• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle and Climate Variability

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a fascinating perspective on climate that may complement the larger perspective of Svensmark and Shaviv. Compared to AGW explanations this is newer, bigger science.

Solar
The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle

Guest essay by Andy May and Javier The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is compelling evidence of a solar cycle of about the same length and phase; suggesting that the solar cycle might be causing the climate cycle. We will present a summary…

The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is compelling evidence of a solar cycle of about the same length and phase; suggesting that the solar cycle might be causing the climate cycle. We will present a summary of the evidence, beginning with the original paleontological evidence, followed by the cosmogenic radionuclide (10Be or Beryllium-10 and 14C or Carbon-14) evidence. For more information, a bibliography of many papers discussing topics relevant to the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle can be found here. Only a small portion of the relevant papers are mentioned in this summary post.
In the November 16, 1968 issue of Nature, James R. Bray first proposed the idea of a 2600-year solar-driven climate cycle based primarily upon evidence of Holocene global glacier advances and retreats. We prefer to call this period the Bray Cycle after him, but the same cycle is often called the Hallstatt Cycle. In this post, we will use both names interchangeably to refer both to the climate cycle and the solar cycle. Bray only considered the maximum advance of a glacier field or a major re-advance that reached the near vicinity of the maximum. He used glacier fields in North America, Greenland, Eurasia, New Zealand and South America in the study. The glacial advances were dated using tree rings, lichenometry and radiocarbon dating. Glacial events for the last 13,700 years suggested an optimum interval of 2600 years. He used a “solar index,” based upon sunspots, sunspot cycle length and auroral records that covered the period from 700BC to the present day to show the cause might be a solar cycle. Over this period, the chi-square statistictied the glacial events to solar activity with a score of 28.6 (P<0.001). . . .

While the cause of the solar cycle of Bray length is currently unknown, Scafetta, et al. (2016) have suggested that the orbits of the larger planets have a repeating pattern of 2318 years that might be the cause. Proof is elusive, but this is a fascinating area of study.
The Bray cycle has been recognized in glacier advances and re-advances, ice raft data, peat bog studies, δO18 data, and in 10Be and 14C records for almost 50 years. It is supported by historical accounts from Bray lows and archeological data. There is little doubt that the cycle exists, but its exact length and its ultimate cause are unknown. However, much work is being done that should bear fruit with time.
One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame. Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests.

 
Here is a fascinating perspective on climate that may complement the larger perspective of Svensmark and Shaviv. Compared to AGW explanations this is newer, bigger science.

Solar
The Bray (Hallstatt) Cycle

Guest essay by Andy May and Javier The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is compelling evidence of a solar cycle of about the same length and phase; suggesting that the solar cycle might be causing the climate cycle. We will present a summary…

The evidence for a persistent irregular climate cycle with a period of 2400 ±200 years is strong. There is compelling evidence of a solar cycle of about the same length and phase; suggesting that the solar cycle might be causing the climate cycle. We will present a summary of the evidence, beginning with the original paleontological evidence, followed by the cosmogenic radionuclide (10Be or Beryllium-10 and 14C or Carbon-14) evidence. For more information, a bibliography of many papers discussing topics relevant to the Bray (Hallstatt) cycle can be found here. Only a small portion of the relevant papers are mentioned in this summary post.
In the November 16, 1968 issue of Nature, James R. Bray first proposed the idea of a 2600-year solar-driven climate cycle based primarily upon evidence of Holocene global glacier advances and retreats. We prefer to call this period the Bray Cycle after him, but the same cycle is often called the Hallstatt Cycle. In this post, we will use both names interchangeably to refer both to the climate cycle and the solar cycle. Bray only considered the maximum advance of a glacier field or a major re-advance that reached the near vicinity of the maximum. He used glacier fields in North America, Greenland, Eurasia, New Zealand and South America in the study. The glacial advances were dated using tree rings, lichenometry and radiocarbon dating. Glacial events for the last 13,700 years suggested an optimum interval of 2600 years. He used a “solar index,” based upon sunspots, sunspot cycle length and auroral records that covered the period from 700BC to the present day to show the cause might be a solar cycle. Over this period, the chi-square statistictied the glacial events to solar activity with a score of 28.6 (P<0.001). . . .

While the cause of the solar cycle of Bray length is currently unknown, Scafetta, et al. (2016) have suggested that the orbits of the larger planets have a repeating pattern of 2318 years that might be the cause. Proof is elusive, but this is a fascinating area of study.
The Bray cycle has been recognized in glacier advances and re-advances, ice raft data, peat bog studies, δO18 data, and in 10Be and 14C records for almost 50 years. It is supported by historical accounts from Bray lows and archeological data. There is little doubt that the cycle exists, but its exact length and its ultimate cause are unknown. However, much work is being done that should bear fruit with time.
One inescapable conclusion, from the evidence presented, is that solar variability is an important cause of climate change in the centennial to millennial time frame. Therefore, it must have contributed more to recent warming since the last Bray low ended at the end of the Little Ice Age than the IPCC suggests.



8pf5tM2.gif
 
Here is a fascinating perspective on climate that may complement the larger perspective of Svensmark and Shaviv. Compared to AGW explanations this is newer, bigger science.

[clipped for length]

That there has been a natural warming trend since the end of the little ice age 300 years ago does not seem to be in dispute. These papers take it as a given. The larger this trend the less important AGW must be. If there has been a 0.8 degree C rise in global mean temperature in the last one hundred years and 0.4 degrees of that is natural then the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 270 to 400 ppm only caused 0.4 degrees of that at best, assuming those temperature estimates are even accurate. If so then AGW is nothing to worry about.
 
That there has been a natural warming trend since the end of the little ice age 300 years ago does not seem to be in dispute. These papers take it as a given. The larger this trend the less important AGW must be. If there has been a 0.8 degree C rise in global mean temperature in the last one hundred years and 0.4 degrees of that is natural then the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 270 to 400 ppm only caused 0.4 degrees of that at best, assuming those temperature estimates are even accurate. If so then AGW is nothing to worry about.

When we lose the cycle's warmth, we might learn to appreciate AGW &#55357;&#56896;
 
[h=2]Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part A[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on July 11, 2017 | 125 comments[/FONT]
By 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.
Continue reading
 
[h=2]Nature Unbound IV – The 2400-year Bray cycle. Part B[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on July 16, 2017 | 60 comments[/FONT]
by 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.
Continue reading
 
That there has been a natural warming trend since the end of the little ice age 300 years ago does not seem to be in dispute. These papers take it as a given. The larger this trend the less important AGW must be. If there has been a 0.8 degree C rise in global mean temperature in the last one hundred years and 0.4 degrees of that is natural then the increase of atmospheric CO2 from 270 to 400 ppm only caused 0.4 degrees of that at best, assuming those temperature estimates are even accurate. If so then AGW is nothing to worry about.
That would dovetail in nicely with the observed .2 Wm-2 energy imbalance for a delta of 22 ppm.
The forcing warming for doubling CO2 would be .72 °C.
1.04 X ln(409/270)=.43°C, Close enough for Government work!
 
[h=2]Nature Unbound V – The elusive 1500-year Holocene cycle[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on September 15, 2017 | 41 comments[/FONT]
by Javier
The existence of a 1500-year climatic cycle during the Holocene, related to the glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, is a matter of intense debate. However, by introducing precise timing requirements it can be shown that the 1500-year cycle displayed in Northern Hemisphere glacial records is also observed in Holocene records from all over the world.
Continue reading

41 Comments


 
How does this questionable theory account for the actual data?

CO2-Temp.jpg
 
How does this questionable theory account for the actual data?

View attachment 67222823

Try not to parade your ignorance more than you have to.

Usoskin, et al. (2016, Astronomy and Astrophysics) performed a spectral decomposition of 14C and 10Be curves to 7,000 BC. Once the first component was removed a very strong, in phase, 2400-year cycle was uncovered in both curves as shown in Figure 2. The blue curve is 14C and the red is 10Be, the vertical scale is a computed “sunspot index number.” Solar grand maxima are shown as red stars and solar grand minima are shown as open blue circles. We have historical records establishing the grand minima after 1500BC, the earlier ones are based on a model of 14C and 10Be curves.
112116_1825_thebrayhall6.png

Figure 2 (after Usoskin, et al.)
Steinhilber, et al. found that using the first component of a principal component analysis eliminated terrestrial effects from the curves and resulted in a 2200-year cycle. Usoskin, et al. used a related but different statistical technique to remove terrestrial effects and extracted a 2400-year cycle from the data. Usoskin’s Pearson’s coefficient between the 10Be and 14C records was 0.77 which is highly significant (p<10-5). Usoskin notes:
 
Try not to parade your ignorance more than you have to.
Funny how you couldn't answer the question. It's so predictable. Go to the High Schooler, Watts, website. Find some fossil-fuel financed "scientific" study. Post it all over the forum site. Disregard the actual science. We're onto you, Jackie Boy!
 
Funny how you couldn't answer the question. It's so predictable. Go to the High Schooler, Watts, website. Find some fossil-fuel financed "scientific" study. Post it all over the forum site. Disregard the actual science. We're onto you, Jackie Boy!

If you had read the graph you might have noticed that it tracks well with recent temperature increases. As for the rest of your post, I don't think you'll find a single "fossil-fuel financed" paper among the many cited (and linked) in the article. You continue to try to counter the data with insults; that won't work.
 
[h=2]Nature Unbound VI – Centennial to millennial solar cycles[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on December 2, 2017 | 28 comments[/FONT]
by Javier
Summary: Holocene climate has been affected in different periods by several centennial to millennial solar cycles. The ~ 1000-year Eddy solar cycle seems to have dominated Holocene climate variability between 11,500-4,000 years BP, and in the last two millennia, where it defines the Roman, Medieval, and Modern warm periods. The ~ 208-year de Vries solar cycle displays strong modulation by the ~ 2400-year Bray solar cycle, both in its cosmogenic isotope signature and in its climatic effects. The Centennial, and Pentadecadal solar cycles are observable in the last 400-year sunspot record, and they are responsible for the present extended solar minimum that started in 2008.
Continue reading
 
Back
Top Bottom