Monthly Archives: January 2011


I regularly get comments claiming that ocean cycles are the cause of global warming. They couldn’t be more wrong.

Continue reading

Glacial Cycles, part 2

In the previous post (also this) we established that without doubt, astronomical cycles — in particular, changes of obliquity (earth’s axial tilt) and precession (the relationship between the seasons and closest approach to the sun) — are related to the growth and decay of glacial ice. The question remains, why?

Continue reading

Glacial Cycles, part 1b

This is just a “quickie” to show the results of Fourier analysis of a stack of delta-oxygen-18 records from benthic (i.e., ocean floor) sediment cores, which is not orbitally tuned.

Continue reading

Paul Nurse on science vs anti-science

Paul Nurse (nobel prize winner, and president of the Royal society) reports on the conflict between science and anti-science:

Glacial Cycles, part 1

There’s really no doubt that astronomical cycles have influenced the growth and decay of ice on planet earth for the last 5 million years or so. The subject came up recently, and there seems to be a lot of confusion on the issue, so let’s take a closer look at the influence of astronomical factors on earth’s cryosphere.

Continue reading

Milankovitch Cycles

James Hansen has a new paper (a draft for review), “Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change.” We’ll discuss it in a future post. There’s a so-called “review” by Martin Hertzberg at WUWT in which he claims that Hansen fails to understand the Milankovitch cycles. But it’s Hertzberg whose understanding is a failure.

Continue reading

Loaded Questions

When I chose the title for the last post, I didn’t really intend to stimulate discussion of the Phil Jones interview. I just thought it was a catchy title for a post about the fact that if you account for exogenous factors, you can establish a trend with less data than you’d need without accounting for exogenous factors.

Nonetheless, a lot of commentary mentioned the Phil Jones BBC interview. And that caused me to ponder such questions as “What should Jones have said?” and “What would I have said?” In fact, since I hadn’t done my recent analysis at that time, I might have responded very similarly to the way Jones did.

Continue reading