Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bumped for all of those asserting that Milankovich Cycles are the primary driver of the glacial periods.
Such a claim by global warming alarmists is always inherently fatal to their AGW claims. Since their entire position is based on a supposed ability to directly and causally tie CO2 levels to all changes in the planet's climate through history, there simply isn't any room for any other causal factor. Even though pegging Milankovich cycles as the cause of ice ages is flawed, their mere attempt to do so, regardless of whether there are match-up problems or not, directly contradicts their reasoning for their alarmism.
Now why don't you just put that into scientific language, complete with your evidence? After all, that is how the Milankovic Cycles became accepted, as well as how the connection between GHG's and warming became accepted. Then present your theory to a large roomfull of scientists.
Hmmmmmmmmm................ So this 100,000 year solar cycle may or may not be a major contributor to glacial and interglacial periods. Strange it should line up so well with the 100,000 year cycle in the Milankovic Cycles. And, as the author correctly states, more study is needed.
However, since the contribution of GHGs to warming the atmosphere is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if the sun is also contributing, then we are in double trouble.
Just putting this up as a bookmark.. New study identifying correlation of solar activity with the glacial (ice age) oscillations.. More sturdy than the bad match to Milankovitch cycles to explain how the Earth went thru MULTIPLE Ice Ages --- one right after another for nearly a million years...
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper finds solar activity explains climate change over past 200,000 years
Paper finds solar activity explains climate change over past 200,000 years
A paper published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds solar activity was strongly correlated to climate change over the past 200,000 years. The paper reconstructs solar geomagnetic field strength using the 10Be isotope proxy of cosmic rays, which is inversely related to solar activity. The reconstruction in Figure 2 shows solar activity at the end of the record ["near present day"] was at some of the highest levels of the past 200,000 years, and solar geomagnetic field intensity approximately 3 times higher than during the ice age ~180,000 years ago.
Figure 4 below shows the strong correlation between solar activity [grey and black] and the climate change proxy [d18O in red] over the past 200,000 years. According to the author, "The marine δ18O [temperature proxy] record and solar modulation are strongly correlated at the 100,000 year timescale. It is proposed that variations in solar activity control the 100,000 year glacialinterglacial cycles."
Thus, the paper appears to solve the mystery of what causes ice ages and glacial-interglacial cycles, which has remained unsolved due to the so-called 100,000 year problem of using Milankovitch Cycles to explain ice ages. That is, ice ages and glacial-interglacial cycles are primarily caused by changes in solar activity rather than solar insolation changes on the Northern and Southern Hemispheres as described by Milankovitch Cycles.
According to the author,
"the geomagnetic field intensity appears to have varied by a factor of three over the last 200,000 years, with three excursions when the intensity became less than half the present value."
"there are strong correlations between solar surface magnetic activity and climate at different timescales, which range from days through centuries. Whereas these observations have pointed to a causal relationship between solar activity and climate change, the details of of physical mechanism(s) still need to be worked out. It has been generally believed that the variations in solar magnetic activity lead to changes in total or ultraviolet irradiance of the Sun through the disc passage and evolution of sunspots and faculae, which, in turn, affects climate. Another posited mechanism through which solar activity could directly affect climate is via modulation of GCRs [Galactic Cosmic Rays], which induces cloud formation by inducing changes in the tropospheric ion production [Svensmark's theory]. If the changes in cosmic ray flux cause cloud cover variations, one would expect an inverse relationship between solar modulation and surface temperature, assuming that the proportion of low and high clouds remains constant. This is consistent with the observations in Figure 4 [below], although variations in irradiance could also affect climate by e.g. affecting ozone cover."
"In summary, it is evident that while there are strong correlations between solar activity and climate at different timescales, more work is needed towards finding mechanisms that change solar activity in the first place, and that explain the physical link between solar magnetism and climate." "The long term solar activity and the Earth's surface temperature appear to be directly related. The variations in solar activity may control the 100,000 year glacial-interglacial cycles providing a more tangible astronomical forcing than the estimated changes in solar insolation [Milankovitch Cycles] or cosmic dust accretion rates."
All this addresses nothing but the 100,000 year cycle. Those are not the cycles you're looking for (looks up from speeder and waves hand vaguely).
From the very top of their website's home page:
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Earth and Planetary Science Letters (EPSL) is the journal for researchers and practitioners from the broad Earth and planetary sciences community. It publishes concise, highly cited articles ("Letters") focusing on physical, chemical and mechanical processes as well as general properties of the Earth and planets - from their deep interiors to their atmospheres. Extensive data sets are included as electronic supplements and contribute to the short publication times. EPSL also includes a Frontiers section, featuring invited high-profile synthesis articles by leading experts to bring cutting-edge topics to the broader community.
Earth and Planetary Science Letters - Journal - Elsevier
OH YES! The ignorance and stupidity just never ends.
You confuse corelation with causation.
Bumped for all of those asserting that Milankovich Cycles are the primary driver of the glacial periods.
Such a claim by global warming alarmists is always inherently fatal to their AGW claims. Since their entire position is based on a supposed ability to directly and causally tie CO2 levels to all changes in the planet's climate through history, there simply isn't any room for any other causal factor. Even though pegging Milankovich cycles as the cause of ice ages is flawed, their mere attempt to do so, regardless of whether there are match-up problems or not, directly contradicts their reasoning for their alarmism.
Now why don't you just put that into scientific language, complete with your evidence? After all, that is how the Milankovic Cycles became accepted, as well as how the connection between GHG's and warming became accepted. Then present your theory to a large roomfull of scientists.
You morons are nothing but peer review snobs.
Thread summary: Increasingly desperate denialists cherrypick and misrepresent yet another study.
The poor denialists do sound more hysterical with each passing day. It's all falling apart for them. In their minds, it's all about "winning", and they don't take losing well.
Hmmmmmmmmm................ So this 100,000 year solar cycle may or may not be a major contributor to glacial and interglacial periods. Strange it should line up so well with the 100,000 year cycle in the Milankovic Cycles. And, as the author correctly states, more study is needed.
However, since the contribution of GHGs to warming the atmosphere is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if the sun is also contributing, then we are in double trouble.
Plain english does not convey the information needed in a scientific paper.
I made one comment, based on what I found on their home page, to assert that the paper was not peer reviewed. No one else here on my side of the argument has said ONE SINGLE WORD about it. YOU THREE, on the other hand, have waxed fucking hysterical about it.
I agree the article is peer reviewed. I also agree that the majority of climate scientists still believe the Milankovitch cycles are the primary cause of our ice ages. That the sun has some influence is entirely likely, but neither point has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming.
Hmmmmmmmmm................ So this 100,000 year solar cycle may or may not be a major contributor to glacial and interglacial periods. Strange it should line up so well with the 100,000 year cycle in the Milankovic Cycles. And, as the author correctly states, more study is needed.
However, since the contribution of GHGs to warming the atmosphere is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, if the sun is also contributing, then we are in double trouble.
I thought the pacific ocean ate all the global warming....700m....hello? McFly...Bueller...anyone
I made one comment, based on what I found on their home page, to assert that the paper was not peer reviewed. No one else here on my side of the argument has said ONE SINGLE WORD about it. YOU THREE, on the other hand, have waxed fucking hysterical about it.
I agree the article is peer reviewed. I also agree that the majority of climate scientists still believe the Milankovitch cycles are the primary cause of our ice ages. That the sun has some influence is entirely likely, but neither point has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming.
There is no anthropogenic global warming...no tropospheric hot spot...increasing outgoing long wave at the ToA....stalled temperatures for 16 years while CO2 steadily increases...all in direct contradiction to the predictions of AGW crazies....
Occam's Razor.....buckwheat. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Occam says that the idea that CO2 is a major player...or a player at all is just plain wacko. Occam says that your models are wrong because the underlying assumptions of how the climate works is wrong. Do away with the present crop of models, model an atmosphere that is not sensitive to so called greenhouse gasses, have that atmosphere surrounding a 3D earth that rotates and has day and night and you will have models that are closer to reality.
I made one comment, based on what I found on their home page, to assert that the paper was not peer reviewed. No one else here on my side of the argument has said ONE SINGLE WORD about it. YOU THREE, on the other hand, have waxed fucking hysterical about it.
I agree the article is peer reviewed. I also agree that the majority of climate scientists still believe the Milankovitch cycles are the primary cause of our ice ages. That the sun has some influence is entirely likely, but neither point has anything to do with anthropogenic global warming.
There is no anthropogenic global warming...no tropospheric hot spot...increasing outgoing long wave at the ToA....stalled temperatures for 16 years while CO2 steadily increases...all in direct contradiction to the predictions of AGW crazies....
Occam's Razor.....buckwheat. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.
Occam says that the idea that CO2 is a major player...or a player at all is just plain wacko. Occam says that your models are wrong because the underlying assumptions of how the climate works is wrong. Do away with the present crop of models, model an atmosphere that is not sensitive to so called greenhouse gasses, have that atmosphere surrounding a 3D earth that rotates and has day and night and you will have models that are closer to reality.
And all the scientists in the world state that you are just plain whako. From Joseph Fourier to the scientists of today, all have shown that the atmosphere absorbs outgoing IF radiation. That you state such is impossible only shows that you are either stupid or a liar. Or both, much more likely.
