1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

[NatureBoff]

I've just made a discovery when using the 1,800 lunar tidal model of arctic environment of Northern Russia during the last 20,000yrs and the assumption of a millennial peak triggering H1 at 17,000 B.P. See

Radiocarbon Variability in the Western North Atlantic During the Last Deglaciation (2005) by Laura F. Robinson et al. matched at 10,000 B.P. with the graph in paper

Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia (2000) by Glen M. MacDonald et al.

The Maximum Forest Extension is 2 cycles of 1,800 yrs, showing peaks at 4,400 and 8000 yr B.P. (uncalib) which fits with the lunar tide into the arctic basin cycle and extrapolates to the date of 17,000 yr B.P., the onset of Heinrich 1. The tree data shows dips due to the lunar tidal minimums .

Edited June 14, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity

[Frank Merton]

All sorts of intriguing correlations can be found using after-the-fact data. Predictive power is what is needed as most of them are coincidence and vanish as time goes on.

[NatureBoff]

All sorts of intriguing correlations can be found using after-the-fact data. Predictive power is what is needed as most of them are coincidence and vanish as time goes on.

It precicts that the next 100yrs in north west europe to be a decline in the lunar tidal cycle input until an increase for 900 yrs thereafter. It's a much different outlook to the IPCC predictions of a mediterranean climate by 2060 and therefore much too important to ignore imv.

[Guest]

It precicts that the next 100yrs in north west europe to be a decline in the lunar tidal cycle input until an increase for 900 yrs thereafter. It's a much different outlook to the IPCC predictions of a mediterranean climate by 2060 and therefore much too important to ignore imv.

If it fails to explain the recent and ongoing warming its just another small part of the background mix, like so many other cyclic forcings.

Br Cornelius

[NatureBoff]

If it fails to explain the recent and ongoing warming its just another small part of the background mix, like so many other cyclic forcings.

Br Cornelius

No, it's much bigger than expected to be able to push warm waters into the Arctic basin and effect the forest development almost directly. It has implications for the ice age cycle of 100kyr. It indicates that the moon *isn't* so much moving away from us as we are moving towards Jupiter with gradual yet increasing speed in the three dimensional plane of inclination. Edited June 15, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity

[Guest]

No, it's much bigger than expected to be able to push warm waters into the Arctic basin and effect the forest development almost directly. It has implications for the ice age cycle of 100kyr. It indicates that the moon *isn't* so much moving away from us as we are moving towards Jupiter with gradual yet increasing speed in the three dimensional plane of inclination.

Unfortunately you haven't put forward a coherent enough statement of your ideas to judge if there is any validity to what you are saying.

What data have you used, what statistical analysis did you perform. Are there other influences which better account for your observation.

Most critically to what is of interest to most (and which I suspect you are trying to debunk the consensus theory) is how this accounts for the recent climate change. People have been looking for various celestial influences on climate for well over a century at this stage - why do you think you have found something which everyone else missed ?

These are all very reasonable points to ask of any new theory.

Br Cornelius

Edited June 15, 2013 by Guest

[NatureBoff]

Unfortunately you haven't put forward a coherent enough statement of your ideas to judge if there is any validity to what you are saying.

What data have you used, what statistical analysis did you perform. Are there other influences which better account for your observation.

Most critically to what is of interest to most (and which I suspect you are trying to debunk the consensus theory) is how this accounts for the recent climate change. People have been looking for various celestial influences on climate for well over a century at this stage - why do you think you have found something which everyone else missed ?

These are all very reasonable points to ask of any new theory.

Br Cornelius

Because I've considered that dark matter might exist in the centre of the Earth, which no other scientist has achieved as far as I'm aware. Mathematical modelling has an aberration due to Newton's assumption that all matter is the same, defined by his "law of universal gravitation". What I've done is assume that interplanetary tidal forces are stronger on the mutual plane of rotation. This gives a good alternative primary driver for the 100ky ice age cycle, which had previously been accepted as Milankovich solar forcing, although riddled with inconsistensies. These can be resolved with this new model and the tidal effects of Jupiter can be shown to be more important than the power of the sun in the rhythm our ice ages. Edited June 17, 2013 by RingFenceTheCity

[Doug1029]

No, it's much bigger than expected to be able to push warm waters into the Arctic basin and effect the forest development almost directly.

Sounds like you have just discovered the Bond Cycle. There have been eight of these since the Holocene. Currently, the period is estimated at 1470 +/- 500 years.

It has implications for the ice age cycle of 100kyr. It indicates that the moon *isn't* so much moving away from us as we are moving towards Jupiter with gradual yet increasing speed in the three dimensional plane of inclination.

???????????????

Could you explain that so those who only have Ph.D.s can understand?

Doug

[NatureBoff]

Sounds like you have just discovered the Bond Cycle. There have been eight of these since the Holocene. Currently, the period is estimated at 1470 +/- 500 years.

???????????????

Could you explain that so those who only have Ph.D.s can understand?

Doug

The Bond cycle and D-O events don't have an official explanation. Now they do.

[Doug1029]

The Bond cycle and D-O events don't have an official explanation. Now they do.

Then I have some reading to do.

Doug

[NatureBoff]

Then I have some reading to do.

Doug

I think you can manage two Wikipedia entries:

Bond event

The existence of climatic changes, possibly on a quasi-1,500 year cycle, is well established for the last glacial period from ice cores. Less well established is the continuation of these cycles into the holocene. Bond et al. (1997) argue for a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years in the North Atlantic region, and that their results imply a variation in Holocene climate in this region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event

Dansgaard– events (often abbreviated D–O events) are rapid climate fluctuations that occurred 25 times during the . Some scientists (see below) claim that the events occur quasi-periodically with a recurrence time being a multiple of 1,470 years, but this is debated. The comparable climate cyclicity during the is referred to as .