I’ve run into a surprisingly good, if fairly deep technically, series on how the climate works. I’m not going to do any real analysis nor even much reporting about them here. It’s just too much to cover. I do, however, recommend that folks download and read these puppies. They have a lot of clue in them.
It started from a pointer to an article at Judith Curry’s site on holocene climate variability. Note the “III” in the following link.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/
Nature Unbound III: Holocene climate variability (Part A)
Posted on April 30, 2017 | 335 Commentsby Javier
First in a two part series on Holocene climate variability.
Note that the top link is to “part-A”, here’s the link to “part-B” of that Holocene set.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/28/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-b/
The III implies a I and a II, somewhere; which Javier nicely points to as PDF files.
I really ought to find out more of the bio on “Javier”, but for now I’m just impressed at the care and depth of thought. Well done Javier!
In many of his articles, there are ideas I’d noted and figured “someday” I needed to go into depth and work out the details. He’s already done it, and likely a bit better than I would (or could) have done.
Further down in comments, there’s a statement that earlier (sort of precursor) articles are available as PDF downloads. I downloaded them and read them. Really really good stuff.
Javier | April 30, 2017 at 3:42 pm |
For convenience, the previous two articles of the series have been made available for download as pdf documents:
https://sabercathost.com/4Df5/Nature_unbound_1.pdf
https://sabercathost.com/4Qvo/Nature_unbound_2.pdf
The PDF download process for those part 1 & 2 papers is a bit circuitous. A link to a Sabercat where you can pay, or get a membership, or something, for fast download or click a button to get a download page after waiting. Then you get to play with a captcha that gives you ambiguous pictures. Then you get to have a readable not downloaded copy presented and must discover a ‘popout’ button in the upper right. THEN you can find the bit were you can download and save the pdf. At least, I think that was all the steps… I have more direct links here:
The Series, In Order
Nature Unbound I – The Glacial Cycle.
Javier. October 2016Summary:
Milankovitch Theory on the effects of Earth’s orbital variations on insolation remains the most popular explanation for the glacial cycle since the early 1970’s. According to its defenders, the main determinant of a glacial period termination is high 65° N summer insolation, and a 100 kyr cycle in eccentricity induces a non-linear response that determines the pacing of interglacials. Based on this theory some authors propose that the current interglacial is going to be a very long one due to a favorable evolution of 65° N summer insolation. Available evidence, however, supports that the pacing of interglacials is determined by obliquity, that the 100 kyr spacing of interglacials is not real, and that the orbital configuration and thermal evolution of the Holocene does not significantly depart from the average interglacial of the past 800,000 years, so there is no orbital support for a long Holocene.
Nature Unbound II – The Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycle.
Javier. January 2017Summary:
Dansgaard-Oeschger
(D-O) events are the most dramatic and frequent abrupt climate change events in the geological record. They are usually explained as the result of an Atlantic Ocean salt oscillation paced by internal variability. Available evidence however supports that they are the result of an externally paced oceanic-sea ice interaction in the Norwegian Sea. A lunisolar tidal cycle provides an unsupported yet explanatory hypothesis for the 1470 yr pacing and triggering mechanism of D-O oscillations.
Then read the two Holocene ones:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/
Nature Unbound III: Holocene climate variability (Part A)
Posted on April 30, 2017 | 335 Commentsby Javier
First in a two part series on Holocene climate variability.
Summary: Holocene climate is characterized by two initial millennia of fast warming followed by four millennia of higher temperatures and humidity, and a progressively accelerating cooling and drying for the past six millennia. These changes are driven by variations in the obliquity of the Earth’s axis. The four millennia of warmer temperatures are called the Holocene Climatic Optimum which was 1-2°C warmer than the Little Ice Age. This climatic optimum was when global glaciers reached their minimum extent. The Mid-Holocene Transition, caused by orbital variations, brought a change in climatic mode, from solar to oceanic dominated forcing. This transition displaced the climatic equator, ended the African Humid Period and increased El Niño activity.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/28/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-b/
Nature Unbound III – Holocene climate variability (Part B)
Posted on May 28, 2017 | 317 Commentsby Javier
The Neoglacial has been a period of progressive cooling, increasing aridity, and advancing glaciers, culminating in the Little Ice Age. The main Holocene climatic cycle of ~ 2400 years delimits periods of more stable climatic conditions which were identified over a century ago. The stable periods are punctuated by abrupt changes.
There are likely more similar papers at Judith Curry’s site, but I’ve not had time to search them all out, yet. Clearly it’s a great place to go digging.
All in all, a very clear headed look at “Just the facts” finds conclusions that are very similar to several I found (not claiming I was first, just that I reached the same place) and in some cases (many?) has more depth and detail. In all cases has far more references and academic precision.
Update
No sooner up than I found “Part IV”… Haven’t read it yet, but know it will be good…
https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-a/
Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part A
Posted on July 11, 2017 | 121 CommentsBy Javier
The existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray, is supported by abundant evidence from vegetation changes, glacier re-advances, atmospheric changes reflected in alterations in wind patterns, oceanic temperature and salinity changes, drift ice abundance, and changes in precipitation and temperature. This is established with proxy records from many parts of the world.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/16/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-b/
Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part B
Posted on July 16, 2017 | 15 Commentsby Javier
In Part A, we established the existence of a ~ 2400-year climate cycle, discovered in 1968 by Roger Bray. This climate cycle correlates in period and phase with a ~ 2400-year cycle in the production of cosmogenic isotopes, that corresponds with clusters of solar grand minima at times of abrupt cooling and climate deterioration. The relationship between solar activity and cosmogenic isotope production during the past centuries confirms the ~ 2400-year solar cycle as the origin of the climate cycle.
Musings from the Chiefio 
I posted the links to 3 ab. Just finished 4b this morning. Javier makes a clear, connected story indeed.
Ministet of Future
This is by Javier also:
http://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/
Yet more to read… I think it will be a busy day…
@SandyMOF:
New handle, eh?
Well h/t for the links. As is often the case, I’d opened a tab, then took a month to get around to reading it, and by then lost the backpointer to who pointed if out. So thanks, too, for scatching that itch about where it came from!
Sometimes I wonder about Dr. Curry. She seems almost too good to be human. I caught the house hearings and while Mann was acting like a trained ape, she was purely professional! But she did get a good barb in.
I trust her.
Hi E.M.,
Thanks for your kind words. I also read your blog from time to time and find it very interesting. In the next Nature Unbound V article that I am working on, and should be published in less than two months, I write about the 1500-year cycle. I am sure you will like it because you are one of the few people that on writing about it, really nailed its nature. You have a keen mind.
I am an experimental scientist from a completely unrelated field to climate science. Trained in the scientific method for decades, I am very used to dig in the scientific literature to research really complex problems to see what the published evidence supports or doesn’t support. I am just applying my skills to this very interesting problem as a hobby.
Cheers and thanks for all the good articles.
Dr Curry showed up at Steve McIntyre’s blog a few years back to defend climate science — in general — from attacks. The discussion began in Curry’s area of expertise, hurricanes, during which she gave as good as she got. But in the arena of historic proxies, “hide the decline”, the UEA emails, and invalid statistical techniques, she got … well, her eyes opened.
McIntyre for reasons no doubt both good and sufficient has more or less retired from the lists, lately. But Curry has the credentials, the integrity, and the stamina to continue the discussion fruitfully.
Didn’t Dr. Curry find herself in a position where her career was threatened and decided that she’d retire? Am I misremembering this?
@C DQuarles:
Matches what I remember, though it may be she was just tired of the grief rather yhan job threatened.
Pingback: Surprisingly Good Technical Series on Climate – Climate Collections
I believe that Dr Judith Curry changed her position over time as she examined the various articles more closely. I am sure at first she support the rubbish by that hippy Pierrehumbert( ?.or however one spells his name). I think she also was at first criticized initially the work of Prof Cleas Johnson who takes a mathematical and scientific approach not only to climate output but also in the field of hydraulics, aerodynamics and quantum theory (including questioning some of Einstein’s poor mathematics) I believe that Dr Curry has accepted that Prof Johnson’s calculations could be correct. One of the calculations concerns the what people call the 2nd law of thermodynamics. ie heating of a warm earth surface from a cool atmosphere containing a minute amount of CO2 is unphysical and does not occur.
We’ve been treated to a visit from Javier in comments up stream here:
Javier;
I had no idea you visited here. Now I feel like I need to “up my game” and write more complete articles with better references! ;-)
Javier being a very common name here in California I’d not realized the prior Javier was you. (we’re about 1/2 Hispanic overall, with some parts speaking more Spanish than English. I grew up with a ‘best friend’ who’s family spoke mostly Spanish and I’ve been ‘immersed’ in the Hispanic culture and Spanish since about 5 years old via neighbors and friends. )
I’d not noticed the comment you pointed to in the link. (Once “approved” a person’s comments just “go up” without my doing anything, and if comments are moving fast, I can miss when one goes at the end of an article). I’ll try to answer it now.
Per the 1.5 Billion living now due to CO2: I doubt you will find a reference for it. It looks to me like the typical thing done to make up a number. We’ve got 1.5 billion more people since whatever start date they chose to pick, and we found a way to feed them, so it must be that the greater crop yield form CO2 enrichment is the cause, so attribute all the 1.5 Billion to that. In other words, a complete lack of proof and using correlation as causality. One would need to search back in time to find who made the number to know who “just made it up”. There is no way to assign how much crop growth is from CO2 vs genetic advances vs fertilizers vs land use added vs more mechanization vs more irrigation vs… It’s a typical Economics problem, and typically solved by assuming things without evidence….
Per the 1500 year cycle:
That’s a tough one. The basic problem is that there isn’t any clear causality. You can find things that are close, but not matching quite. You can find things that look like they ought to be causal, but have the wrong timing. It’s a bit of a mess. (That I’ve admired a lot, but have not solved / sorted out yet).
The most likely candidates are:
1. That the 1800 year lunar tidal cycle is causal, but with some stochastic element added. Some cycles ‘flipping’ early and so giving an average of 1500, but not exactly that for all.
Click to access 3814.full.pdf
is the key paper for looking at long duration tides. Note that the cycles have opportunities for specific events, like an ocean current reorganization, to have a stochastic onset. (The big slow “peaks” are in fact made of a series of higher spikes on much faster cycles, so any one of them could cause an early ‘swap’ that then prevents the next one from being the trigger)
2. That the 1000 (ish) year solar cycle interacts with the 1800 year lunar tidal cycle (but that doesn’t yield things that look right to me).
3. Some fundamental frequency of the oceans is involved in cycling, so the thermohaline circulation has an oscillatory component. I’ve seen people put this idea forward, but not seen any references for it.
4. And a thesis that seems reasonable that “which ocean” faces the sun as that 1800 year tidal process runs “matters” and you must have the same ocean in place when the high tidal forces happens, so this “orientation of the earth” inside the gross tidal forcing is what results in a 1500 year net cycle. I think it was Melaga Bay that put this theory forward. Here’s one of his postings:
he calls them Lawler Events. No idea if that’s just him ore a more common use.
He can be a bit of an “acquired taste”… I need to dig around to find it, but somewhere he has a posting about the face of the Earth oriented the right way to get the less than 1800 year cycle. Tossed some rocks at me because I called it an interesting step forward instead of revolutionary… IIRC.
I can’t find the exact link to the “earth face toward sun” article / comment (maybe someone else here will remember it or MalagaBay can point us to it…) It’s an intriguing theory, but I’ll need to dig more to find where I put the pointer to it…
So here’s some of my links. You may have already read them, or not. I’m just putting them here for completion in case you have not and find them interesting:
There’s clearly a precipitation correlation. This implies ocean temperatures and / or winds might be involved.
Now that looks for a solar cause, and the isotopes point that way, yet the Fourier spectrum doesn’t show a 1500 year solar cycle. Something needs disambiguating ( i.e. a big “Dig Here!”)
But perhaps it’s a harmonics thing:
Note the +/- 500 years… that’s the thing about some being 1200 and some 1800 more or less. One needs to actually look at the real spacing between events, not the average. I suspect the average of 1500 years is hiding something that matters.
Has some interesting cultural / historical bits in it. I had thought there might be a 1/2 Bond Event cycle at about 750 years. These folks found something similar:
That leans toward some kind of harmonic thing. If you have 1/2 and full, perhaps also 1/4 at 300 ish years and then some stronger? Or an interaction of a 300 +/- solar cycle with some longer tidal cycle and the combined peak causes an ocean state flip at 1500 years?
Well, this is a long comment. I think what I need to do is collect all my 1500 year links into one article. A Pointer to Pointers ;-) Probably better than hiding in a comment here…
I’ll see what I can do.
Hi E.M.,
Thank you very much for the long response. It is a lot more than what I asked originally, and since then a lot of things have become clearer to me about the 1500-year cycle. I just wanted to point that I have been aware of your articles for quite some time and I’ve been impressed by some of the things you come up with. It is always worth reading an independent thinker about issues I am also interested.
I spent a few years working for the University of California in the 1990’s. They were very happy times and I am fond of California and the US. A very good place to do science. Since I’m European, I was also fascinated by the Hispanic part of the society and the enriched mixture that it produces. I haven’t had a fish taco in decades. They don’t have them in the Mexican restaurants over here, because fish tacos aren’t Mexican.
I’ll read the info and links you have provided, thanks.
Best.
“McIntyre for reasons no doubt both good and sufficient has more or less retired from the lists, lately.”
Many of the folks I used to follow have faded away so thank you Chiefio and Judith Curry for staying the course.
IMHO the bloggers who faded away recognized that the Alarmists were unable to defend themselves and had retreated into bunkers and echo chambers to avoid ideas they don’t like.
While that sounds like victory I still miss the wit and wisdom of:
Verity Jones (Digging in the Clay)
Jeff Id (the Air Vent)
Lucia (The Blackboard)
Pointman’s
Bishop Hill (Andrew Montford)
Slowly working my way through some of those papers.
Absolutely fascinating in similar in vein to stuff I’ve pointed at previously regarding Paul Pukite’s analysis of ENSO as being deterministic and largely driven by orbital physics. It would be a lot of work but overlaying that process on top of the orbital obliquity and precession mechanisms, plus the jovian effects on the sun itself and there is a very very complex tale being woven.
Of note to me in these papers was the fact that a certain ‘regular’ pattern can disappear for a period because some other regular cycle stops it from putting in its usual appearance by preventing the trigger conditions from arising.
Fourier analysis to determine all the component frequencies?
Yes, Galloping Camel.
I miss Jeff Id. Sometimes returns for a bit,
wish it was more often. Likewise Steve McIntyre,
prob’ly one of the decisive General Wellington’s
of the Climate Wars
@GC:
I’d not realized so many “name names” had taken a break / retired from the field. Guess I was too busy writing to visit as much as I ought….
I understand their POV, though. I’ve thought the same things.
1) I’ve already shown it a sham. Tilting at this windmill again helps how?
2) We’ve shown the “science” isn’t valid in so many ways.
A) We’ve shown them all already.
B) If that wasn’t enough, more, of less gravity, will do little more.
3) It is clearly a 100% Political Machine driven process, not science. So why keep attacking the lousy non-science when it is really political? (Especially hard for pure science blogs).
4) Trump was elected, maybe we won. Can I have a life now?
5) I really owe it to my family to do something with a paycheck instead. (Or just: “Damn. I gotta pay the bills”). I took a few contracts along the way to keep the lights on, and posting slowed then. I thought about the load of doing both…
6) it is getting colder, folks are noticing, it’s over.
7) I’m tired of battling Trolls, Idiots, & Insults.
But for me, it was you all that kept me engaged. Thank you for that.
I was never a pure science blog, just my personal notebook really, so adding some political was easy, when I realized that was the true turf. That let me rehash the same old technical stuff less, and chose new windmills to tilt at.
I realize Trump is under attack. “They” are not quitting, so I can’t quit.
I’m still working on the money issues, but social security kicks in next year, and I’ve enough saved to make it to there. Never needed much and find it ever harder to sell my soul for things I don’t really need…
Until there are marches in the street complaining about the cold, folks have not noticed. Then TPTB don’t seem to care if folks notice the truth.
Early on (maybe the 3rd year?) I worked out an effective Troll Repellant Strategy and got that pain down to an acceptable level. Folks who tollerate the Trolls and attacks “to the person” get far more traffic, but I never cared about traffic count. I’d rather one good glass of wine with a friend than a crate of piss & vinegar.
Hmmm…
Maybe I need a list of sites to scrape, while they are still up…
OK: PLEASE list those skeptic sites by URL that have gone dormant and ought to have a scrape done. I’ve got 4 TB of emergency (empty but available) disk and a scape engine…
@Wyzelli:
Look up Stochastic Resonance. It is a common property, rarely understood. I only know about it from my old tube radio days and making regenerative receivers.
@Javier:
I’m a UC graduate, as is my son. Hard to watch it turn hard left and supressing speech (having been around for People’s Park and free speech promotion), but still a lot of good in it.
Yes, the fusion culture here is special. From fish tacos to sushi with salsa on it… (A recent trend has been ‘spicy’ sushi. Between the Hispanics, the Indians, and the Chinese who like it hot, sushi has ever more spice available in it) Some English TV stations have sporadic ads in Spanish. If odering tequila shooters, “por favor” as likely as “please”. I make quesedillas and burittos at home (and pizza and curry and…) Buying groceries or even electronics, most of the clerks shift easily between Spanish and English. (Sometimes, for fun, when the chica serving the person in front of me, in Spanish, shifts to Englush for me, I use Spanish just to watch the smile :-) as she realizes old blue eyes knows what they said…)
The other day, at Safeway grocers, the shelf stocker didn’t understand “where is the butter?” but mantequilla got me to the right isle. Spanglish is acceptable often. I sometimes speak it, if among Hispancs doing so. Por que? Es bueno… tossed in even with all anglo folks. How to say con quacamole? Well, like that! Nobody orders “chicken and rice”, only arroz con pollo.
I like to ask folks: what is the English word for rodeo? Chaps? Lasso? Guitar? Salsa? Rumba? And a few dozen more…
About 1/3 of the TV station are Spanish, yet sometimes you hear Spanglish on them, just like anglo TV is sprinkled with the Hispanic characters and Spanish or Spanglish. Lots of shows benefit from being at least a little bilingual.
You find the same in Texas and Florida. Part of why I like them…Florida is more Caribbean Hispanics, so less spicy and more seafood and plantains. If you’ve not experienced it, I strongly suggest a visit. Vibrant is an understatement. Between the Puerto Ricans and the Cubanos, it is a rich set of cultural traditions and foods to explore. I like the Puerto Rican food a bit more, but the Cuban is also great.
Looks like the linked images are gone (guess I need to do maintenance…)
Also, in Orlando, a little place called Puerto Rico’s on hiway 192. They can speak English… but pretty much all the customers are talking in Spanish… real home cooking from Puerto Rico.
I need to get my butt back to Florida….
Well remembering past skeptical blogs, are we not
” Still Waiting For Greenhouse”
Interesting, thanks. Never a shortage of new things to learn!
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse,” yes, David, the late John Daly
on Isle of the Dead sea level benchmark. Real data.
https://www.john-daly.com/
Found this at WUWT, Daly’s email to Chick Keller cc Michael Mann, Phil Jones
and others 10/02/2001.
“The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following variables
which cannot be reliably separated from each other. sunlight – if the sun varies,
the ring will vary. But not at night of course. cloudiness – more clouds, less sun,
less ring. pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis
access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage
some trees, moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a drought
even if there’s a heat wave, snow packing in spring around the base of the trees
retards growth temperature – finally!
The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of temperature.
Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and
cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental
variables.
In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to other
evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced more of
that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has `unearthed’ even more.
Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue. Anyone
can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is the uncritical zeal
with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been
properly tested. In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed
the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events, and all on the basis of tree
rings – a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above.”
@E.M. Re: “Nobody orders “chicken and rice”, only arroz con pollo. ”
Between my wife and daughter, I have it bad as well. I was trying to think of a local chain called “Chicken Fiesta” and the only thing I could think of was “Pollo Fiesta”.
I do not speak the language very well, but could get by with spanglish.
Javier says: 17 July 2017 at 9:36 pm Re the 1500 year cycle.
There are some lesser known forums out there that have looked at various cycles and past events, they are
Clive Best – http://clivebest.com/blog/
Tallbloke’s Talkshop – https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/ – very much in to all sorts of cycles
and the last one, which takes a lot of plowing through, but has many nuggets of data is
Tim Cullen at – https://malagabay.wordpress.com/
Well, with those suggestions and maye a stroll through the blog rolls at some, I think I have enough to keep the Orange Pi busy for a while ;-) At least 4 TB worth before I need to think about it…
I do need to tune up the scape script to make sure it gets the right amount of linked content. That’s a tricky bit I still struggle with. Just what flags get the linkec photo, but not the whole site with the photo… that can turn into scraping the whole internet if you get it wrong….
I find this paper probably the most interesting when it come to dust effects on Greenland and the global climate overall.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305
Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks
by Ralph Ellis, Michael Palmer (with special thanks to Prof. Michael Palmer and also Prof. Clive Best, who supplied the summary graphic in Fig. 14.)
China University of Geosciences (Beijing) published Geoscience Frontiers.
DOI: 10.1016/j.gsf.2016.04.004
@tom0Mason:
Nice to someone focusing on interglacial inception. It is the key bit. Too many folks ask why the ice comes. Ice is the base state now. They need to adk “Why does the ice leave”. IMHO, ongoing base cooling moved us from a 40000 year cycle to a roughly 100000 year cycle when the minor stages were no longer enough… the albedo dust thesis captures that.