3 ms·

> And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. I'm sure NASA or some other credible scientific organization must have reported on this highly int

> And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. I'm sure NASA or some other credible scientific organization must have reported on this highly intriguing idea. Link?

chrisco255 6y ago
Sure, here's a few: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume "Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 Here's a good talk from NASA JPL last year stating we still have a very poor model for changes in cloud cover over time and the dramatic effect clouds have on climate : https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI The Holocene Asian monsoon: links to solar changes and North Atlantic climate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ Synchronous 500-year oscillations of monsoon climate and human activity in Northeast Asia "This ~500-year cyclicity in the monsoon and thus environmental change triggered the development of prehistoric cultures in Northeast China. The cyclicity is apparently linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, against the background of long-term Holocene climatic evolution." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice "We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation6 and sea-level change3,12." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 Etc, etc...there's probably thousands of studies on the AMO, PDO, NAO, ENSO, etc. On pubmed, Nature, etc. I highly recommend taking a look at some of those.
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years. Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is discussing cycles with periods of 100,000 years, with no mention of anything related to the modern climate change events (at least, nothing in the abstract). ... What’s the deal? This is a complete non-sequitor.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    And neglects to address the other points.
    - dwaltrip 6y ago
      It isn't worth responding to secondary points if the primary point of discussion has devolved into non-sequiturs. It would be a distraction from the important parts.
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        I fail to see your assertion that the other points are non-sequitor. OP states: > And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. And then goes on to provide you studies about oceanic cycles that stand unchallenged.
        dwaltrip 6y ago
        100,000 year climate cycles are not what anyone was referring to in earlier comments when they said “climate change”. We are talking about the changes over the recent centuries which have been driven by co2 emissions. It was a misleading change of topic.

> And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. I'm sure NASA or some other credible scientific organization must have reported on this highly intriguing idea. Link?

chrisco255 6y ago

Sure, here's a few: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume "Carbon dioxide is involved, but is not determinative, in the evolution of the 100,000-year glacial cycles." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12374 Here's a good talk from NASA JPL last year stating we still have a very poor model for changes in cloud cover over time and the dramatic effect clouds have on climate : https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI https://youtu.be/ra9AFNco3lI The Holocene Asian monsoon: links to solar changes and North Atlantic climate https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15879216/ Synchronous 500-year oscillations of monsoon climate and human activity in Northeast Asia "This ~500-year cyclicity in the monsoon and thus environmental change triggered the development of prehistoric cultures in Northeast China. The cyclicity is apparently linked to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, against the background of long-term Holocene climatic evolution." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6739325/ Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice "We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation6 and sea-level change3,12." https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12945 Etc, etc...there's probably thousands of studies on the AMO, PDO, NAO, ENSO, etc. On pubmed, Nature, etc. I highly recommend taking a look at some of those.

dwaltrip 6y ago
We are discussing “climate change”, something that has been occurring over the past 200 or so years. Yet the first link your provide in response to my query is discussing cycles with periods of 100,000 years, with no mention of anything related to the modern climate change events (at least, nothing in the abstract). ... What’s the deal? This is a complete non-sequitor.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  And neglects to address the other points.
  - dwaltrip 6y ago
    It isn't worth responding to secondary points if the primary point of discussion has devolved into non-sequiturs. It would be a distraction from the important parts.
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      I fail to see your assertion that the other points are non-sequitor. OP states: > And the oceanic cycles absolutely dominate climate change. And then goes on to provide you studies about oceanic cycles that stand unchallenged.
      - dwaltrip 6y ago
        100,000 year climate cycles are not what anyone was referring to in earlier comments when they said “climate change”. We are talking about the changes over the recent centuries which have been driven by co2 emissions. It was a misleading change of topic.