I tend to “collect links” and find that dozens of them never make it into a posting. So I’m going to just put up a few bits here and now. Not a lot of analysis, just some links worth reading and a few small remarks. There isn’t a strong theme to this posting, just stuff that caught my eye at some point.
D.O. Events and 1470 vs 1800 year periods
First up, on D-O events and the ‘rapid warm then slow cooling’ cycle. It comes around about every 1500 years, be it ice-age glacial or not. That isn’t an ‘internal oscillation’ as it has continued despite dramatic shifts in the structure of the oceans and winds and ice. IMHO, likely orbital mechanics with a large lunar component, but perhaps some solar input as well. As I’ve pointed out many times,
IMHO, I think the following link has an important contribution to sorting out why the cycle is 1470 years and not 1800 years (as simple lunar tidal strength would indicate). The author ‘tosses rocks’ at me for no particular reason in that he asserts I’ve not made the ‘paradigm shift’. I comment back that I think it’s a nice advance, but just don’t see the paradigm shift aspect. Somehow he doesn’t like that… I do think it is a nice advance. Adds “what season” to “lunar tidal” and finds that when the tidal forces x season strength product is maximal is about every 1470 years. ( I still don’t see that as a paradigm shift, just a very very nice advance… but it’s not my ego on the line. Rather like my pointing out that you get a roughly 54 – 60 year cycle out of matching when the 18.x year lunar tidal cycle lines up with the same ocean as the ‘repeat’ is about 1/3 of an Earth rotation each 18.x year cycle around the planet. It’s a ‘nice thing to notice’ but not a paradigm shift.)
So bottom line is that not only does the Moon Matter, but The State Of The Earth matters. It’s the interaction of the two. (AND that is influenced / controlled by the gas giants and orbital resonance so it all arrives in sync with solar changes too… as to which is the biggest and which the smallest, well, nobody knows and it likely is only of academic interest as ‘they all go together when they go’ so for all practical purposes any of them is an indicator of what to expect when).
With that, the link worth reading:
How do the phases of the Moon re-synchronize
with the 177.0 year Perigee-Perihelion Cycle?
§ When the Perigee of the Lunar Orbit is pointing at the Sun at (or very near to) Perihelion it does not necessarily mean that the phase of the Moon is either New or Full (Syzygy).
§ The next slide shows the number days that the phase of the Moon is from being New or Full, for each of the FMC’s that are at (or near to) Perihelion. The graph starts out with a New Moon at Perigee on January 1st (near to Perihelion on January 3rd) in the year 0.00.
§ New or Full Moons that re-occur for FMC’s at (or near to) Perihelion that are whole multiples of 739 years (i.e. 0.0, 739.0, 1478.0 and 2217.0 years) after the starting date, always occur at lunar Perigee.
§ In contrast, New and Full Moons that re-occur for FMCs at (or near to) Perihelion half way between whole multiple of 739 years (i.e. 370, 1109 and 1848 years) always occur at lunar Apogee.
§ Hence, we end up with the following 739.0 year repetition sequence for the times where FMC’s are at Perihelion:
0.00 Years è New or Full Moon at Perigee
184.75 Years è First or Last Quarter Moon
369.50 Years è New or Full Moon at Apogee
554.25 Years è First or Last Quarter Moon
739.00 Years è New or Full Moon at Perigee
§ Careful study of the New and Full Moons near 739.0 years shows that the strongest alignment between the phases of the Moon and the 177.0 year Perigee-Perihelion cycle occurs at the FULL MOON at 739.001 years. This contrasts with the NEW MOON at 0.000 years.
§ What this is telling us is that it actually takes 1478.00 years (= 2 x 739.00 years) to complete the cycle with a New Moon at Perigee when a FMC is close to Perihelion once again.
§ The FMC cycle is closest to perihelion at ((1447+1478)/2) years = 1462.5 years, while the lunar phases are most closely aligned with the Perigee-Perihelion cycle at 1478 years – producing a best synchronization at roughly (1478+1462.5)/2 = 1470.3 years.
§This is in extremely good agreement with the measured spacing of the D-O climate warming events of 1470 years!
Down in comments on that page you can see the interesting 1/2 argument where he complains about me and I say “I’m not disagreeing”… but for some folks ‘not disagreeing’ is the same as rejection, I guess…
chiefio October 12, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Um, not seeing the need for a ‘paradigm shift’. While I like your analysis, I’m mostly just quoting other folks works and trying to line them up with the known data.
Some of the better stuff points out that the 1470 is just an average and that actual D.O. / Bond Events have spacing offset to either side of that point. Were I to speculate, I’d speculate that often your analysis is what happens, but also that sometimes a cycle is offset toward the 1200 or 1800 year ends of things as some alignments have “slipped” too far from sync at that point. Then it all gets back toward the closer 1470 once that process gets resynced. In essence, that the times when “almost the same” have drifted out of sync, you get a ‘skip beat’ and the event is either closer or further out in time. Then the drift slowly puts them back in sync at 1470 (ish).
FWIW, I especially like your 739 year finding. I’ve found a similar “half Bond event” cycle in historical records. Not a full on Bond event, but “something happens” that’s not very good…
You might want to look at the exact dates of some of the older D.O. and Bond Events and note how they vary from the 1470 average.
Ninderthana October 13, 2013 at 2:32 AM
Thanks for you comments. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I believe that you are discounting a possible explanation before it has properly been tested.
The real world lunar cycles are not precisely 1470 years. The quoted figures in this post are not mean to be taken as representative of what exactly happens in the real world – only what happens as a long term average.
The complex nature of the lunar orbit means that a high quality ephemeris needs to be used to see how specific DO events align with lunar tidal events.
At this stage, I do not have the time to followup this possible avenue of research but others are welcome to give it a try if they feel it is worth it.
chiefio October 12, 2014 at 5:54 AM
Um, l am not ‘disagreeing’. Just suggested a refinement or two (and didn’t see the need to call your observation a paradigm shift… important step forward is likely a better fit).
I have pointed out that the earth rotation matters (which ocean is under the tidal bulge repeats about 3 x 18.x year lunar cycle), and adding seasons is likely as or more important.
I see all of it as mattering, with how much not yet known. Seasons could easily be very important with Artic ice breakup and flushing as the means by which the tides shift things.
At any rate, I think your observation needs integration to the general understanding, though I still am working on fitting it in (if slowly :-)
I’m also pretty sure the spacing of actual events is not right on 1470 yrs and the difference could lead to further understanding. The variable spacing is visible in the red tick marks on the DO graph above.
So is that variance an error (so what can be learned is that the dating is dodgy) or material (so what can be learned is another minor influence)?
In either case, I don’t see that as a disagreement with this work. More of a next step, perhaps.
I suppose he might have seen it as ‘damning with faint praise’ but it wasn’t. More of a “nice, not earth shaking, but very nice”. I do think he’s onto something, and that it sorts out that 1800 vs 1470 issue. (BUT, I also think there’s an 18.x and maybe a 54-60 ish year ‘jitter’ in exact DO Events that can be tied to that ‘skip beat’ and slippage issue as things ‘cog’ out of alignment and slip back in).
Still, worth a read and a lot of thinking about. Who knows, maybe with some more thinking and fitting to history it WILL be a ‘paradigm shift’…
A nice link to as “State Of The Sun” page:
Not much to say about it other than that there is a lot of good information collected in one place along with some historical cycle data.
Little Ice Age
This link starts out with the Obligatory Kiss The Ring Catechism to Global Warming, but does have some nice history on the L.I.A. in Europe:
Note to general public:
My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to “prove” the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.
Please view Global Warming: Man or Myth which addresses many of the questions asked about the human impact on the current climate change in a very simple format. The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.
I find it telling that he finds it necessary to put an up front disclaimer and swearing to The Ring before he can state the simple history of the cold Little Ice Ages… Oh Well, need to hold off the Papal Guards I guess… (Especially now that The Pope is on-board with the whole Weather Guilt Trip thing…)
This is a very nice site that collects old weather reported by folks long long ago. Nice for looking up actual ‘how bad it was’ reports:
I’ve given the link to 500 A.D., but you can go forward and back from there as you like it. Here’s a ‘taster’:
~ AD 500 By this time, the storminess of the latter part of the 5th Century (q.v.) had ‘re-arranged’ some coastal alignment in East Anglia. A sea-level rise noted, BUT, Lamb considers that this may have more to do with reporting of increased frequency of inland storm-driven surges, rather than a general world-wide sea level rise. Also note that evidence of significant rise in peat bog deposits by or around this time: therefore implies greater ‘wetness’ (and presumably cyclonicity).
AD 508 Possible severe winter. Rivers frozen for two months. Years also quoted as 507 or 509.
AD 520 Major storm surge in Cardigan Bay.
AD 525 Possible severe winter. Thames frozen for 6 weeks.
An interesting place where the Science of the Nordic folk can be reported. If anyone cares about ice and cold, it’s them! ;-)
1.4 billion years old forces are causing climate change today
March 23, 2015 – 06:25
Scientists have found evidence that the same natural forces that are causing climate changes today made the climate turbulent 1.4 billion years ago.
Ice ages and warm periods come and go at regular intervals — and that is probably the way it has always been.
This theory is strengthened by new research which demonstrates that climate cycles are by no means a “modern” phenomenon.
”It has been the assumption that these forces existed way back in the Earth’s past, but you don’t really know until you’ve proven it. We’ve done so now, which is pretty spectacular,” says Professor Donald Eugene Canfield, from the Department of Biology at the University of Southern Denmark.
Sheds light on the history of the Earth
According to Canfield, the study can tell us a lot about the climate in the past and help us to understand how historic climate changes have influenced the Earth’s geology and through that, its biology.
The scientist points out that the study is not, on the other hand, much use when it comes to present day man-made climate changes.
”It’s not so much its relevance in relation to the current climate debate as it is in relation to understanding how the climate has developed during the course of the Earth’s geological history,” says Canfield.
One of the big questions regarding the climate of the past is why ice ages occurred in some geological periods and not in others.
Climate concealed in Chinese mountains
In their study the scientists used rock formations in northern China (the Xiamaling Formation) to determine whether Milankovitch cycles (variations in the orbit of the Earth) changed wind and oceanic circulation on Earth 1.4 billion years ago.
The Xiamaling Formations took shape when different minerals and organic material formed a layered sea bed, which over billions of years ended up as the rocks that make up Xiamaling.
By dating the individual strata and studying their content of mineral and organic material the scientists were able to establish that the fluctuations in the climate that occurred as long as 1.4 billion years ago correspond to the Milankovitch cycles we see today.
“We can see that the fluctuations were shorter-lasting in the past than the Milankovitch cycles are today. This is probably because the Moon was closer to the Earth back then,” says Canfield.
More evidence needed
Assistant professor Peter Ditlevsen from the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen has read the study and finds it interesting that the scientists have found apparent evidence of Milankovitch cycles 1.4 billion years ago.
Yeah… 1.4 Billion Years of the cycle… but now it doesn’t matter? “I don’t think so Tim!” (A reference to “Tim The Tool Man” show)
A Nice Climate Rant
Here, Dr. Robert Owens has a very nice ‘rant’ about the present state of affairs and how the future is likely to play out in Climate Stuff:
Can you believe it? The world is going to hell in a hand basket and our tone-deaf leaders are worried about man-made global warming. They are so worried that after terrorists turn the streets red with innocent blood more than one hundred of them fly in private jets to ride in long limousines to a summit in Paris vowing to make a statement that will rebuke the terrorists. The way it looks now these leaders of the blind will be sitting in the middle of a snow storm debating how to slow man-made global warming .0001 degree by destroying modern civilization when the mushroom clouds of the Mullahs are rising over American cities.
All the Paris Summit is really about is passing a worldwide carbon tax. This tax is meant to penalize the West for creating the modern world and transfer the money to 3rd world tyrants who loot their own countries and are salivating at the chance to loot ours.
Many people ascribe misguided but still humanitarian motives to this lunacy. I do not. When people we know are at least smart enough to earn advanced degrees or pour water out of a boot and who can plan well enough to maintain a perpetual grasp on power do such obviously dumb things I cannot ascribe their actions to a lack of either intelligence or foresight. I contend that what we are missing in our analysis is an understanding of the true motives.
If we can discern those motives we could make sense of what they are doing. If we could for one moment stand where they stand we would see that everything they say and do make sense.
Just imagine that their guiding light, communism, stands discredited and their social democracy is but a pale imitation on the way to totalitarian control. What is a want-to-be despot to do? Find another cause that can bamboozle the public and allow them to take greater control of everything.
And it continues from there… “hit the link” and enjoy!
Well, that’s enough for one grab bag. More “in a bit” as events allow.