tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2249983551893842827.post8137299078036764030..comments2023-10-26T23:39:36.158+01:00Comments on Climate and Stuff: Cycle Mania and Hadcrut3thefordprefecthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07210786222021457913noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2249983551893842827.post-32489525485453497482014-07-10T01:29:28.059+01:002014-07-10T01:29:28.059+01:00OK and so just what is the physical property of th...OK and so just what is the physical property of the sum of the periods of 3 planets that causes changes in earths climate.! <br />I do not see how the very small gravitational effects of distant planets can raise the temperature of earth. It isn't the effect on the sun for we have recorded its output reasonably accurately for a few decades and it hasn't changed significantly!thefordprefecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210786222021457913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2249983551893842827.post-79729350423953368252014-07-09T13:32:17.911+01:002014-07-09T13:32:17.911+01:00Nice, 317.67 years is the major cycle of Jupiter, ...Nice, 317.67 years is the major cycle of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2249983551893842827.post-44752529973660954712013-01-03T12:53:03.333+00:002013-01-03T12:53:03.333+00:00the 300 year cycle is only required to give a prof...the 300 year cycle is only required to give a profile that currently matches the temperature trends. if a trend is used then there is no need of this cycle.<br /><br />The 60 year cycle is perhaps a reality (although this whole plot thing is simple wiggle matching!) but again I have no proof of its cause.<br /><br />What I find interesting is that 0.01C rise in ocean temperature represents a phenominal increase in stored energy. But am I right in assuming that the coupling of this increase into the atmospheric temperature would only cause an increase of 0.01C? So apart from disturbance to sealife is there any problem with ocean temperature increases?thefordprefecthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07210786222021457913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2249983551893842827.post-52219448325919942012012-12-12T05:09:28.559+00:002012-12-12T05:09:28.559+00:00hmmph, the mechanism for the c.60 year cycle coul...hmmph, the mechanism for the c.60 year cycle could be the warm up/cooling down of the ocean above the continental shelves. This might be assumed to change the direction of the heat transfer between benthic depth ocean and the surface layer. Since it's well established that the primary driver of climate change are the greenhouse gases (the change in OLR/ISR), the 60 year cycle might be expected to get shorter as the imbalance in radiation budget gets larger. The deep ocean is pretty uniform so the +300 year cycle should have a different extraplanetary mechanism. Some might assume this could be of solar origin but as the rotation of the sun (at least on the surface) is pretty fast one has to assume that this would happen in solar interior. AFAIK, the astronomers haven't yet demonstrated G-type variable stars with such a long period. So, imo there is a possibility of AMO (linked to PDO) though I'm sceptical of that too and the longer cycle is mathematical play that has no basis in reality. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com