The “100,000-Year Problem” and Earth’s Strange Non-Linear Climate – Has It Risen to That?

Mike Jonas

My paper (“article”) on the “100,000-year problem” has been published. Many thanks to WUWT reader Burl Henry for recommending WJARR – most journals are quite expensive for low-budget authors like myself (eg 9,500 Euros for open access in nature).

Paper: The interband cycle is not a 100,000 year cycle, it is a shorter cycle with missing spans

The main point of the paper is that the 100,000-year and 41,000-year interglacial cycles are the subject of the “100,000-year problem” that never existed.

I won’t repeat the summary here – you can access it, and the entire paper is open access, at the link above. I find it hard to believe that any rational person can still believe that climate models can work, provided Declaration of the IPCC that “Long-term predictions of future climate states are impossible“. The paper provides empirical evidence supporting that IPCC claim. Although the paper only deals with multi-thousand-year cycles, it seems reasonable to assume that the same nonlinear chaotic characteristics apply at both longer and shorter time scales. However, there still seems to be a lot of irrational people in climate science.

The “100,000-year problem” is said to have an interesting history:

– – –

• Wikipedia Statuses: “The 100,000-year problem deals with the lack of a clear explanation for the periodicity of ice ages around 100,000 years in the last million years, but not before, when the dominant period corresponds to 41,000 years. .“.
• “Problem” was written in Wikipedia at least since 2007 (maybe much earlier?), when the article ends with “”Alternatively, a 21,000-year Precession cycle may be responsible.“.
• Once it was established that interglacial cycles changed dramatically from a 41,000-year cycle to a 100,000-year cycle about a million years ago, that idea became “stuck” and was not dismissed. can quit. When Liesecki and Rahmo such as plotting their temperature for a Quaternary ice age, they “adjusted” the data to make it more consistent with an oblique period of 41,000 years:In the second adjustment, we loosen the LSR constraint to keep the δ18O signal approximately in phase with the oblique component of the ice model.“.
• Back in 2006, Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer publish an article identified much shorter Precession cycles as the main driver, but missing cycles. ie, the cycle sometimes does not initiate an interband phase, with very low versus non-low CO2 being a significant factor. The entire article by Ellis and Palmer is really worth reading!
• For a long time, Wikipedia articles about The problem of 100,000 years There is no indication that the period of Precession plays any role in the interband period, with the 2007 “Precession” statement dropped.[*] . In particular, there is no mention of Ellis and Palmer.
• It’s hard to believe that the Wikipedia authors didn’t know about the Ellis and Palmer paper, because there’s a “Ralph Ellis” page in Wikipedia, which explicitly mentions the Ellis and Palmer paper under the title “Ice age, precession, and dust feedback“.
• Even worse than that, and in what appears to be an attempt to discredit Ralph Ellis’ ideas entirely, in 2017 the “Ralph Ellis” page was removed from Wikipedia. To watch To clear.
• A recent addition[*] to the Wikipedia page “The 100,000-year problem” now mentions the Concession again, but still does not mention Ellis and Palmer.

[*] I say this from memory, because I can’t remember seeing in the last year or two any hints on Wikipedia that Increment played an important role. I may be wrong. The Wikipedia page has been edited 5 times in March 2022 alone, so unraveling its history will take quite a while.

– – –

The article must be indexed in Google Scholar within the appropriate time. The journal editor has placed “Discussion” before “Conclusion”, although I think it would be more natural the other way since “Discussion” discusses issues arising from the Conclusion.

It is my hope that the paper will go in some way at least to revive the ideas of Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer, and that climate modelers will begin to take seriously the IPCC’s claim that “The climate system is an interconnected non-linear chaotic system, and therefore, long-term predictions of future climate states are impossible.“.