/cycles.html).

This is a listing of American business slowdowns, but our economy is so large that the changes are reflected in periods of temporary increases in average global temperatures.

The correlation is exact, and also coincides with every El Nino from 1850 to about 1970, when there have been some El Ninos not associated with a recession, due to Clean Air act reductions in SO2 emissions.

If you Google “El Ninos and La Ninas and Global Warming” by D. Rapp (2014), you will find a graph (Fig. 2) of all El Ninos since 1850. Each peak in the graph coincides with a business slowdown (except as noted above) .

My theory that financial recessions dictate ENSO periods PRECISELY mirrors real world data. It is far from coincidental.

If you have not done so, Google “Climate Change Deciphered” for additional information.

Duane
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 10, 2017 1:47 pm

Again, Burl … note that I am talking about “global recessions”, not individual national or regional recessions which you refer to which are not significant enough to cause a statistically significant world wide drop in total SO2 emissions. Just look at the plot of the SO2 emissions, and it it clear that it is on a very even continuous upward climb except during global recessions. Most of the acceleration in SO2 emissions was in the half century of the post-WWII era. The minor variations from trend of a couple of percent here or there each year are insignificant, just in the noise level and more than likely due to measurement precision.

The chart of SO2 emissions is quite striking. It is quite obvious when the global recessions occur. It does not correlate to ENSO periods.

The other thing, of course, is that it is pretty silly to try and draw this back to 1850 data, just because NOAA has a dataset that goes back to 1850. The total emissions in those mid-19th century numbers are insignificant, could not possibly cause a global weather phenomena like an ENSO period. The tonnage did not even reach 10% of current emissions (on the order of 115,000 tons per year) until the 1890s. Annual variations now nearly equal total emissions in the first part of your study period. And given that the modern economic phenomenon of a global recession did not even occur until 97 years ago, in the post WWI years, it’s simply not valid to even attempt to use the first 50 years of data, or even the first 70 years of data.

What is real obvious is that environmental controls have had by far the biggest effect in depressing SO2 emissions worldwide during the decade of the 1990s, though proportionally the reduction during the Great Depression was of similar size.

Reply to  Duane
April 10, 2017 6:03 pm

Duane:

1. Please give me a link to the chart of SO2 emissions referred to in your second paragraph.

2. Have you read my Climate Change Deciphered essay?

3. What is your explanation for the 10 73 – 3-79 spike in average global temperatures shown in the Hadcrut4 data set?

Reply to  Duane
April 11, 2017 2:45 pm

Duane:

You wrote “Again, Burl….note that I am talking about “global recessions”, not individual national or regional recessions which you refer to which are not significant enough to cause a statistically significant drop in world wide SO2 emissions”.

I have four separate data sets (which are in complete agreement with each other) that show that the recessions that I refer to do ARE coincident with temporary increases in average global temperatures. All of the increases are due to reductions in atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions.

1. GISS: 1880 – 2014
2. Hadcrut4: 1850 – 2014
3. ERSST sea surface temperatures, 1855 – 2014
4. Nino3 Index graph, 1865 – 2014 (according to Cane)

The first 3 sets are SUPPORTIVE of my model that average global temperatures will increase whenever SO2 aerosols are removed from the atmosphere. They are not needed for the actual model, which shows that average global temperatures can be predicted/projected with great accuracy simply by using the “rule of thumb” that temperatures will rise by ,02 deg. C. for each net Megatonne of reductions in global SO2 aerosol emissions.

(The temperature projections are so accurate that there can never have been any additional warming due to “greenhouse gasses”).

The fourth set shows that a reduction in SO2 aerosol emissions is always coincident with an El Nino event.

Eugene WR Gallun
April 9, 2017 8:24 am

All that heat generated at the core of the earth being significant? Why, who could think such a thing? This is a possible explanation of “How” — now some feverish dream of a poet. I like it when a solid mind undertakes a task. The fruits of retirement. Great article.

Eugene WR Gallun

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
April 9, 2017 8:29 am

— not some feverish dream — damn I am a poor foofreader.

Eugene WR Gallun

Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 8:24 am

“California’s Silicon Valley ”

Do you mean the Santa Clara Valley?

Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 8:33 am

Of course

Retired Kit P
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 8:42 am

Ron

You are a little younger than me. Can you identify when that area of California along with the rest of the state was taken over by those out of touch with the natural environment?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 10:30 am

Retired Kit P,
The answer to your question is, probably when the Spanish Jesuits established the Santa Clara Mission and subsequently provided a name for the valley. Only the original aboriginal inhabitants were really in touch with the natural environment.

george e. smith
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 10, 2017 11:53 am

So where is the Santa Clara Valley ?

I know where Silicon Valley is; I live there, and I know where Santa Clara is. It is next door to Sunnyvale, and I know where Sana Clara County is; but I never heard of a Santa Clara Valley.

If this IS a valley, it goes way up past Sacramento, and scoops up a whole host of counties on the way.

G

Gloateus
Reply to  george e. smith
April 10, 2017 12:05 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_Valley#Geology

Long before there was a Silicon Valley, there was the Valley of Heart’s Delight.

My college roommate was Leland Stanford’s great-grand-nephew. His family lived on top of a hill overlooking the Valley.

Tom Halla
Reply to  george e. smith
April 10, 2017 12:21 pm

george, I was born in San Jose, and the valley is called the Santa Clara valley.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
April 14, 2017 11:32 am

So Tom, if you had been born in Sacramento, instead of San Jose, would you still call it Santa Clara Valley ??

G

April 9, 2017 8:24 am

One problem. I examined Maya Tolstoy’s papers and find them very unpersuasive. Cherry picked locales (SE Pacific), dubious observational data, poor statistics. Plus, not enough heat release based on her ‘quantified’ subsea eruptions. If you ‘know’ the quantity of erupted lava, then knowing the temperature of magma you know the quantity of heat per unit lava flow. And can estimate delta seawater temp change from the estimated average depth and hence volume of ocean water. Ocean is huge, tectonic seams tiny by comparison.
If there was a georesonance, it would show up in terrestrial eruptions and earthquakes as well. There is no evidence for this in the geological record from the LGM to the Holocene, anywhere on earth. Let alone everywhere on earth at the same time.
No doubt there is some ‘climate hammer’ for the hard latched cold state. That is a very apt logical decription of ice core data. Kudos. The 800 year ‘clock rate’ lag between temp rise and subsequent CO2 rise is simply Henry’s law working on the thermohaline circulation, which has a single round trip time of ~800 years and provides a natural lag clock rate.

ARW
Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 8:33 am

You also need to consider the heat generation of serpentinatation. Also there are massive amounts of sea water that are cycled through the pile around spreading ridges. It is not just the magma seawater interaction. It includes the constant fight for thermal equilibrium between the thin oceanic crust with a high geothermal gradient and the cold deep ocean.

Reply to  ARW
April 9, 2017 10:16 am

True. But seafloor speading is continuous. We can measure it by the record of magnetic reversals. And between reversals, by the width of the ‘stripes’ and estimated basalic magma volume. This is reasonably well sampled along the mid Atlantic ridge. There is no spreading evidence for the posited resonance.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  ARW
April 9, 2017 10:32 am

ARW,
“serpentinization”

Reply to  ARW
April 9, 2017 8:57 pm

@ristvan But seafloor speading is continuous. We can measure it by the record of magnetic reversals.
Sea floor spreading is continuous, but is the rate constant over the span of 500,000 years? Is our data that good? Is it that well sampled? Have we not calibrated the magnetic reversals by assuming constant sea floor spreading rates and thus engaged in some circular logic?

Thomas Graney
Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 10:07 am

Thanks for answering my question. Where is the geologic record on this uptick in the release of internally stored heat in the form of seismic/volcanic activity?

ARW
Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 10:47 am

The reversals typically occur every 450k years so the time scale encomposes the entire graph x axis in the post. I am not sure that reversals have anything to do with eposodic changes in magma volume. Could be wrong though…

ARW
Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 11:29 am

The reversals typically occur every 450k ( can vary from 0.1 to1 million yrs) years so the time scale encomposes the entire graph x axis in the post. I am not sure that reversals have anything to do with eposodic changes in magma volume. Could be wrong though…

Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 12:36 pm

Terrestrial eruptions took off right before the most recent deglaciation.

See: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3659701/Huybers_FeedbackDeglaciation.pdf?sequence=1

Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 8:55 pm

So what if it’s a combination of things? A “convergence” of the various cycles at the same time? More ocean water becomes ice sheets, ocean levels drop, less pressure on submarine volcanos allows them to erupt more easily, but no “ash clouds” in atmosphere because they are still under water. Just sudden increases in ocean heat content and CO2. Ocean heat rises to surface, which causes out gassing of more CO2 and heat into atmosphere. Melts land ice, ocean levels rise, takes pressure off of land volcanos. What if ocean volcanic activity and land volcanic activity see saw back and forth? Just a few years ago marine scientists discovered evidence that submarine volcanos can erupt VIOLENTLY, which they previously thought was impossible due to the depth/pressure of the ocean water above them.

If this situation aligned with orbital changes and pole reversals and electrical resonance and/ or any number of factors (increased cosmic rays etc?) . Do the various known “cycles” ever converge ,and if they do, at what frequency? Is there a pattern of convergence?

“In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don’t mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along.”

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

Climate scientists do NOT have any idea exactly how much submarine volcanic activity there is, not now, not in the past. So climate models cannot possibly represent it accurately.

BFL
Reply to  ristvan
April 9, 2017 12:43 pm

“No doubt there is some ‘climate hammer’ for the hard latched cold state. That is a very apt logical description of ice core data.”
A logical explanation for the “hammer” has been covered before and implies were it not for the albedo changes the earth would indeed be locked into a permanent ice age with little life on land.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/28/new-paper-modulation-of-ice-ages-via-precession-and-dust-albedo-feedbacks/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

Reply to  ristvan
April 10, 2017 1:37 am

@ristvan,

But there is plenty of evidence of high volcanic activity during the last glacial transition to the Holocene, now dormant Volcanic provinces were active simultaneously (Massif Central in France, Eifel in Germany, Garrotxa in Spain). The 100ka signal is also visible in Nordic sea landslides. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264817204001771

ARW
April 9, 2017 8:27 am

Lots of intersting things happen at spreading ridges. Heat input to the ocean occurs through water interaction with the erupting pile but also very large amounts of heat energy is released through the serpentinization of mafic minerals. Interestingly to serpentinize a tonne of those minerals you need approx a tonne of CO2. Episodic increases or decreases in spreading ridge activity would be an input perhaps of some significance

Reply to  ARW
April 9, 2017 9:00 pm

Spreading ridges AND converging boundaries. Not to mention hot spots in the center of plates and hot deep ocean venting.

“If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans than there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes.”
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine

Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 8:36 am

“From an Electrical Engineering standpoint….”

I am also a retired engineer. I have a bid problems with engineers and those who have been successful in one field think that it translates to other areas.

It is like Jane Fonda being an expert on nuclear power.

I understand why actors and journalists are idiots but engineers are suppose to follow logical thinking.

Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 8:47 am

Stepping out of the box. Future Models of the climate may actually come to have ligament predictive value within a new paradigm

Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 8:52 am

And then there’s the climate scientists who think they understand electrical engineering concepts, for example, feedback. And don’t forget the politicians who think they understand science.

Patrick Powers
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 9, 2017 10:27 am

And the IPCC concept of feedback has been blown out of the water only recently…

Menicholas
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 9, 2017 7:04 pm

It has always been obvious to anyone who thought about it rationally that tipping points leading to disastrous warming do not happen when CO2 rises in the atmosphere.
All you have to do is look at the geologic record.
To be a warmista, you have to studiously ignore a great deal of information.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 9, 2017 8:08 pm

“And the IPCC concept of feedback has been blown out of the water only recently…”

Well, I explained the errors to Schlesinger over a decade ago, so I’m pretty sure he knows that there are problems. One is the linearity Bode requires between the input (forcing in W/m^2) and output (temperature in K) and the other is the assumption by Bode of an implicit source of Joules (other than the input/Sun) to power the gain, Both of these prerequisites are spelled out in the first two paragraphs of his book, yet consensus climate science denies that they are actual requirements.

Ian Watson
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:01 am

I’m a little puzzled,….. So if Engineers are supposed to follow logical thinking, then why is that ability only limited to their own specific field of expertise ?

Or is it because there is nothing logical about the AGW paranoia that can be “thought about” ?

stevekeohane
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:05 am

Physics is physics, the Hanoi Jane comparison isn’t equivalent. I’ll bet photolith wasn’t available for study when Ron was in school. Interesting ideas Ron, thank you.

Steamboat McGoo
Reply to  stevekeohane
April 9, 2017 2:03 pm

On the nose, stevekeohane. A more apt comparison would be ” … like Jane Fonda being an expert on the public reading of poetry.” Being an actress, she’d apply the same knowledge & techniques used in acting.

Steve Kaufman
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 9:57 am

“I have a bid(g) problem(s) with engineers and those who have been successful in one field think that it translates to other areas.”
Regardless of the engineering discipline, the process of education and training to obtain an engineering degree gives an engineer a unique ability to practice the application of scientific principles to solve real life problems where otherwise the science alone may not adequately provide an answer. Thus, in Canada (at least) a degree in Engineering is a bachelor of “applied” science BASc. In my opinion a very important aspect of the engineering process is the aspect of not only “logical” but critical thinking. So I applaud Mr Voisin for his very insightful thoughts and observations on the topic of “climate change”. I for one have been very skeptical of the dubious idea that anthropogenic CO2 could result in the catastrophic consequences speculated by the so called “climate experts”. I find it very insightful that Mr Voisin has expanded the boundaries for the influences of the earth’s climate to include factors beyond the earth’s atmospheric sphere.

ferdberple
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 10:50 am

problems with engineers
==================
I disagree.

Looking at the climate signal in the diagram provided, the waveform looks a whole lot like what one would expect from some sort of simple RC timing circuit. A transistor turns on to suddenly pull the circuit high, and a resistor slowly bleeds to pull the circuit low. So an electrical engineer might have insight into what is going on, that anyone that hasn’t worked with RC circuits might completely miss.

Sure, the signal isn’t an exact match for an RC signal, but it very much suggests that the warming pulse is a completely different mechanism than the gradual cooling. The gradual cooling is no problem to explain, the energy is gradually lost to space.

So the question becomes, where does the very large amount of energy come from to create the warming pulse? Either it comes from the Sun, or it comes from the Earth, by simple process of elimination. From what I read, this article is suggesting the energy comes from the Earth.

Paul Blase
Reply to  ferdberple
April 9, 2017 1:41 pm

It’s coming from the Earth, triggered by external orbital conditions and tidal stresses.

James Francisco
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 11:38 am

Kit. Good thing those two bicycle mechanics from Ohio didn’t think that way.

Paul Blase
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 9, 2017 1:40 pm

Systems of different types often follow similar rules. For instance electrical flow is often analogized as fluid flow, and electric circuit simulators are used to model heat flow. If you see a sawtooth waveform in temperature it is likely that it is caused by a mechanism similar to an electrical sawtooth signal generator. Not exact, but enough so that the math works.

george e. smith
Reply to  Retired Kit P
April 10, 2017 11:57 am

You tell ’em KP !

G

benben
April 9, 2017 8:49 am

Hi! Interesting approach. Have you tried reading up on the current explanation of the climate? Not as it is understood in the right wing blogosphere, but rather as it is understood by atmospheric physicists. You might find it illuminating! It’s the classic textbook, required reading for most college level classes on this topic. Contains all the engineering level mechanisms and equations that you would be interested in.

https://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Chemistry-Physics-Pollution-Climate/dp/1118947401

Cheers,
Ben

PS In another comment thread I had someone complain that the book was didn’t contain any real science. But that person only read the introduction paragraph to the introductory chapter. Obviously the meat and potatoes is in the rest of the book.

Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 8:55 am

Does it describe massive deglaciation occurring in one observational clock-cycle?

Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 8:57 am

Except that the atmosphere is only a tiny part of the climate system and certainly doesn’t drive it, but only responds to conditions. In order of importance, it’s the Sun, the oceans, the land and finally the atmosphere.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 9:02 am

So, pretty much your standard Warmist propaganda posing as science then?

benben
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:02 am

Ron, it has nothing to do with deglaciation. It’s just chemistry and physics, as applied to the particular conditions found in the atmosphere, and stuff that follows from that. There is nothing about policy or any other stuff that the crowd here might find particularly offensive. But I do feel that for a science site, it would pay to be a bit more aware of the fundamentals. Feel free to click on the link and look at the index to satisfy your curiosity as to what kind of stuff environmental scientists deal with.

The author of the above piece is an electrical engineer. Would he take an article serious about the specifics of a subfield of his profession, written by an engineer from a totally different field that hadn’t even taken the effort of looking through the basic introductory textbooks in electrical engineering? I think not!

Reg Nelson
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:38 am

In a way you are right. There have always been gatekeepers in science. Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist, and his theory of plate tectonics wasn’t taken serious by mainstream geologists.

What matters in the end is whose theory can be independently verified through experiment or observation. That;s the Scientific Method. That’s science.

Not only do the individual CMIP5 models not agree with reality, they don’t even agree with one another other. You don’t have to climate scientist to see the that the Earth’s climate is poorly understood at this point. It’s also obvious that climate scientist suffer from confirmation bias. This was clearly made evident in the Climategate emails. Unfortunately the field of climate science has been corrupted by politics.

Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:45 am

If I were to criticize his effort it would be about the content of his effort and not the nature of his credentials.

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:56 am

Why do you prefer that textbook? There are lots of atmospheric physics and chemistry texts, such as this one:

https://www.elsevier.com/books/fundamentals-of-atmospheric-physics/salby/978-0-12-615160-2

Which one did distinguished atmospheric physicist Lindzen use at MIT for his undergrad classes?

At present, MIT uses Seinfeld, which mentions “climate change” in its title.

http://textbooksearch.mit.edu/class/12.306

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:59 am

John H. Seinfeld is at Cal Tech, so it’s not a case of the course prof at MIT requiring students to buy his own textbook.

http://cheme.che.caltech.edu/faculty/seinfeld_j/

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 11:01 am

Make that Caltech, in case anyone wants to quibble.

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 11:17 am

So maybe that’s why you selected it.

He’s a specialist on air pollution.

getitright
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 11:59 am

Would you mean examples like the Undertaker “Strowger” who undertook to develop the automated telephone exchange.
Didn’t hear about too many engineers complaining about that one.
Actually, there are hundreds of such examples of motivated “non experts” radically changing the status quo. Without them there would likely be very little advancement.

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 1:44 pm

CACA adherents have no trouble with the steam engineer Callendar, because he shared their belief in AGW, although he was heretical by today’s standards because he, like Arrhenius before him, thought man-made warming was very much a good thing.

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 3:39 pm

getitright April 9, 2017 at 11:59 am

On the planet inhabitated by Benben and Griff, such giants as Copernicus, Steno, Leeuwenhoek, Buffon, Lavoisier, Hutton, Faraday, Darwin and Einstein, among many other notables, were not scientists because they didn’t have scientific, medical or mathematical PhDs at the time of their achievements, or ever. Or any college degrees at all in some cases. Copernicus’ doctorate was in canon law.

And what are we make of David H. Levy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Levy

He, like Mosher, was an English grad, but he went on to practice science and the scientific method, rather than to try to change the method, like Mosher.

benben
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 3:55 pm

Hey Ron, didn’t connect the dots that you were the authors. Ha. Well, let’s review this critically shall we? The crux of your piece is the following, where you identify the gap:

“From an Electrical Engineering standpoint, this highly latched cold state cannot be abruptly changed by the subtle and nuanced solar-radiative perturbations being so widely examined. It takes a hammer – a climate hammer. Somehow, some much more powerful driver has come into play.”

What I would expect you to do is to say: ABC is the current mechanism that is used to explain the phenomena under investigation (REFERENCE), however, if you compare the energies of X and Y you will see there is a delta Z, which is a lot larger than the uncertainty margins of X and Y, so we can conclude the conventional explanation is wrong. I here propose an alternative, which is able to produce required energy via the mechanism {some qualitative and quantitative stuff}.

You haven’t actually done any of that. So it’s nice for the WUWT crowd, that just want some alternative hypotheses to sustain their beliefs science is wrong, but it doesn’t actually add anything to our understanding of the earth systems. Sad! 😉

Cheers,
Ben

Latitude
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 5:30 pm

“Have you tried reading up on the current explanation of the climate?”

…and from here you proceed to ‘splain a theory that has totally failed

benben
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 5:35 pm

Hey it’s fine if you can do that. But do it with actual references and actual calculations, not just ‘assume that it has failed and take it from there’.

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 5:41 pm

Ben,

He is not assuming anything. He’s just stating a fact.

Climate models have failed miserably. They’re a bad, trillion-dollar joke. Or would be had they not cost so many lives as well as wasted so much treasure.

Latitude
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 6:07 pm

failed is not an assumption……

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 6:11 pm

Still valid despite the rapidly fading 2015/6 Super El Nino bounce:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
comment image?zoom=2

Gloateus
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 6:12 pm

Is this a truly epic failure, or merely abjectly miserable? You be the judge:
comment image?zoom=2

Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 9:04 pm

You’re not a climate scientist benben. You are an assistant professor in Public Administration.

And you lie too. No one said the book had no science in it. They did however challenge YOU to present some of the science in the book that YOU “believe” anyone here disagrees with. You continually avoid doing that. Why?

benben
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 12:01 am

now now Aphan, no need to get testy. I’ve always said I’m an environmental scientist and I’ll keep saying that. This bizarre addition of yours that I’m somehow in public administration comes solely from your mind. Yes, there is plenty in the book that you would not agree with. I direct your attention to chapter 21. Go read it, and we can have a discussion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 8:05 am

benben,
You miss the point. Unless you offer some carrot to entice people to take time to do what you suggest, they will ignore you. Just because you recommend some action, you shouldn’t expect people to follow through. There are plenty of things to occupy people’s time and we all have to prioritize. You will get a low priority if all you do is say, “Read the index,” or “Read Chapter 21.” You either don’t understand how people function, or you think so highly of yourself that you feel any recommendation you make should be sufficient to make people snap to attention and say, “How high, sir?”

beng135
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 9:00 am

benben says:
I’ve always said I’m an environmental scientist

IOW, you specialize in communication/indoctrination/propaganda w/a smattering of high-school science?

M.W.Plia.
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 2:20 pm

Upthread Benben said: “PS In another comment thread I had someone complain that the book was didn’t contain any real science. But that person only read the introduction paragraph to the introductory chapter. Obviously the meat and potatoes is in the rest of the book.”

The comment thread Ben is referring to follows Tim Ball’s essay April 3 and I’m “that person” and here’s what I said:

“Ben, I read some pages from your recommended book online. In the chapter on climate the authors give a brief, simplified explanation of “the scare” where the water vapor feedback/amplification “triggered” by AGW will cause unprecedented warming, possibly melting enough ice to flood the coasts. IMHO this is fear mongering, and I don’t understand the reasoning behind such an extraordinary claim, there is no evidence, and if there is I welcome your explanation.”

Ben then demanded references, exact pages etc. He is correct, the offending paragraphs are found in the intro section. They are “Chapter 1: The Atmosphere”, sub section “1.2 Climate”, first or second page.

https://books.google.ca/books/about/Atmospheric_Chemistry_and_Physics.html?id=YH2K9eWsZOcC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falsegoogle

Books.google does not allow cut and paste (could be my problem) and there are no page #s. so I’ll paraphrase some more:

In response to AGW the authors of this book suggest we could experience temperatures higher than the previous 6,000 years, perhaps as far back as the dinosaurs. The increase in CO2 will bring climatic extremes…more intense, more frequent and longer lasting heat waves, coastal flooding from sea levels higher by as much as 5-6 meters….I repeat, IMHO this is fear mongering.

Just when all this was supposed to happen wasn’t made clear, but you get the drift. When I choose a science book to read I always peruse the intros…In this case, Ben, your book wouldn’t pass the smell test, but that’s just me.

And Ben, we welcome your input. I’m sure I speak for many, keep the comments coming.

Regards, M.W.Plia.

Sheri
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 2:16 pm

Presented by a true believer and slanted in the AGW direction. The words “climate change” and “air pollution” clearly indicate a political bias. How about one that addresses ONLY the physics and chemistry, without the political slant?

benben
Reply to  Sheri
April 9, 2017 3:56 pm

how about you look at the index of the book and see for yourself what it covers?

richardscourtney
Reply to  Sheri
April 10, 2017 5:39 am

benben:

You ask

how about you look at the index of the book and see for yourself what it covers?

You were the first to mention that irrelevant book and you commended it, but you have studiously and repeatedly avoided stating or explaining the contents of that book which you think merit purchase and study of it.

And your wasting space in this thread on the irrelevant book strongly suggests you have nothing worth saying about the subject of this thread, so few reading the thread will value your judgement.

No sensible person will bother to “look at the index of the book” unless and until you provide some reason to spend time doing it.

Richard

Beliaik
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 5:38 pm

Zealots always seem to have a favorite book…

John
April 9, 2017 8:52 am

Some climate hammers that might be involved are:
Supervolcanos: http://www.chriscunnings.com/uploads/2/0/7/7/20773630/supervolcano_1.pdf
and asteroid strikes: http://www.space.com/31867-asteroid-strike-mini-ice-age.html
While it is generally thought that these could cause an ice age, what if earth was already in an ice age? Would not the particulates thrown into the air reduce the albedo significantly, perhaps sufficiently to ‘turn the corner’ into an interglacial?
Obviously, such an occasion would have more effect in an ice covered area as opposed to nearer the equator. Maybe someone should try to time the known events vs climate to see if a significant climate change resulted. Especially around the Younger Dryas.

Reply to  John
April 9, 2017 9:00 am

A problem with asteroids is the 100ky clockwork of deglaciations. However, Supervolcanos would appropriately accompany bulk-Earth-resonant kicks to interglacial.

David S
Reply to  John
April 9, 2017 9:30 am

Volcanoes produce lots of dust and CO2. The ice core records do show lots of dust prior to the sudden temperature spikes but not CO2.comment image
The dust could also be a result of a dry atmosphere with little precipitation to remove the dust.

Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 9:42 am

When the poop hits the resonant fan, first comes volcanic dust (and volcanic CO2 that is quickly absorbed in essentially real-time by the oceans and biosphere), then comes CO2 after the oceans warm for 800 years.

Rhoda R
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 2:03 pm

The problem I have with the dust theory is the rapid climb out of the glaciation period. If dust were the motivating force I’d expect a slow climb. But I’m not wedded to this, I just haven’t seen dust cover causing rapid warming explained.

Macha
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 3:58 pm

There is more than one type of vulcanism, effusive being one that has been suggested can trigger rapid climate change. See chapter here…http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/abrupt-climate-warming.html. As for drivers of climate, that depends a lot on the definition applied. Perhaps Influencers of climate might be a better phrase in order to close the gap between climate and weather… PS. I look forward to the end of CO2 being so vilified and so often called carbon. MSM and polticians.. Bah.

Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 4:33 pm

David, in recent times Pinatubo has been the largest volcano. Can you tell me why co2 levels fell instead of increased ? Or at least should have held steady with anthropogenic co2 ?

Gloateus
Reply to  John
April 9, 2017 9:54 am

There is no valid evidence of an asteroid strike at the YD. That cooling was no different from the Older and Middle Dryas events which preceded it, the 8.2 Ka event after it and other abrupt changes during previous deglaciations.

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 10:31 am

Deglaciation occurs over thousands of years, with steep meltwater pulses and intervals of less thawing or none in between them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A

The floods are like the Bretz Floods which drained glacial Lake Missoula, except on continental scale rather than in an ice-dammed mountain valley. Geologists use the Icelandic word “jökulhlaup” (‘glacier run’) to describe outburst glacial floods.
comment image

So termination is a stepped process, with a long-term background rate of melting punctuated by centuries of more rapid deglaciation, or at least release of water, which could have been stored behind and ice dam or other such obstruction.

The English Channel was created by an overtopping flood during a previous deglaciation, for example, when the North Sea had to flow south catastrophically, meltwater from the British and Scandinavian ice sheets still being blocked by ice to its north.

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 10:32 am

I should say the Strait of Dover, not the whole Channel, although its bathymetry or topography was altered by the flood.

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 10:40 am

Between 10 and 9 Ka, melting slowed:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/f/freidel/global/fig%20113.2.JPG

Dunno if these are calendar or 14C years before present, but assume calendar.

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 3:29 pm

Note that here we are more than 11,000 years into an interglacial and still only one of the four North American ice sheets has totally disappeared, if you distinguish between the Innutian and Laurentide ISs.

The Greenland IS is still largely intact, as mentioned. There is a small remnant of the Innutian in the high Canadian Arctic and a larger relic of the Cordilleran in the mountains of the Rockies and Alaska. Only the Laurentide has disappeared without a trace, although a rebounding Hudson’s Bay shows where its dome used to be.

Even in the Eemian Interglacial, longer and warmer than the Holocene so far, the GIS stayed together. Only its southern dome melted about 25% more than at present.

Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 9:07 pm

What if the supposed asteroid impact sites are really volcanic calderas collapsing? Out gassing, unbelievable heat escape? Gas tsunamis on land?…

Griff
April 9, 2017 8:56 am

I think that you just can’t invent your own science…

Nor can someone who invents their own science be given the same credence detailed scientific research from trained scientists deserves.

ReallySkeptical
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 9, 2017 5:55 pm

“especially since you are too timid to put your name to your claims.”

Be forewarned Geo Rubik, Gloateus, Allen63, 0ldgriz, Retired Kit P, PiperPaul, The Old Man, Graemethecat, HotScot, Rob, rbabcock, Steamboat McGoo, Sunsettommy, getitright, leftturnandre, commieBob, ristvan, ARW, BFL, benben, Latitude, Macha, and rishrac.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Anthony Watts
April 10, 2017 3:48 am

Really ReallySkeptical?

Gloateus
Reply to  Griff
April 9, 2017 11:13 am

Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote his most important papers.

One of his three heroes was Faraday, an apprentice bookbinder and bookseller.

What matters is whether you can support your hypothesis by making testable predictions capable of being shown false or confirmed. That’s the scientific method.

Argument from authority is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Need I quote Feynman to you?

Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 1:12 pm

Albert Einstein said: “The special theory of relativity owes its origins to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.”

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 1:31 pm

Yup. Hence his choice of heroes, all British. Englishman Newton, for his theory of universal gravitation; Englishman Faraday for experimental electromagnetism, and Scot Maxwell for the theory thereof, all relevant to Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Gloateus
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 1:39 pm

Their lives overlapped except for the ~65-year gap in the 18th century between Newton and Faraday. Aged just 48, Maxwell died in November 1879, when Einstein was about eight months old.

Menicholas
Reply to  Gloateus
April 9, 2017 7:37 pm

In addition to being ignorant of Earth history, a warmista needs to be completely illiterate of human history, most specifically the history of science, as well.
But also what is known about human history as it relates to changes in climate.
It is really astounding.

Sheri
Reply to  Griff
April 9, 2017 2:25 pm

Newton and Leibniz created calculus. Creating math, creating science. Not much difference there. Plus, all the statistics used in those way-off AGW models were made by mathemeticians. Einstein came up with relativity—he was patent clerk, as previous commenters noted. Yet I don’t see AGW fans dissing Newton, statistics or Einstein because they “made things up”. Admit it. It’s about the conclusion, and ONLY the conclusion. Who spoke is totally irrelevant if they agree with AGW. Even terrorists groups are mentioned as “supporting climate change”. This just makes you look sooooo desperate.

(By the way, I’m still available to debate the real science.)

Gloateus
Reply to  Sheri
April 9, 2017 2:34 pm

Newton invented calculus in the pursuit of explaining his physics. Another new field of mathematics, statistics, was invented or discovered to explain evolution. Physics has calculus and biology has statistics to describe their fundamental theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostatistics#History

Menicholas
Reply to  Sheri
April 9, 2017 10:18 pm

Dang, just had a long post written that got erased.
You can draw a straight line between Newton and Einstein that encapsulates all of the scientific advances, and the industrial revolution, and continues to today.
But that line did not begin with newton…it began with Nicolaus Copernicus.
He was the guy that got the ball rolling that led to Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, and it was that work that inspired and propelled Newton to invent classical mechanics with his three laws of motion, invent his theory of universal gravitation to explain and refine Kepler’s work, and invented calculus to do those other three things.

Gloateus
Reply to  Sheri
April 10, 2017 11:42 am

Nicholas,

Yes, modern science publishing began in the miraculous year of 1543, with Copernicus in the physical sciences and Vesalius in life science.

Canon Copernicus first formulated his hypothesis some 36 years earlier, and spent the intervening time gathering evidence in support of it. He could have gone to press sooner, but was afraid of the reaction of Church officials.

He had enemies, who for instance accused him of carnal relations with his housekeeper, who was his cousin.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  Griff
April 9, 2017 3:28 pm

The Credo of Consensus Climate Science —

If you pile lie, on top of lie, on top of lie, eventually you will reach a higher Truth.

Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Griff
April 9, 2017 4:26 pm

Griff.

Folks can invent their own science. But here is the clue. Nobody will use it unless it

1) Comports with what is already known
2. Explains things better than existing theory

So, folks can waste their time trying to build their own climate science.. nobody will use it,
build on it, and use it in place of what we already know.

Judith Curry suggests we just ignore fringe science. That’s a good idea.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 10, 2017 3:51 am

“Steven Mosher April 9, 2017 at 4:26 pm

Griff.

Folks can invent their own science. But here is the clue. Nobody will use it unless it

1) Comports with what is already known”

Or in other words “agrees” with “consensus”.Yeah, I agree 97% with that!

benben
Reply to  Griff
April 9, 2017 8:32 pm

For a large part, a lot of people here seem to not know how much is backing up the climate change stuff. It’s interesting, I’ve been trying to get the WUWT crowd to look into one of the basic atmospheric physics textbooks (seinfeld & pandis), but so far no luck. Not even a peek into the index. Almost as if they like pretending we are social scientists so much they don’t want to ruin that for themselves by looking at the textbook and being confronted by actual thermodynamics.

But I’m always happy to explore if there is some common ground to be found, so I keep occasionally commenting here. Anonymously, because that is the way I prefer it.

Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 9:09 pm

You ARE a social scientist benben. Physical sciences too hard for you?

Menicholas
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:20 pm

How do you know no one has looked at it…because they did not report to you on it?

Menicholas
Reply to  benben
April 9, 2017 10:24 pm

Trust me…plenty of us just ignore you but will look at a book.
You see, we are the sort who read books all the time.
But here is the thing: As Curry and Lindzen have let us all know, the colleges and universities are not teaching climate scientists to be unbiased practitioners of science, but instead are indoctrinating them into what to believe.
Hard to do without textbooks that hew to this indoctrination.
It is easy to connect the dots when you have a solid education from before this whole propaganda avalanche began.

benben
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 12:07 am

You see, I always come to this site in the hope that you guys give me something interesting to think about. What part in my textbooks is propaganda? I think nothing, but I’d be happy to find parts that are. What I’m trying to get out of this is that a skeptic will look at my books and tell me exactly what in that book is wrong. But nobody here seems to be able to do that. Menicholas, you see, this is why I know you haven’t actually looked trough it. I don’t see the propaganda in there. Just reaction kinetics etc. etc. But I would LOVE for you to prove me wrong!

Aphan, please control yourself or just stop commenting. Clearly the book is full of physics and chemistry. And yet you think I’m a social scientist?

richardscourtney
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 5:55 am

benben:

You say

For a large part, a lot of people here seem to not know how much is backing up the climate change stuff. It’s interesting, I’ve been trying to get the WUWT crowd to look into one of the basic atmospheric physics textbooks (seinfeld & pandis), but so far no luck. Not even a peek into the index. Almost as if they like pretending we are social scientists so much they don’t want to ruin that for themselves by looking at the textbook and being confronted by actual thermodynamics.

But I’m always happy to explore if there is some common ground to be found, so I keep occasionally commenting here. Anonymously, because that is the way I prefer it.

OK. So you are again again to disrupt this thread by selling an irrelevant book.

To save you having to find my above response to your earlier attempt, I copy it to here.

benben:

You ask

how about you look at the index of the book and see for yourself what it covers?

You were the first to mention that irrelevant book and you commended it, but you have studiously and repeatedly avoided stating or explaining the contents of that book which you think merit purchase and study of it.

And your wasting space in this thread on the irrelevant book strongly suggests you have nothing worth saying about the subject of this thread, so few reading the thread will value your judgement.

No sensible person will bother to “look at the index of the book” unless and until you provide some reason to spend time doing it.

Richard

Richard

benben
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 9:40 am

ha, only on WUWT, which claims it is a science website, would the discussion of an actual textbook used by the scientific community be declared as irrelevant.

Richard, this textbook is the introductory book on the physics and chemistry behind the most important of the processes in the atmosphere.

Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 10:04 am

The really important thing to remember Ben Ben, is that adjusting the temperature record to support the chemistry and physics isn’t science. If we had another year like 1936, CAGW would be all over it as proof. Probably one of the worst years ever for extreme weather. And is there really a huge difference between now and 1923 when the Arctic was 10 F warmer ? You remember the warnings about collapsing ice sheets and glaciers? Because they were melting big time. Or how seaports would be flooded ? Without global cooling shortly thereafter, those events would have already happened.

richardscourtney
Reply to  benben
April 10, 2017 11:33 am

benben:

As you say it is an INTRODUCTORY book.
That is why we need some justification for spending time reading it.

Clearly, your brainpower is so little that you difficulty understanding the point, so let me try this.

It is obvious that you would benefit from a primer on elementary reading. To that end, I offer you this link to a selection of nursery rhymes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/learning/schoolradio/subjects/earlylearning/nurserysongs
If that is too high a level for your ability then I will offer you something less difficult.

Richard

john harmsworth
Reply to  Griff
April 11, 2017 12:14 pm

Michael Mann invented his own anti-science. Is that close enough for you, Griff?

Janice The American Elder
April 9, 2017 9:05 am

When I was in college I took several Physics courses. This was about 35 years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy on this. However, the professor was talking about the continental plates, and the theories about continental drift. We did some calculations in class, and if the plates moved as quickly as the geologists said they did, there would be enormous amounts of heat released, because of the friction at the bottom and edges of the continental plates. I’ve never seen anything that indicates that continental plates were moving faster, during the beginning of our recent inter-glacial, but maybe nobody thought to look for correlations.

Reply to  Janice The American Elder
April 9, 2017 10:31 am

I’ve asked for such a thing in the past. Is there more tectonic activity at the deglaciations?

Gloateus
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 10:45 am

Ron,

There is a large literature on this connection or lack thereof.

Here’s a recent paper on the effect of deglaciation on Andean arc stratovolcanoes.

The magmatic and eruptive response of arc volcanoes to deglaciation: Insights from southern Chile

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/44/4/251.full

In tectonic settings where decompression melting drives magmatism, there is compelling evidence that changes in ice loading or water loading across glacial-interglacial cycles modulate volcanic activity. In contrast, the response of subduction-related volcanoes remains unclear. A high-resolution postglacial eruption record from a large Chilean stratovolcano, Mocho-Choshuenco, provides new insight into the arc magmatic response to ice-load removal. Following deglaciation, we identify three distinct phases of activity characterized by different eruptive fluxes, sizes, and magma compositions. Phase 1 (13–8.2 ka) was dominated by large dacitic and rhyolitic explosive eruptions. During phase 2 (7.3–2.9 ka), eruptive fluxes were lower and dominated by moderate-scale basaltic andesite eruptions. Since 2.4 ka (phase 3), eruptive fluxes have been elevated and of more intermediate magmas. We suggest that this time-varying behavior reflects changes in magma storage time scales, modulated by the changing crustal stress field. During glaciation, magma stalls and differentiates to form large, evolved crustal reservoirs. Following glacial unloading, much of the stored magma erupts (phase 1). Subsequently, less-differentiated magma infiltrates the shallow crust (phase 2). As storage time scales increase, volcanism returns to more evolved compositions (phase 3). Data from other Chilean volcanoes show a similar tripartite pattern of evacuation, relaxation, and recovery, suggesting that this could be a general feature of previously glaciated arc volcanoes.

Macha
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 4:02 pm

Some charts and links on vulcanism here..,http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/abrupt-climate-warming.html

David L. Hagen
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 5:00 pm

Ron Voisin and Gloateus
Excellent explorations on step changes and their causes:
From your link: http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/44/4/251.full

Following deglaciation, we identify three distinct phases of activity characterized by different eruptive fluxes, sizes, and magma compositions. Phase 1 (13–8.2 ka) was dominated by large dacitic and rhyolitic explosive eruptions. During phase 2 (7.3–2.9 ka), eruptive fluxes were lower and dominated by moderate-scale basaltic andesite eruptions. Since 2.4 ka (phase 3), eruptive fluxes have been elevated and of more intermediate magmas.

Together that appears to have similar time periods to your 18 ka.

I endorse the idea of exploring
1) periodic eruptions of super volcanoes and step changes/jerks in tectonic plate movement, such as due to subduction jerks.

On heating, see possible correlation with
2) solar cycles causing UV changes (~10% or more) which cause cloud changes.
3) Similarly periodic changes in Galactic Cosmic Rays which cause cloud changes.
4) Reversals of earth’s magnetic field.
See Svensmark on Cosmoclimatology and Nir Shaviv

Menicholas
Reply to  Janice The American Elder
April 9, 2017 10:31 pm

Janice, what you may have not been taking into account (or maybe you were?) in those calculations is that the continents were not plowing through stationary mantle rock, but being carried along and pushed by the convection currents of the mantle convection cells.
There is friction, plenty of it, especially in places like the subduction zones. We see the result…the ring of fire, with all manner of volcanoes and huge earthquakes in a huge circle.
I think we can be pretty sure that the continents are moving just like geologists say they do.
And that whatever heating should be taking place…is taking place.

george e. smith
Reply to  Janice The American Elder
April 10, 2017 12:22 pm

So using your several Physics courses learning, can you explain how Tectonic Plate relative motion can be so much faster, as to generate heat by friction, than the thermal conductivity of the rocks and magma can dissipate by three dimensional diffusion (conduction) to the rest of the earth’s crust ??

Seems to me, that thermal conductivity, as slow as it is, is very much faster than (relative) Tectonic movement.

G

co2islife
April 9, 2017 9:06 am

How do we explain such complex issues to the average voter?

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/

J Mac
Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2017 11:07 am

CO2islife,
Thanks for the link – much useful information presented!

Sheri
Reply to  co2islife
April 9, 2017 2:34 pm

It took a war to shut down the propaganda machine in Europe mid-last century.

whiten
April 9, 2017 9:11 am

Oh, very interesting.
For me the most interesting is the logical gate schematics offered..

For best of me it seems like a three state to two state conversion, if I am not wrong….a conversion from trinary to binary logic processing……and conversion…

But when at it the scheme provide it is not good enough for the task and it lacks the coherence….aka no valuable and validated for the purpose, even in its simplicity….a wrong one to rely and use for the purpose, especially in the engineering context…..

A logical scheme as such is far more complex and different in essential, far much more than the one offered here………with a much different implication….

cheers

David S
April 9, 2017 9:21 am

I’m a retired mechanical engineer. I’ve often thought the temperature record over the past 600K years looks like a damped spring mass system that gets whacked by a hammer every 100k years or so. The temperature suddenly spikes upward and then oscillates up and down while being slowly damped out and gradually returning to the original condition. So we agree on the hammer concept. But what is the hammer? The author’s theory is possible but far from proven. Sometimes in science the correct answer is ” I dunno”.
For me that’s where we are.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 10:41 am

David S,
Milankovitch eccentricity? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Gloateus
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 2:14 pm

If eccentricity rule, then we’re in for a very long interglacial, with concomitant “catastrophic” natural global warming. But not to worry. IMO obliquity rules.

David S
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 4:17 pm

The glaciation and de-glaciation periods seem to be worldwide. But would eccentricity cause significantly more or less isolation over the entire globe over the course of a year? I don’t think it would. But I could be persuaded one way or the other if the data supports it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 5:17 pm

David S,
Consider that if the orbit were perfectly circular, the Earth TOA would receive the same amount of insolation every month. However, if the orbit were highly eccentric, then then Earth would receive considerably less insolation during apogee (because of the inverse-square law) and the hemisphere tilted towards the sun during the apogee will receive much less than the hemisphere tilted towards the sun during perigee. Because the seasons will be changed by the change in orbital velocity, total insolation integrated over time will have to be calculated to determine the quantitative impact. I’m not going to take the time to do that.

Menicholas
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 10:40 pm

The author states that the whole Earth was cooler during the glacial advances, as were the oceans.
But I do not think that total insolation in the tropics was much different than now.
I think it was still very hot in those places.
I think places like Florida even, have species of trees that would be extinct if it was much colder for a long time. Like even a single week. I have specific examples of anyone cares for them.
Same is true for the latitudes closer to the equator. Stuff that is there that cannot survive at much colder temps than they see now.
I think it was plenty hot and humid in the tropics, even then…that is where the moisture for a two mile icecap came from.
Things were different, but mainly at the poles.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 11:26 pm

>>
. . . then Earth would receive considerably less insolation during apogee . . . .
<<

Apogee is the wrong term. Apogee and perigee refer to objects orbiting the Earth. The general terms are apoapsis and periapsis. For objects orbiting the Sun (like the Earth) the terms are aphelion and perihelion.

This site (http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/) gives the measured values of TSI. Notice that during January 3, 2017 (Earth’s last perihelion) the TSI was 1407.4323 W/m^2, and during July 3, 2016 (Earth’s last aphelion) the TSI was 1316.5551 W/m^2.

Jim

Menicholas
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
April 9, 2017 11:49 pm

Jim, what is the difference in insolation near the Equator at various times of the year, and how does this vary as the Milankovich cycles do their thing?

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 11:19 am

“I dunno” is a correct answer, but doesn’t provide any hypotheses to study and test. Don’t quit at ‘I dunno’, but look for possible explanations. Then try to disprove them.

David S
Reply to  Kalifornia Kook
April 9, 2017 8:56 pm

I’ll keep looking, but until I find an answer I can prove I’ll stick with I dunno. In my opinion science has been passing off conjecture as fact e.g. CAGW. In another example scientists claim dark energy provides the explanation for why the expansion of the universe is accelerating, even though the existence of dark energy has never been proven. And now other scientists using newer equipment are saying hold the phone the expansion is not accelerating after all.

The point is jumping on board a theory before it is proven is a waste of time and energy and is a disservice to everyone. So if I don’t know I’ll just say I dunno.

Menicholas
Reply to  Kalifornia Kook
April 9, 2017 10:42 pm

David S,
That is the difference between you and people that are forever famous because they came up with paradigm changing ideas and advanced all of humanity in the process.

Rhoda R
Reply to  David S
April 9, 2017 2:08 pm

It’s a good start though. Sometimes the questions raised are more important than the questions answered.

April 9, 2017 9:38 am

Maybe it is a combination of very low CO2 and high albedo being overcome by orbital forcing and subtle phenomena, such as continental shelves covered by ice fields sagging under the weight of ice, which puts the ice edges in more contact with warmer sea water? I’m just speculating.

Cliffgobbitt
Reply to  fernandoleanme
April 9, 2017 11:41 am

Fernando
your comment gave me food for thought. The rapid increase in snow and subsequent ice at the north polar region at the onset of glaciation must be substantial enough to cause kilometer thick ice over a large area. The accumulation of ice mass precedes the isostatic sinking. The moist snowy period gives way to a dry, low humidity, and declining co2 atmosphere with average temperatures 6c lower. The ice sheet and land ice sheets will sink slowly during and following ice sheet development. The geography of north Atlantic and north west Pacific oceanic contact with the ice sheet will provide a long period of ice melt. I would think the isostatic sinking to equilibrium would take in the order of thousands of years but the ice melt a lot longer. Is the time constant for this process in the order of 100ka? My thoughts about glaciation are that to sustain high snowfall long enough to build the ice sheets the atmospheric circulation would need to switch to a direct transport of warm moist air from the thermal equator to high northern latitude.

Menicholas
Reply to  Cliffgobbitt
April 9, 2017 11:08 pm

Another possibility: The primary circulation pattern of the Earth, the Hadley cells, ceases and another mode substitutes for it.
What would be the physical evidence if such a thing happened?
How would we know now…what could we see or look for that would tell us this occurred?
I cannot think of anything off the top of my head.
And what such alternate mode might exist?
Maybe two convergence zones, instead of one, with each somewhat away from the equator, with sinking air between them?
Just a wild ass guess, but I think it bears looking into.
For some reason, during the glacial advances the heat from the tropics stops being transported to the poles as efficiently, causing them to cool and remain cold, for a long long time.
For an ice sheet to get started, at some point more snow has to fall than melts in Summer. This could be because Winter is longer and Summer is shorter, or because it snows one hell of a lot more.
And this snow that does not melt would have to be for not one or a few but many years in a row.
If the only thing it takes is albedo of the snow to get the ball rolling towards ice sheet, how could it ever melt when it is at it’s maximum extent? Dust? What about fresh snow when it covers the dust?
Does not seem to add up…something must fundamentally change with the atmosphere.
Would two ITCZs trap a whole lot of tropical heat in the tropics, in between them, and prevent big dips in the jet which send cold air south and ice melting tropical air north?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  fernandoleanme
April 9, 2017 1:00 pm

I really don’t believe CO2 has much to do with anything but the sharp step functions apparent in descent into glaciation and back out again are indicating something like a “tipping point” . Yes, I hate that much abused phrase but it is what it is. I don’t pretend to know what causes the primary shift into or out of major glaciations but I wonder if the steps have something to do with the differing accumulation and resilience of sea ice vs continental ice masses and the resuting effect on albedo.
Significant ice accumulations on land can be very resilient to warming whereas sea ice is not. As a result, a limited warming can create a limited reduction in albedo while the continental ice sheets create a strong opposing pull back toward glaciation. The first step of glaciation is general cooling caused usually by orbital factors such as Milancovitch cycles. There really isn’t anything that can stop this process once it starts (not even CO2 ), as the cooling creates greater albedo to complement the cooling trend. Therefore the cooling trend is straight down.
On the reverse journey out of glaciation, the expanded sea ice retreats quickly while the persistent land ice holds back the overall warming and maintains the system near an equilibrium. At this point the system will typically continue it’s warming trend but by virtue of its being so close to equilibrium it can be thrown back to cooling or the warming can be stalled by minor cooling influences that affect albedo and kick the system back across the tipping point (volcanism, increased cloud cover, impact, etc.). Hence the warming will be slower than the cooling and often be more step like.

Menicholas
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 9, 2017 10:53 pm

Consider this…at the bottom of the ocean near the North pole and possibly near the South pole, are vast amounts of water than may be supercooled below the freezing point for water of that particular salinity level…held from freezing by pressure.
If that water ever froze for some reason…and there may be reasons no one has thought of…it would ascend to the surface very rapidly, as in a few tens of seconds to maybe minutes. Because ice is less dense and floats.
Now then…what would happen then? Would the ascending ice drag a bunch of other water along with it, in a chain reaction of sorts?
?
I do not know.
What could cause water at the bottom of the ocean to suddenly freeze?
Something that caused a temporary lowering of pressure, or perhaps some material being added to the water that changed the freezing point to a higher number?
Seems like either of those would do it.
Supercooled water that begins to freeze will not stop freezing when the trigger is removed…you can verify this with a two liter bottle of soda and a freezer.
And it happens fast!

john harmsworth
Reply to  John Harmsworth
April 10, 2017 12:11 pm

That’s an interesting thought, Menicholas. Of the top of my head I would say that a significant earthquake or a relatively small ocean impact could possibly initiate this turnover. A bit of disturbance at depth causes some rapid upwelling which causes a drop in pressure for the rising, super-cooled water which then solidifies. This accelerates the the movement to the surface and entrains more super-cooled water.
I have to say, something about this doesn’t quite add up for me but I have to think about it. What about the latent heat rejection from the freezing?

Leopoldo
April 9, 2017 9:46 am

I have a graphic with both the dust storms and the temperature graphic. If we need to find a strong forcing the dust caused by storms lasting 5 to 8 thousands years would had covered the ice with a nice layer of dust that would had lowered the albedo of the ice. As the atmosphere had very little water vapor, this could be at least a never I heard mentioning of forcing. During nearly 20 thousand years, dust storms had been very frequent before the end of an ice age period.
You can see one of those graphics here,

April 9, 2017 9:56 am

Would or could someone show me what isn’t, in our physical universe, a part of a damped-driven (deterministically and mathematically) chaotic system? /rhetorical

April 9, 2017 10:01 am

Ron,

You are right to focus on global albedo but there is a simpler solution.

Suppose that orbital changes affect the average mix of wavelengths and particles from the sun in much the same way as that mix is affected by variations in solar activity.

The result would be changes in global cloudiness and rhus global albedo and that would change global temperature.

Here is my description as to how it works with solar variability:

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/

The question is whether orbital changes would operate in the same way.

Any ideas ?

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
April 9, 2017 10:12 am

I’m not sure. Does your approach work in both directions?

whiten
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 10:38 am

Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 at 10:12 am
—–

Ron.

You are talking and ARGUING ABOUT CLIMATE AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE STILL.
In my above comment I tried to show that your actual expertise engineering supporting this is not good enough in appearance at least, for not saying that it is a dud with no significance in principle
with the engineering subject in question, which you never the less try to use it as a support for your own understanding of climate………

So if your own expertise actually is alleged and considered as not good enough for it’s own, how could it be that still one can contemplate to be right and good to support with the rest that is actually out of the ones expertise!?

cheers

Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 11:20 am

Yes it does.Reducing cloudiness results in warming and increasing cloudiness results in cooling.

The question is whether orbital changes alter the mix of wavelengths and particles reaching the Earth over long periods of time in a similar way to solar variations in the shorter term so as to change global cloudiness/albedo without having to invoke solar induced changes in earthquakes and volcanicity.

Not saying you are wrong, necessarily, but it could be a lot simpler than invoking changes in earthquakes and volcanicity.

Latitude
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 5:35 pm

Stephen, could cloudiness be measured as water vapor or humidity?

Menicholas
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 11:13 pm

Hush up, Whiten.
(See there…I said what you said in far fewer words)

April 9, 2017 10:02 am

The first half of this post describing the need for a hammer is nicely stated and right on target. The hammer is the interplay between effusive basaltic volcanism spreading lava over large areas of land rapidly causing rapid warming by depleting the ozone layer and sequences of explosive, aerosol forming eruptions similar to Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, that cool Earth ~0.5oC for 2 to 4 years, but affect ocean temperatures for a century or so and thus can increment the world into ice ages. The balance is determined by the motions of tectonic plates over time.
In the last 100,000 years, the footprints of climate change in Greenland ice cores are quite clear: 25 sequences of sudden major warming initiated within years followed by slow cooling over centuries to millennia in very erratic sequences averaging 4500 years long, but these sequences are clearly not cyclic. These are the well-known Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Similar sequences are observed throughout geologic time when time resolutions are good enough. Basaltic flows range from the eruption of Bardarbunga in 2014 in Iceland, covering 84 km2 with basalt flows within 6 months, the highest rate of basalt extrusion since 1783, causing recent warming, to the Siberian traps erupted over 7 million km2 251 million years ago, causing major warming, major ocean acidification, and extinction of 90% of all living species.
This is all explained in detail at my website https://whyclimatechanges.com/, in my book What Really Causes Climate Change?, in numerous talks at TEDx and professional meetings at https://whyclimatechanges.com/videos/talks-about-climate/, and numerous papers available on the website.

Macha
Reply to  Peter Ward
April 9, 2017 4:06 pm

Glad to see you weigh in here…I have been posting links re. Vulcanism from your site. http://ozonedepletiontheory.info/abrupt-climate-warming.html. Cheers

Menicholas
Reply to  Peter Ward
April 9, 2017 11:22 pm

And what caused the Siberian traps?
Seems highly possible that it was an asteroid impact at a point roughly opposite from Siberia on the globe.
Like the one near Chicxulub that caused the Deccan traps.
Not much point in saying that the antipode to the present position of the traps is the Drake Passage.
But wherever that land was then, find the opposite spot on the globe…bet you find evidence for an impact.

Menicholas
Reply to  Menicholas
April 9, 2017 11:23 pm

Of course, if it was seafloor, which is likely, it is long since subducted.

Don Easterbrook
Reply to  Peter Ward
April 10, 2017 2:30 am

How does volcanic eruption cause warming? They cause short-lived cooling.

AndyE
April 9, 2017 10:05 am

I love “hammer-theories” like that – and that is just the sort of scientific theorising which we must for ever treasure. I have often contemplated the suddenness of the change into the inter-glacials : it really does not make sense that it can be so sudden – and yet, fact is that it is.

April 9, 2017 10:06 am

As a thought exercise, this article is a good start. But it seems incomplete. It needs numbers.

“If you can’t quantify it, you don’t understand it.” – Peter Drucker

poitsplace
April 9, 2017 10:07 am

I agree it takes a strong initiating force but with weather being what it is, all we need is just a few random, seemingly inadequate events to line up and presto, we’ve got a hammer. Also looking at the behavior visible in the ice core record, there seems to be a boundary that the climate doesn’t like to cross. Earth seems to have significant resistance to turning into a snowball and to leaving this ice age entirely (there are still ice sheets even during interglacials).

So my basic hypothesis is that the Milankovitch cycles simply set the stage, tipping the scale slightly in favor of cooling/warming feedbacks. Then a smaller “hammer” (but still pretty much a hammer) in the form of a convergence of multiple weather, volcanic, and various other phenomenon starts it moving.

Now I think the signal (climate) is a bit too noisy for your hypothesis, but sadly with climatology, the noise that is weather coupled with the low quality of the proxy information makes it virtually impossible to verify ANY hypothesis…something many climatologists seem to have forgotten. But your thinking is far more in line with reality (and plausible) than that of current climatologists that are literally looking at what are in reality two different temperature proxies (atmospheric CO2 levels are, even according to the IPCC’s logic, a temperature proxy) and mixing one up as the main driver.

gnomish
April 9, 2017 10:10 am

i don’t see latching – also looks like a peak detector
http://imgur.com/9pxPCRi
or even just a capacitor + leaky diode
but yeah- for sure it looks like abrupt pulses of heat slowly draining

ferdberple
Reply to  gnomish
April 9, 2017 10:54 am

The ice age signal waveform looks a whole lot like the voltage at the timing capacitor in a simple LM555 circuit.

Paul Blase
Reply to  gnomish
April 9, 2017 1:59 pm

I was thinking that too, with the stair stepping caused by the various feedback mechanisms.

Bob Weber
April 9, 2017 10:16 am

“From an Electrical Engineering standpoint, this highly latched cold state cannot be abruptly changed by the subtle and nuanced solar-radiative perturbations being so widely examined. It takes a hammer – a climate hammer. Somehow, some much more powerful driver has come into play.”

I appreciate your efforts and understand you are a very accomplished and experienced EE. Interesting narrative, but where is the support from the data?

This EE has a different theory – that it’s all down to variable solar electromagnetic radiation.

I study the ‘subtle and nuanced solar-radiative perturbations’ you speak of, and have learned how it changes either the accumulation or depletion of ocean heat that is entirely dependent on whether and for how long TSI is high or low cycle-to-cycle.

A 30 year ‘climate change’ as we define it can occur within two-three solar cycles of either sustained high or low activity.

The supposedly ‘unprecedented’ warming that has occurred since 1980 was kicked off in 1979 by the sun’s highest rate of TSI increase in any instrumental record, which was also the top measured TSI year to date.

The Holocene warming rates are very similar [below]. The recent warming rate was less than most of the previous spikes’ warming rates, and far less in magnitude and duration.

If higher solar activity caused the recent warming spike, as my research indicates, perhaps it’s no stretch at all to envision a sporadically active sun throughout the Holocene that was much more active for a much longer period during the Minoan or Roman warm periods than since the LIA. The sun did not have to be any more active, but for much longer, than it was during the modern maximum for heat to have built up.
comment image

There’s nothing new under the sun, except our understanding of it and what it does to the earth.

Can we know if we’re in for 500-1000 years of solar activity driven higher temps or back to an ice-age? Temps could crash again like in the LIA or they might just keep on rising – it depends on the sun.

‘Solar activity changes the weather and climate’ is the lesson of space age data in this EE’s opinion.

Reply to  Bob Weber
April 9, 2017 10:26 am

I wholly agree that the sun plays a role. I’m pretty sure the gravitationally induced modulations to Earth internal heat play a role too.
The latter seems to me a more plausible explanation of huge and sudden change.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Ron Voisin
April 9, 2017 11:01 am

All the current evidence indicates subsea volcanism adds some heat but… all indications are it’s sporadic and local, and time dependent, like aerosols, whereas TSI covers it all, always, affecting the ocean top layers.

If there were undersea volcanism events in greater number and duration at any time for whatever reason, it was ALSO happening on land in many places too, producing more aerosols affecting albedo, having the effect of cooling at the same these undersea events are supposed to be adding heat and changing the climate ‘like a hammer’, how can anyone know whether there was net warming or cooling from it?

ferdberple