In ancient rocks, scientists see a climate cycle working across deep time.
A repeating shift in Earth’s orbit spans hundreds of millions of years
Scientists drilling deep into ancient rocks in the Arizona desert say they have documented a gradual shift in Earth’s orbit that repeats regularly every 405,000 years, playing a role in natural climate swings. Astrophysicists have long hypothesized that the cycle exists based on calculations of celestial mechanics, but the authors of the new research have found the first verifiable physical evidence. They showed that the cycle has been stable for hundreds of millions of years, from before the rise of dinosaurs, and is still active today. The research may have implications not only for climate studies, but our understanding of the evolution of life on Earth, and the evolution of the Solar System. It appears this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Scientists have for decades posited that Earth’s orbit around the sun goes from nearly circular to about 5 percent elliptical, and back again every 405,000 years. The shift is believed to result from a complex interplay with the gravitational influences of Venus and Jupiter, along with other bodies in the Solar System as they all whirl around the Sun like a set of gyrating hula-hoops, sometimes closer to one another, sometimes further. Astrophysicists believe the mathematical calculation of the cycle is reliable back to around 50 million years, but after that, the problem gets too complex, because too many shifting motions are at play.
“There are other, shorter, orbital cycles, but when you look into the past, it’s very difficult to know which one you’re dealing with at any one time, because they change over time,” said lead author Dennis Kent, an expert in paleomagnetism at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Rutgers University. “The beauty of this one is that it stands alone. It doesn’t change. All the other ones move over it.”
The new evidence lies within 1,500-foot-long cores of rock that Kent and his coauthors drilled from a butte in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park in 2013, plus earlier deep cores from suburban New York and New Jersey. The Arizona rocks in the study formed during the late Triassic, between 209 million and 215 million years ago, when the area was covered with meandering rivers that laid down sediments. Around this time, early dinosaurs started evolving.

CREDIT Kevin Krajick/Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
The scientists nailed down the Arizona rocks’ ages by analyzing interspersed volcanic ash layers containing radioisotopes that decay at a predictable rate. Within the sediments, they also detected repeated reversals in the polarity of the planet’s magnetic field. The team then compared these findings to the New York-New Jersey cores, which penetrated old lakebeds and soils that hold exquisitely preserved signs of alternating wet and dry periods during what was believed to be the same time.
Kent and Olsen have long argued that the climate changes displayed in the New York-New Jersey rocks were controlled by the 405,000-year cycle. However, there are no volcanic ash layers there to provide precise dates. But those cores do contain polarity reversals similar to those spotted in Arizona. By combining the two sets of data, the team showed that both sites developed at the same time, and that the 405,000-year interval indeed exerts a kind of master control over climate swings. Paleontologist Paul Olsen, a coauthor of the study, said that the cycle does not directly change climate; rather it intensifies or dampens the effects of shorter-term cycles, which act more directly.
The planetary motions that spur climate swings are known as Milankovitch cycles, named for the Serbian mathematician who worked them out in the 1920s. Boiled down to simplest terms, they consist of a 100,000-year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, similar to the big 405,000-year swing; a 41,000-year cycle in the tilt of Earth’s axis relative to its orbit around the Sun; and a 21,000-year cycle caused by a wobble of the planet’s axis. Together, these shifts change the proportions of solar energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet’s land is located, during different parts of the year. This in turn influences climate.
In the 1970s, scientists showed that that Milankovitch cycles have driven repeated warming and cooling of the planet, and thus the waxing and waning of ice ages over the last few million years. But they are still arguing over inconsistencies in data over that period, and the cycles’ relationships to rising and falling levels of carbon dioxide, the other apparent master climate control. Understanding how this all worked in the more distant past is even harder. For one, the frequencies of the shorter cycles have almost certainly changed over time, but no one can say exactly by how much. For another, the cycles are all constantly proceeding against each other. Sometimes some are out of phase with others, and they tend to cancel each other out; at others, several may line up with each other to initiate sudden, drastic changes. Making the calculation of how they all might fit together gets harder the further back you go.
Kent and Olsen say that every 405,000 years, when orbital eccentricity is at its peak, seasonal differences caused by shorter cycles will become more intense; summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter.

The opposite will be true 202,500 years later, when the orbit is at its most circular. During the late Triassic, for poorly understood reasons, the Earth was much warmer than it is now through many cycles, and there was little to no glaciation. Then, the 405,000-year cycle showed up in strongly alternating wet and dry periods. Precipitation peaked when the orbit was at its most eccentric, producing deep lakes that left layers of black shale in eastern North America. When the orbit was most circular, things dried up, leaving lighter layers of soil exposed to the air.
Jupiter and Venus exert such strong influences because of size and proximity. Venus is the nearest planet to us–at its farthest, only about 162 million miles–and roughly similar in mass. Jupiter is much farther away, but is the Solar System’s largest planet, 2.5 times bigger than all others combined.
Linda Hinnov, a professor at George Mason University who studies the deep past, said the new study lends support to previous studies by others that claim to have observed signs of the 405,000-year cycle even further back, before 250 million years ago.
Among other things, she said, it “could lead to new insights into early dinosaur evolution.” She called the findings “a significant new contribution to geology, and to astronomy.”
Kent and Olsen say that because of all the competing factors at work, there is still much to learn. “This is truly complicated stuff,” said Olsen. “We are using basically the same kinds of math to send spaceships to Mars, and sure, that works. But once you start extending interplanetary motions back in time and tie that to cause and effect in climate, we can’t claim that we understand how it all works.” The metronomic beat of the 405,000-year cycle may eventually help researchers disentangle some of this, he said.
If you were wondering, the Earth is currently in the nearly circular part of the 405,000-year period. What does that mean for us? “Probably not anything very perceptible,” says Kent. “It’s pretty far down on the list of so many other things that can affect climate on times scales that matter to us.” Kent points out that according to the Milankovitch theory, we should be at the peak of a 20,000-some year warming trend that ended the last glacial period; the Earth may eventually start cooling again over thousands of years, and possibly head for another glaciation. “Could happen. Guess we could wait around and see,” said Kent. “On the other hand, all the CO2 we’re pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada. That’s having an effect we can measure right now. The planetary cycle is a little more subtle.”
###
The other authors of the study are Cornelia Rasmussen and Randall Irmis of the University of Utah; Chris Lepre of Lamont-Doherty; Roland Mundli of Berkeley Geochronology Center; George Gehrels and Dominique Giesler of the University of Arizona; John Geissman of the University of Texas, Dallas; and William Parker of Petrified Forest National Park.
The paper, “Empirical evidence for stability of the 405 kyr Jupiter-Venus eccentricity cycle over hundreds of millions of years,”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
An interesting bit of actual empirical work. Despite my groaning above about the illustration, pretty good.
One thing, though – eccentricity changes or not – they are once again looking at a single thing. “Silver bullet” as other professions call it. I would note that tectonics had a very big effect also on climate when you get into the time periods that they are talking about. For one thing – 250 million years ago, and for a rather large swatch of time on either side – the majority of the land mass was in the Southern hemisphere. Plus little things like fewer mountain ranges, and the only really major one was oriented pretty much east-west along the equator, not north-south along the west coast as in the Americas. The Tethys Ocean far more enclosed by land, and shallower. So on, so forth, etcetera, etcetera…
“On the other hand, all the CO2 we’re pouring into the air right now is the obvious big enchilada” ……. ??? SO SAD HE HAD TO DROP THIS IN AT THE END !!!!!!!
But there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support ehe idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.
Well, from the description of their field work, they could easily earn a little extra money moonlighting for Exxon.
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/04/29/amid-a-fossil-bonanza-drilling-deep-into-pre-dinosaurian-rocks/
The $970,000 project is a collaboration among Lamont, Rutgers University, the universities of Arizona, Texas and Utah, and other institutions. The drilling, which took place in November and December 2013, took nearly a month, bottoming out at 1,706.5 feet in one hole, then at 830 feet in a second. The deeper hole appears to reach back at least 250 million years–the very start of the Triassic.
Now that looks like some fun work and some very cool science. Real science is cool. Drill baby drill!
Plate tectonics, oceans flows and blockages, solar variations, volcanism, clouds and albedo, winds and oceanic overturning, ghg’s, milankovich cycles, etc. Sounds like a very complex multivariate lot of potential causal variables which are also intercorrelated. Beware of multicolinearity. Possibly, in reality, this is a chaotic system at any given time and it is beyond stupid to note that the other big player is co2, unless, of course, you want acceptance at the academic table and grant money.
When I went to the Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park, the ranger/Nazi/minder on patrol gave us a hard time every time we wandered off the paved trail to take photos of the rocks. This guy gets to drill 1500ft holes in the ground? You’d think photography might be looked upon as a less invasive method of enjoying the park…end of rant
I think they make the parks their personal domain. Visitors are merely tolerated.
As an interested non-scientist, the nutrition and climate sciences have caused me to be skeptical about all science. Unfortunate for the field. I don’t trust new discoveries, and more important, the interpretation thereof. Having said that, I enjoyed the article until the last sentence.
Contrary to the press release, it’s not a new discovery. At best, this research merely confirms previous findings and maybe offers a little more precise cycle length.
Corrupted consensus climate science has given genuine science a bad name. But the evidence for the existence of Milankovitch cycles is based upon observation of the real world, not GIGO models. Earth does wobble on its axis, the tilt of which does change in a 41,000 year cycle. Its orbit around the sun does alter eccentricity on a period of 405,000 years.
They have the axial wobble at 21,000 years.
I have it at 25,920 years. The polar axis moves one degree in space every 72 years. 72 X 360 = 25,920. So, pfffftttt!
And my very crude Excel bar chart shows a distinct wave form in length of cold periods, with warm periods following the same wave form, but shorter with only one exception. So in view of that, yes, it’s entirely possible that we are slowly coming to the end of this warm period. If so, precipitation rates and volumes should change and seasons likewise.
In the Wisconsin glacial maximum, the southern border of the ice fields reached to the southern part of Wisconsin. It’s likely that the weather was considerably different then, also.
I wonder if that would restore the Pastorouri Glacier.
Earth’s axis completes one full precession cycle approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit, which is what matters for climate.
Sara
During the lead up glacial maximum, the jet stream was far more prone to splitting and looping then it is now.
This meant that the jet stream was often pushing up into the Arctic and flushing cold air down across N America and NW Eurasia. Which at the same time increased jet stream activity in the eastern Pacific would have drove up warm moist air from the Gulf of Mexico to meet up with this cold air coming south over N America. Resulting in huge snow storms over NE America.
“While” not “Which”
“Driven”, not “drove”.
Sorry. Grammar F@scist here.
Sara
To get a slight idea of what l mean, take a look at the jet stream activity in and around the Arctic over the next 7 days on Nullschool. Because we are very lucky the weather is playing ball at the moment in showing us a taste of what was likely going on during glacial maximum. In terms of the jet stream patterning of course rather then the harsh climate.
Taxed and Felix, consider this: when (NOT IF) the next glacial maximum occurs, the CAGWers/WArmians/Greenbeans will be completely in denial about it until they discover – to their horror! – that technology they are dependent on (i.e., addicted to) has failed them and they will have to figure out how to kill their own food and cook it without a microwave.
They will show up at your doors, cold and hungry, wanting to use the bathroom and charge their tablet phones, and you will be able to say ‘No. You are a ecohippies. Now go away.’ and shut the door on them.
It is a dream I occasionally have. What if the snow in Quebec doesn’t melt next spring, and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan remains mostly icebound?
Sara,
Just imagine the hordes of UP’ers descending on Niagra, Pembine, and Beecher WI !!
Oh, the Humanity! };>)
I thought Michael Mann was good with tree rings. These guys put him to shame. Seriously, Am I missing something or are scientists coming up with findings based on the flimsiest indirect evidence one could possibly imagine?
This isn’t like Mann’s tree rings. This is science, but it’s being oversold as something new and exciting. It’s just a possibly more precise estimate of the duration of the eccentricity cycle, which is a well established astronomical phenomenon.
Mann’s tree rings were selected to help show the result he wanted. Then he invented some third rate math to apply to his data to “prove”the results were real when they were garbage. These guys are probably honest. That’s the difference.
“Kent and Olsen say that every 405,000 years, when orbital eccentricity is at its peak, seasonal differences caused by shorter cycles will become more intense; summers are hotter and winters colder; dry times drier, wet times wetter.”
I blame global warming! It’s all about fossil fuels and carbon and stuff.
🙂
Has anyone besides me considered the effect of a glacier slowly oozing south and crunching Apple’s new proposed data center to smithereens? Or squishing Google’s hallowed data halls flat?
Very informative article. Perhaps your authors can explain if these Milankovitch cycles have been taken into account by current so called climate scientists? If not then all their models predicting climate doom maybe incorrect. Is this possible?
So-called “climate scientists” can take no account whatsoever of natural climate change, because no one knows how nature works in all its ramifications. Their GIGO models are worse than worthless piles of stinking, steaming garbage, which have cost the world trillions in treasure and millions if not tens of millions of precious human lives. Not to mention the birds and bats.
“But they are still arguing over inconsistencies in data over that period, and the cycles’ relationships to rising and falling levels of carbon dioxide, the other apparent master climate control.”
Yeah, they just had to mention carbon dioxide and its great influence on climate. <_<
The reinvention of the wheel is just part of the necessary process of verification of science, and this 405k paper just indicates that the perpetrators have not had time to read all of the proximal, let alone distal literature, as once upon a time one could. We are frequently reminded in breathless tones how people from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend not to be as successful academically as their higher and luckier peers – always as if it was a new discovery. This paper at least has stimulated some interesting discussion on the interlaced effects of different cycles. I wonder if their calculations took into account the mysterious ninth planet with its 15,000 year inclined orbit, which has recently been accused of causing the tilt in the sun’s axis?
No. The CO2 is not the big enchillada. It is the big red herring.
Milankovich cycles have one very useful characteristic. They are strictly cyclical, making it fairly easy to isolate them from all the other factors that influence climate. Actually they seem to be a rather minor factor most of the time, though very useful for geologists. Counting Milankovich cycles is a recognized method for estimating the length of geologic intervals.
However in an “icehouse climate”, like the one we are living in, this ordinarily minor effect is enough to shift the climate between glacial and interglacial states. However it is the 41,000 year obliquity cyle that is the dominant one in this context.
Venus is the nearest planet to us–at its farthest, only about 162 million miles
Someone ought to check that figure.
Rounding off, Venus is 67 million miles from the Sun, Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun. Add them together and you get 160 million miles when Venus is on one side of the Sun and Earth is on the other.
Well, now I’ve read the actual paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/01/1800891115) and we may have been unfair in our comments here, due to an exceptionally idiotic press-release.
What they have done is essentially to take the well-known Milankovich-based chronology from the Newark Supergroup and correlate it with a drill-core from the Chinle Formation. The Chinle Formation can be precisely dated at multiple points by volcanic ash layers supported by magnetostratigraphy. Through this they have proven that the 405 kyr cycle actually was 405 kyr (their actual result is 404 kyr) long back in the late Triassic, which was not certainly known before (celestial mechanics can’t be extrapolated reliably that far back). Also that deposition in the Newark Basin was continuous without any major hiatus.
And that is all they have claimed to have done. A minor but useful contribution to stratigraphy/chronology and astronomy. The rest is PR fluff and ignorance.
PS
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was 2000-5000 ppm during this interval, but apparently nothing very horrific happened.
Tty,
I agree with you, but Rothman, Copse and Geocarb III show lower than that during the Triassic:
And Geocarb has CO2 rising rapidly in the following Jurassic Period.
The orbital periods of Jupiter and Venus with respect to the Earth do not just affect the oblateness of the Earth’s orbit, they have also affected the current precession rates of the line-of-nodes and the line-of-apse of the lunar orbit. This means that the orbital periods of Venus and Jupiter may indirectly affect the Earth climate system via the influence of the lunar tides.
We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus and Jupiter. In addition, we know that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes and the line-of-apse of the lunar orbit ( Cuk 2007). When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit ( Cuk 2007).
Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rates for the line-of-nodes and line-of-apse of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.
This could explain why:
(1/(2DY) + (1/(9FMC) = 1/SEV
where DY = Draconic year = 0.948978 sidereal years
FMC = Full Moon Cycle = 1.127385 sidereal years
and SEV = The synodic period of Venus and the Earth = 1.598660 sidereal years.
[N.B. The length of the Draconic year is set by the precession rate of the lunar line-of-nodes compared to the orbital motion of the Earth about the Sun.]
[N.B. The length of the Full Moon Cycle is set by the precession rate of the lunar line-of-apse compared to the orbital motion of the Earth about the Sun.]
[N.B. The synodic period of Venus and the Earth is the time required for the Earth and Venus to realign in their orbits about the Sun.]
Similarly,
3/(SEV) – 2/(SEJ) = 1/9.055081 – 1/20.292924 – 1/62.006158
where SEV = The synodic period of Venus and the Earth = 1.598660 sidereal years.
________SEJ = The synodic period of Jupiter and the Earth = 1.092066 sidereal years.
and
9.055081 sidereal years = 8 x (14 Lunar Synodic months) ~ 9.1 year climate cycle
20.292924 sidereal years = extreme Perigean Spring-tidal cycle
62.006158 sidereal years = 31/62 year Perigean Spring-tidal cycle
I believe that the claim that I have made above is eminently reasonable. This is particularly true since Nickolay Sidorenkov and I have meticulously demonstrated the existence of these connections in our two papers:
Wilson, I.R.G. 2014, Are the Strongest Lunar Perigean Spring Tides Commensurate with the Transit Cycle of Venus?, Pattern Recogn. Phys., 2, 75-93
Wilson, I.R.G. & Sidorenkov, N.S., 2018, A Luni-Solar Connection to Weather and Climate I: Centennial Times Scale, J Earth Sci Clim Change 2018, 9:1, p. 446
DOI: 10.4172/2157-7617.1000446
Addendum to the post above:
Similarly,
3/(SEV) – 2/(SEJ) = 1/9.055081 – 1/20.292924 – 1/62.006158 = 1/H
where SEV = The synodic period of Venus and the Earth = 1.598660 sidereal years.
_____SEJ = The synodic period of Jupiter and the Earth = 1.092066 sidereal years.
_______H = The length of the Hale sunspot cycle = 22.2 sidereal years
and
9.055081 sidereal years = 8 x (14 Lunar Synodic months) ~ 9.1 year climate cycle
20.292924 sidereal years = extreme Perigean Spring-tidal cycle = 18 Full Moon Cycles
62.006158 sidereal years = 31/62 year Perigean Spring-tidal cycle = 55 Full Moon Cycles
Jupiter was in opposition last night. I was going to get my telescope out to do some observing, but I slept instead. Ahhh, the trials and tribulations of the amateur astronomer.
Jim
Gizmodo on the paper:
https://gizmodo.com/are-jupiter-and-venus-messing-with-earth-s-climate-1825858316
All of this has as its assumption that the orbits of all of the planets are close to what they are now and always have been for hundreds of millions of years. it was not clear to me what exactly was found – from two sets of rocks in Arizona and NY/NJ. The found 405,000 cycles from what year to what year before present? – the only thing I read was magnetic pole reversals sort of agreed in the two samples.The Milankovitch cycles are said to be seen but it wasn’t clear how.Am I wrong to believe that definite climate changes of wetter and drier and warmer and colder in 100 million year old rocks might be a little fuzzy? That there have been major climate changes and extinctions and major definable periods in geology I do believe. Has anybody investigated the possibilities that major changes in the orbits of other planets could have caused these to happen? Like the increasing evidence that the asteroids meteorites have minerals that are more easily explained if they been part of a planet at one time.- the increasing evidence that comets are not iceballs>dirty iceballs>icy dirtballs that just happen to give off xrays but mostly the same as asteroids with different orbits. .
I do find it hard to believe there are so many ?scientists? in entirely different fields that feel obliged to say that CO2 is the major control knob on the climate that we see its effect today.