Happy Perihelion: Closest Approach to the Sun!

[baywax]

Thanks Baywax, not surprising that the solar cycles are reflected in the ice cores. The 15,8 Kya Electrical Conductivity spike is food for thought. As far as I recall, there are no other events known at that time while Melt Water Pulse 1A is dated around 14,5 Kya at the onset of the Bolling event.

Apparently I can't cut and paste from the document right now but somewhere in the middle of the paper there are references to why cosmic dust would first cool then cause a warming enough to de-glaciate. Its a pretty comprehensive paper. It just sounds kind of "loony" when he goes on about "galactic rays" etc... but, hey, we are in a galaxy here!

 

[Xnn]

Its a pretty comprehensive paper. It just sounds kind of "loony" when he goes on about "galactic rays" etc... but, hey, we are in a galaxy here!

I agree!

There have been at least 20 glaciation and de-glaciations over the past few million years.
They tend to happen at a periodicity of 40k years, until more recently when they occurred less frequently. These have been correlated for the most part to regular changes in Earth's orbit.

So, while there may have been a galactic ray occurance at some time in the past, it is difficult to see how or why galactic rays could explain all the other glaciations and de-glaciations.

 

[Andre]

I agree!

There have been at least 20 glaciation and de-glaciations over the past few million years.
They tend to happen at a periodicity of 40k years, until more recently when they occurred less frequently. These have been correlated for the most part to regular changes in Earth's orbit.

Have they? Can we have a look at that. Does it also explain the MIS-6 termination (Saalian/Illenoian) chronology problems?

 

[Xnn]

Have they? Can we have a look at that. Does it also explain the MIS-6 termination (Saalian/Illenoian) chronology problems?

Sure; just take a look at Figure 3 of the following link:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/HuybersTziperman_Paleoceanography2008.pdf

 

[baywax]

So, while there may have been a galactic ray occurance at some time in the past, it is difficult to see how or why galactic rays could explain all the other glaciations and de-glaciations.

Its possible there is a corresponding cycle to the "galactic ray volleys" that matches the glaciation and deglaciation.

I've pulled a snippet off the PDF but the attachment gods don't work on sunday. It is where the "galactic ray volley" is mentioned in the paper. I'll try later. Its around page 8.

 

[Andre]

Sure; just take a look at Figure 3 of the following link:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/HuybersTziperman_Paleoceanography2008.pdf

Exactly, the stubborn reality as demonstrated earlier does not fit in the hypothesis pattern, so it is ignored and replaced with models which can make elephants fly.

Without a clear explanation why the conflicts noted by Esat et al 1999, Henderson et al 2006, Andrews et al 2007 and others are cathegorically ignored, there isn't much of a case, is there?

 

[Xnn]

... there isn't much of a case, is there?

Ahhh, just the opposite!

All the more reason to write grant requests and commission more studies to resolve yet another problem with consistent dating.

 

[Andre]

Ahhh, just the opposite!

All the more reason to write grant requests and commission more studies to resolve yet another problem with consistent dating.

You're commercializing science.

In the old days it would be a Popperian falsification. Failed hypothesis, end of story.

 

[Xnn]

Ahh Andre;

Such drama.

Realistically, there have got to be hundreds of problems with inconsistent dating of all the various geological measurements. Nothing is perfect and people do make mistakes.

Some are bigger deals than others. Who is to say which has a chance of shaking the fundamentals of science or is just a case of somebody making an error.

That is why there are reviews of grant request. It if is important enough, then somebody will be able to easily justify a grant. If not, then maybe someday, somebody will figure out exactly where the error is. The key is that there are priorities.

Just because somebody thinks they found an error in somebody else's work is no gurantee that there is something wrong with the funadamentals. It could just be a lousy field data/study/paper/journal.

So, if it is possible that there is a real problem, then a grant will be requested, a study will be done, and if it gets past peer reviews of a reputable science journal then people will someday say either:

1. Somebody corrected a previous mistake that got past peer review.

Or;

2. Hey, there really is something fundamentally wrong with how everybody was thinking.

However, it would be wrong to automatically jump to the conclusion that all discrepancies are indications that there are wide spread fundamental misunderstandings.

 

[Andre]

Ahh Andre;
So, if it is possible that there is a real problem, then a grant will be requested, a study will be done, and if it gets past peer reviews of a reputable science journal then people will someday say either:

1. Somebody corrected a previous mistake that got past peer review.

Or;

2. Hey, there really is something fundamentally wrong with how everybody was thinking.

However, it would be wrong to automatically jump to the conclusion that all discrepancies are indications that there are wide spread fundamental misunderstandings.

So far we have seen discrepancys in the sea levels at the last two terminations, a prelimilary highstand well in MIS 6 instead of the end of it. Then there is the impossible Meltwater Pulse A1 having no source. Next, we have seen that the isotope - ice volume hypothesis does not add up.

Then there is the preliminary NH warming prior to the Bolling event, challenging the Greenland istope thermometer and the other isotope proxies (Ammersee and several speleothems). and I didn't say that we are done, yet

So what you do think it's going to be?

 

[Xnn]

So, what do you think it's going to be?

Lots and lots of grant requests!

I mean if these are legitimate discrepancies (and I'm not enough of an expert to say if they are or are not), then it ought to be possible to get some money to figure them out. Of course, they won't give the money to anybody. But a person with the right credentials ought to able to. Wether the answer will be #1 or #2, it is not for me to say.



BTW;

This thread has gone a long way off topic, which was orignally about the Perihelion.
If anybody wishes to discuss the perihelion, then please feel free to add to this thread. However, if it is another topic, then please start a new thread.

Thanks,
Xnn