The Weather Channel Travels to the Far Corners of the Earth to Explore the World’s “Tipping Points”
New global production to premiere October 2013
August 03, 2012 11:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time
LOS ANGELES - (BUSINESS WIRE) -The Weather Channel Companies announced today that it is the U.S. partner on the global production of “Tipping Points,” a landmark TV series that will explore the emerging tipping points of our changing climate system that have recently drawn concern from scientific communities worldwide for their fragile and near-crisis state. The groundbreaking docu-series will follow a group of pre-eminent scientists as they venture off the grid to explore the perilous tipping points making our weather systems more extreme and unpredictable. Produced by Unboxed Media, “Tipping Points” premieres in October 2013 and will feature 6x 60min. episodes on The Weather Channel, as well as additional content across weather.com, mobile, tablet and social media platforms.
“We believe this is one of the most important series being produced today, and The Weather Channel is in the unique position to be an authority on changes in climate and weather”
The series will explore the global impact of our changing climate system, how climate and human populations interconnect and the profound impact they have on each other. Scientists will explore the elements destabilizing our climate system and how changes in a remote area can - and do - dramatically impact those on other continents, thousands of miles away.
The phenomena of “tipping points” follows the concept that, at a particular moment in time, a small change can have a large, long-term consequence on a fragile climate system already in a state of flux. Localized ecological systems are known to shift abruptly and irreversibly from one state to another when they are forced across critical thresholds. Further, when the situation is pushed past the “tipping point,” it will potentially lead to a chain reaction, putting other ecosystems around the globe in peril.
“Tipping Points” will feature several of the most critical examples, including the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, total melting of the Himalayan icecap glaciers, dieback of the Amazon rainforest, shutdown of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, and the rapid melt of the Permafrost in Siberia.
“We believe this is one of the most important series being produced today, and The Weather Channel is in the unique position to be an authority on changes in climate and weather,” said Michael Dingley, senior vice president, content and development, The Weather Channel Companies. “‘Tipping Points’ will not only show how our changing climate system affect local communities in exotic and distant locales like the Amazon or Siberia, but how it impacts and is relevant to people even right here in the U.S., be it Portland, Maine or Portland, Oregon and every community in between. We need to explore and understand what can be done to stem the tide of change before we do irreparable damage, and ultimately put our own lives at risk.”
The series is hosted by polar explorer and climate journalist Bernice Notenboom, who will be joined by a number of leading international environmental scientists in each episode such as Torben Christensen, Peter Cox, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Matthew England, James Hansen, Tim Lenton, Yadvinder Malhi, Konrad Steffen, Katey Walker, Jay Zwally, and more. Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist for The Weather Channel, will serve as contributing science editor on the project.
The Weather Channel owns the U.S. rights as the sole U.S. network to air the series. The global partnership includes international networks NHK Japan, ARD Group Germany, Canvas Belgium, VPRO Holland, and The Australia Network.
“Tipping Points” is the latest to join The Weather Channel’s growing original content slate, which includes “Coast Guard Alaska,” “Iron Men.” “Lifeguard!,” “Ice Pilots,” “Hurricane Hunters,” “Hawaii Air Rescue” (Sept. 5), and “Coast Guard Florida"(Oct. 10), as well as the “Braving the Elements” docu-series anthology, which includes “Turbine Cowboys,” “Pyros,” “Iceberg Hunters” (Sept. 18), and “Reefmakers” (Oct. 9).
or images of “Tipping Points”: http://press.weather.com/image-gallery/tipping-points/
About The Weather Channel Companies
The Weather Channel companies (TWCC) are made up of The Weather Channel television network, The Weather Channel digital properties, WSI, and Weather Underground. The Weather Channel is based in Atlanta and is seen in more than 100 million U.S. households. TWCC also operates Weatherscan, a 24hour all-local weather network; The Weather Channel Radio Network; and The Weather Channel HD. The most popular source of weather news and information, TWCC properties reach 60 million monthly Web consumers (weather.com and Desktop) and 30 million monthly mobile users (mobile Web and applications) and offers the second most popular mobile app on all smartphones. WSI, headquartered in Andover, MA, primarily provides business-to-business weather services, particularly for the media, aviation, marine and energy sectors. Online weather service Weather Underground is based in Ann Arbor, MI, and San Francisco, and has developed the world’s largest network of personal weather stations. TWCC is owned by a consortium made up of NBC Universal and the private equity firms The Blackstone Group and Bain Capital. For more information, visit www.weather.com/press.
The list of topics and so called experts are laughable. The original founders of The Weather Channel (100+) met for a 30th anniversary reunion in Atlanta in April. There will be no weather channel around for the 40th given their direction. Be sure to let them know what you think of their idea.
“During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes became newsworthy. Claims that there were thousands of records broken each day and that “this is what global warming looks like” got a lot of attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony it is scientifically more accurate to say that this is what Mother Nature looks like, since events even worse than these have happened in the past before greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.
Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy answer when the weather strays from the average rather than to struggle with the real truth, which is, we don’t know enough about the climate to even predict events like this.
A climatologist looking at this heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most recent decade was only about half the number set in the 1930s as shown in my written testimony. I suppose most people have forgotten that Oklahoma set a new record low temperature just last year of 31 below. And in the past two years, towns from Alaska to my home state of California established records for snowfall. The recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.”
1. It is popular again to claim that extreme events, such as the current central U.S. drought, are evidence of human-caused climate change. Actually, the Earth is very large, the weather is very dynamic, and extreme events will continue to occur somewhere, every year, naturally. The recent “extremes” were exceeded in previous decades.”
2. The average warming rate of 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models are too sensitive to CO2. Policy based on observations, where year-to- year variations cause the most harm, will likely be far more effective than policies based on speculative model output, no matter what the future climate does.
3. New discoveries explain part of the warming found in traditional surface temperature datasets. This partial warming is unrelated to the accumulation of heat due to the extra greenhouse gases, but related to human development around the thermometer stations. This means traditional surface datasets are limited as proxies for greenhouse warming.
4. Widely publicized consensus reports by “thousands” of scientists are misrepresentative of climate science, containing overstated confidence in their assertions of high climate sensitivity. They rarely represent the range of scientific opinion that attends our relatively murky field of climate research. Funding resources are recommended for “Red Teams” of credentialed, independent investigators, who already study low climate sensitivity and the role of natural variability. Policymakers need to be aware of the full range of scientific views, especially when it appears that one-sided-science is the basis for promoting significant increases to the cost of energy for the citizens.
5. Atmospheric CO2 is food for plants which means it is food for people and animals. More CO2 generally means more food for all. Today, affordable carbon-based energy is a key component for lifting people out of crippling poverty. Rising CO2 emissions are, therefore, one indication of poverty-reduction which gives hope for those now living in a marginal existence without basic needs brought by electrification, transportation and industry. Additionally, modern, carbon-based energy reduces the need for deforestation and alleviates other environmental problems such as water and air pollution. Until affordable energy is developed from non-carbon sources, the world will continue to use carbon as the main energy source as it does today.
It is a privilege for me to offer my views of climate change based on my experience as a climate scientist. My research area might be best described as building datasets from scratch to advance our understanding of what the climate is doing and why. This often involves weeks and months of tedious examination of paper records and then digitizing the data for use in computational analysis. I have used traditional surface observations as well as measurements from balloons and satellites to document the climate story. Many of my datasets are used to test hypotheses of climate variability and change. In the following I will address five issues that are part of the discussion of climate change today, some of which will be assisted by the datasets I have built and published.
1. EXTREME EVENTS
Recently it has become popular to try and attribute certain extreme events to human causation. The Earth however, is very large, the weather is very dynamic, especially at local scales, so that extreme events of one type or another will occur somewhere on the planet in every year. Since there are innumerable ways to define an extreme event (i.e. record high/low temperatures, number of days of a certain quantity, precipitation total over 1, 2, 10… days, snowfall amounts, etc.) this essentially assures us that there will be numerous “extreme events” in every year because every year has unique weather patterns. The following assesses some of the recent “extreme events” and demonstrates why they are poor proxies for making claims about human causation.
Extreme High and Low Temperatures
Another extreme metric is the all time record high temperature for each state. The occurrence of the records by decade (Figure 1.1 below) makes it obvious that the 1930s were the most extreme decade and that since 1960, there have been more all-time cold records set than hot records in each decade.
However, there are only 50 states, and this is a number that isn’t large enough to give the best statistical results. Below are the year-by-year numbers of daily all-time record high temperatures from a set of 970 weather stations with at least 80 years of record (NOAA/NCDC/USHCNv2). There are 365 opportunities in each year (366 in leap years) for each of the 970 stations to set a record high (TMax). These have been added up by years and displayed in the Fig. 1.2 below. Note the several years above 6000 events prior to 1940 and none above 5000 since 1954. The clear evidence is that extreme high temperatures are not increasing in frequency, but actually appear to be decreasing. The recent claims about thousands of new record high temperatures were based on stations whose length-of-record could begin as recently as 1981, thus missing the many heat waves of the 20th century. Thus, any moderately hot day now will be publicized as setting records for these young stations because they were not operating in the 1930s. The figure below gives what a climatologist would want to know because it uses only stations with long records.
We have had some very hot days in the summer of 2012. We have also had some crazy temperatures reported from the National Weather Service (NWS) station at the Maryland Science Center. This is a sore subject because I have tried to raise objectionable concerns about the quality of the weather data and that gets lost in the entire Global Warming/Climate Change debate. That can and should be a separate issue. However I maintain the same response to everyone: Pollution is bad, but bad data is as well. Warming is not the question. How much warming is. My main goal is to maintain the integrity of the weather reporting sites so that they keep up with standards set forth by NOAA. Scientifically speaking any measuring for the purpose of collecting data should be accurate and follow a set guidelines. The station in question here (KDMH) represents Baltimore City from the Inner Harbor. It violates multiple NOAA regulations to be considered a legitimate station. In its short life however, since being instituted in 1998, it has gained even more problems.
I want to be clear that I have a good relationship with the Maryland Science Center. In fact, I met my wife there when she was working as an educator in 2000. The issues I raise here are not their responsibility, but that of NOAA and NWS.
View slideshow: Multiple artificial heating sources for Baltimore City weather station
Multiple heat sources in close proximity to NWS weather station in Baltimore City contradict NOAA’s guidelines
Photo credit: Justin Berk
Going Green turned up the heat
The most recent problem started in January of 2011 when The Maryland Science Center ran into controversy over their proposed solar panel project. It was a two row carport over the existing parking lot on the east side of the museum. Residents of Federal Hill objected to the potential obstruction to their views. It turns out the solar panel carport was to range between 7-10 feet high and had little impact to the view. In fact on the cloudy day I took the photos, they are hard to see, but the problems impacted the weather station.
The main issue is that these are solar panels on a metal structure. Solar panels are designed to do one thing: Absorb sunlight. At best they have a 12%-20% efficiency to convert that light into electrical energy. Much of the rest is infrared radiation, or heat! The metal carport structure also serves as a source of absorbing and radiated heat.
This carport is located less that 10 meters (30 feet) due south of the NWS weather station. A south wind on a hot sunny day would take this heat and transfer it direction over the weather station. The irony is that while attempting to be environmentally sound, solar panels do not function well when they get too hot. Their conversion to electricity decreases and they add extra heat to their surroundings. That is not a dig at the technology, but merely a fact. So when Baltimore’s Inner Harbor reported a high of 107F on July 18, it was enhanced by this structure. The WeatherBug station, located on the roof of the museum with good ventilation was a more respectable 101F. The six degree difference is actually more common than just the peak of the heat.
This location was mentioned on national headlines and is set up by NWS to be the primary station for zip codes in Baltimore City and much of Baltimore County. I had mentioned that if your phone or local Weather Channel report said 107F that day, it was wrong and doing you a disservice.
The irony of the photos in the slide show that support my concern is that they were taken on a cloudy cool day, In fact I went to visit the museum with my family on July 21, 2012 when Baltimore set a record cool max temperature for the date.
Pre-existing violations of KDMH as a weather station:
1. Proximity to the building: I understand that a city should have weather conditions, but most are urban heat islands with a microclimate that absorb heat through asphalt, brick, metal, and various other elements of city dwellings. However, the NWS weather station was placed next to a the Maryland Science Center Museum… a brick building. This contradicts NOAA’s standards that a weather station must be located at least 100 feet away from any structural influence.
Even NOAA’s page on Weather Stations addresses this question:
“Q. Could stations located in potentially warmer locations near buildings and cities influence temperature readings?
Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations adhere to all of the established monitoring principles and are located in unpopulated areas. They are closely monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures. It is a network designed specifically for assessing climate change.”
2. Wind: There is no wind sensor on KDMH because it is blocked by The Maryland Science Center. This was known when the station was installed, but the location was maintain. Here clip from section 2.1 of NOAA’s Guidelines for Meteorological Station Reconnaissance:
“A horizontal distance of ten times the height of an obstruction should be maintained, between the wind sensor and the obstruction, for the surrounding area to be considered open terrain. An obstruction can be manmade (building) or natural (tree).”
The Maryland Science Center is 5 stories tall. KDMH is actually closer than the roof was be compared to the base turned on its side. So the violation of wind
3. Pavement: The present location of KDMH is a fenced in area next to the museum. However is has bout 1 foot of grass between the asphalt pavement just to it’s north. Despite an area of grass, it is surrounded by a parking made of asphalt, cobblestone, and concrete to its east and south. Farther to the north is water of Baltimore’s Inner Harbor. Considering section 2.2 of the NOAA Guideline manual, this is also a violation:
“2.2 Air temperature/Relative humidity
Standard mounting elevation is 1.2 to 2.0 m (4.0 to 6.5 ft) above grade. The sensor should be mounted over a plot of open level ground at least 9 m (30 ft) in diameter. The ground beneath the sensor should be short grass or natural earth, not asphalt, concrete, areas of standing water, etc.
The distance between the sensor and any obstruction should be at least 4 times the height of the obstruction (40 m for a 10-m obstruction). It should be at least 30 m (100 ft) from large paved areas and not close to steep slopes.”
Other weather station violations
This is one of many examples of artificial warming weather stations across the nation. There have been arguments about the work done at surfacestations.org that claimed 80% of US weather stations had some violation of NOAA guidelines. See 20 examples for yourself here.
Yesterday Anthony Watts released his research station with claims that artificial warming accounts for 50% of the warming reported in the US. I cannot attest to the rest , but I can say that in addition to our BWI cited problems in close proximity to runways, I would hope that more attention is made to this matter.
Recent similar temperature stories:
Baltimore’s Record High of 104F on July 7, 2012
Baltimore’s temperature at BWI seems too high
NOAA Climate Report missing a lot of data
What can be done?
First, I wish NWS would maintain awareness of influences around all weather stations. Baltimore City is not alone. NWS should do a comparative study with the WeatherBug station already in place at the Maryland Science Center. It was carefully installed and calibrated to account for the environment and avoid artificial influences. The two organizations have already have worked together on many projects and this would be an easy fix. Secondly, scout a better location. The top of Federal hill would provide an optimal assessment in the heart of the city without any impact from the low elevation.
Most importantly: Stop using this as an official weather station! Even the folks at Weather Underground have been identifying this as a station of record for the city. We had enough problems with The Custom House housing the weather station for decades on it’s roof. I contest that this present location is worse. It doesn’t matter what your stance is about Global Warming, you should want accurate data to support any research.
though some isolate tornadoes are possible in the notheast the next few days, we are very likely to end up July with the record lowest number of tornadoes for the month on record, in sharp contrast to how we started the season at the end of February. Then the media stories said ‘here we go again’.
Over a year ago at the launch of Weatherbell, JB and my first posts were on the likelhood of a blockbuster tornado/severe weather/flooding 2011 spring season, given the powerful jet fed by enhanced contrast coming off the second strongest La Nina on the record (behind 1954-56 or 1917/18 depending on whether you use the MEi or SOI measures). Though the mainstream media laid the blame for the severe weather on global warming, we suggested it was the strong La Nina and the cold upper atmosphere, possibly leftover from from the very long quiet solar minimum.
Since greenhouse warming is supposed to at the surface have the greatest effect in higher latitudes (aloft in the tropica), the contrst should diminish not increase and thermal gradient baroclinic fed winter and spring storms and thus tornadoes should diminish not increase as they promised. A cooling earth, leads to greater contrast and more of these storms. It also leads to an expanded vortex which can lead to more meridional patterns with sharp ridges and troughs that lead to extremes of temperatures. As we have shown, the variability in these modes is lowest and that leads to more extremes and persistence. Thus summer while the center of the US baked, Alaska was having a year w/o a summer as was northern Europe, to the southeast, another ridge over southeast Europe and western Russia is also bring heat and drought. I was pleased to see this story by Bob Henson of UCAR who tells it like it is.
JULY HEADS FOR A RECORD-LOW TORNADO COUNT
Heat and drought are punishing much of the United States right now, but there’s actually some good weather news to report. This month is on track to produce fewer tornadoes than any July on record, and by a long shot.
As of July 23, this month has produced a paltry total of 14 tornado reports, according to preliminary data from NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC). While there could be more twisters before month’s end, a major outbreak doesn’t appear likely at all.
The chart below shows just how unusual this month has been, compared to past Julys. Graphed in blue are the final July tornado counts from the 1950s (when modern records began) to 2011. The next-most-quiet July after 2012 is 1960, which saw a total of 42 tornadoes - three times what we’ve seen thus far this month. Many Julys have produced more than 100 twisters.
The number of U.S. tornadoes reported each July (blue line) has gradually risen since the 1950s, with more observers and cameras watching the skies. The red line shows an estimate of how many tornadoes might have been observed if modern observing technologies and practices were in place throughout the entire period. The blue diamond at lower right shows this year’s July total: a mere 14 tornadoes, as of the 23rd of the month. (Data courtesy Harold Brooks, NOAA Storm Prediction Center; illustration by Wes Shifrin, UCAR.)
The results get even more interesting when you adjust the numbers for “report inflation.” Tornado reports have gradually increased since the 1950s, especially for weak twisters. This appears to be a byproduct of the steady growth of interest in storm spotting and tornado chasing, along with the advent of inexpensive, high-quality digital photo and video tools. The attention and technology have combined to boost the reported numbers of weak tornadoes, whereas the strongest ones are being observed about as often as they were 50 or 60 years ago-a clue that it’s observing practice rather than climate change behind the trend.
Shown in red are the tornado counts as adjusted for report inflation by Harold Brooks (National Severe Storms Laboratory) and Greg Carbin (SPC). This procedure boosts the numbers in earlier years to replicate what might have been observed if Twitter, smartphones, and chase tours had been around at the time. The adjustment is smaller for more recent years, zeroing out for the current year. What this means is that the dearth of tornadoes in July 2012 becomes still more impressive. In the adjusted data, the quietest July is 2007, with 73 tornadoes-more than five times the current total for this month.
One of the country’s most active tornado days of 2012 was April 14, when 153 twisters were reported, including this one near Cherokee, Oklahoma. Since that date, tornadic activity has run far below average. (Photo Bob Henson.)
In fact, this month could end up producing fewer tornadoes than any month on record for meteorological summer (June, July, and August). Among these, the old record is 20, set in August 1957. The inflation-adjusted number for that month would be 39.
Drought at work
What’s going on? Clearly, this month’s vanishing act is related to the intense ongoing drought, which is the nation’s most widespread since the 1950s. If thunderstorms aren’t happening, you can’t get a tornado - but not all thunderstorms can produce twisters. Violent tornadoes, in particular, need a complex blend of upper-level winds, unstable air near the ground, and other ingredients still being studied. This month, where thunderstorms have managed to form, they’ve been largely of the scattered, “air mass” variety, driven by local instability and limited by the lack of strong upper-level winds.
The drought’s onset this spring is mirrored in the rapid dropoff of tornado activity shown in the inflation-adjusted graphic at the bottom of this page. After a spate of deadly twisters in early April, tornado counts were at near-record highs for the time of year. After that point, activity plummeted, and 2012 is now in the bottom quarter of years, as ranked by total tornadic activity through mid-July.
Interestingly, prior to 2012, the three most tornado-starved Julys in the adjusted data are 2002, 2006, and 2007. Both 2002 and 2006 were among the nation’s warmest 10 Julys in the last century, just as this one is shaping up to be. When a summer month is unusually hot, it generally means the polar jet stream has been shunted well to the north by domes of high pressure. That means less upper-level energy to fuel tornadic thunderstorms. Nontornadic storms (which rely less on wind shear and more on heat and moisture) may still pop up, assuming drought hasn’t taken hold.
Even without taking inflation into account, there’s no doubt tornadoes have been remarkably scant this month. For residents of the U.S. heartland, where the drought and heat are laying waste to crops and yards, that’s at least something to be grateful for.
This “inflation-adjusted” graphic shows the progress of tornado reports for this year (black line) as compared to the highest (red) and lowest (magenta) accumulated totals for each day of the year, going back to 1954. By mid-April, around 500 tornadoes had already been reported-close to a record number. Tornado activity dropped off rapidly through the rest of the spring and early summer, as drought began gripping much of the central and eastern United States. The current total puts 2012 among the 25% of years with the least tornado activity (blue line). (Illustration courtesy NOAA Storm Prediction Center.)
I’ll be expanding this posting over time. For right now, I’m putting up a skeleton just to anchor the space and get me doing something.
So what is a Bond Event? They are abnormally cold periods that happen about every 1470 years. We are likely headed into one now, IMHO. While the world panics over heating, it ought ot be planning how to grow more wheat without northern fields like Canada or northern Eurasia.
I’d hoped to not last long enough to reach the next Bond Event, however, we have 3 nagging little points:
1) It’s a 1470 year or so cycle and the last one started about 1470 years ago...take a look at what was happening in about 530 to 540 A.D. It was cold, and dark, and the sun wasn’t very bright… In fact, they called it The Dark Ages.
2) The sun has gone very very quiet. Not pleasing in the context of #1.
3) We’ve had a sudden onset of more cold and more snow at the poles with the oceans cooling starting in 2003 (it takes a while to cool a few gigatons of water...)
Now to me it’s pretty clear that we have a very warm ocean (and will for a few more years) especially in the tropics, putting lots of water into the air - being by definition hot and humid, not snowy… That air then hits a very very cold polar region and dumps boat loads of snow. That than accelerates the run to the cold side…
So we will be in this ‘battle ground’ state for a few more years, but only as long as it takes to cool the ocean enough to make us really wish for the good old days of a warm climate with plenty of food to eat.
Please note: Computer climate models don’t mean a darned thing if they can not explain Bond Events:
It is my opinion that we are watching the early stages of an entry into a Bond Event (and will be for the next 30 years or so) and I can only hope that we find a way to mitigate the extreme cold that is headed our way with the attendant crop failures at northern latitudes. We ought to know in about 15 years… geological time is slow like that, even the fast whip of a 1500 year cycle takes decades to observe at the inflection points.
So welcome to “Bond Event Zero” (copyright E.M. Smith) hold on to your hats, it’s going to be a bumpy ride…
You can expect crop failures, some modest famine, and wars fought over warm places to live. The history of these cold periods (where the historical episodes were named “pessimums” before we knew they were periodic) is not encouraging.
“The Iron Age Cold Epoch (also referred to as Iron Age climate pessimum or Iron Age neoglaciation) was a period of unusually cold climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about 900 BC to about 300 BC, with an especially cold wave in 450 BC during the expansion of ancient Greece. It was followed by the Roman Age Optimum (200 BC - 300 AD).”
“The Migration Period Pessimum (also referred to as Dark Ages Cold Period) was a period of cold climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about 450 to about 900 AD.[1] It succeeded the Roman Age Optimum and was followed by the Medieval Warm Period.
This Migration Period Pessimum saw the retreat of agriculture, including pasturing as well as cultivation of crops, leading to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia.[2] This period corresponds to the time following the Decline of the Roman Empire around 480 and the Plague of Justinian (541-542).[3] Climatically this period was one of rapid cooling indicated from tree-ring data[4] as well as sea surface temperatures based on diatom stratigraphy in Norwegian Sea[5], which can be correlated with Bond event 1 in the North Atlantic sediments.[6] It was also a period of rising lake levels, increased bog growth and a peak in lake catchment erosion.”
And just until I get a better layout done, here is the text from the wiki page on Bond Events:
Bond event
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from 1500-year climate cycle)
Temperature proxies from GISP2 plus Bond events
Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger events.
The theory of 1,500-year climate cycles in the Holocene was postulated by Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic.[1][2]
The existence of climatic changes, possibly on a quasi-1,500 year cycle, is well established for the last glacial period from ice cores. Less well established is the continuation of these cycles into the holocene. Bond et al. (1997) argue for a climate cyclicity close to 1470 plus/minus 500 years in the North Atlantic region. In their view, many if not most of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events of the last ice age, conform to a 1,500-year pattern, as do some climate events of later eras, like the Little Ice Age, the 8.2 kiloyear event, and the start of the Younger Dryas.
The North Atlantic ice-rafting events happen to correlate with most weak events of the Asian monsoon over the past 9,000 years,[3][4] as well as with most aridification events in the Middle East.[5] Also, there is widespread evidence that a ≈1,500 yr climate oscillation caused changes in vegetation communities across all of North America.[6]
For reasons that are unclear, the only Holocene Bond event that has a clear temperature signal in the Greenland ice cores is the 8.2 kyr event.
The hypothesis holds that the 1,500-year cycle displays nonlinear behavior and stochastic resonance; not every instance of the pattern is a significant climate event, though some rise to major prominence in environmental history.[7] Causes and determining factors of the cycle are under study; researchers have focused attention on patterns of tides, variations in solar output, and “reorganizations of atmospheric circulation."[7]
List of Bond events
Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.
≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1) - roughly correlates with the Migration Period Pessimum (450–900 AD)
≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) - roughly correlates with the Iron Age Cold Epoch (900–300 BC)[8]
≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) - correlates with the 4.2 kiloyear event
≈5,900 BP (Bond event 4) - correlates with the 5.9 kiloyear event
≈8,100 BP (Bond event 5) - correlates with the 8.2 kiloyear event
≈9,400 BP (Bond event 6) - correlates with the Erdalen event of glacier activity in Norway,[9] as well as with a cold event in China.(10)
≈10,300 BP (Bond event 7) - unnamed event
≈11,100 BP (Bond event 8) - coincides with the transition from the Younger Dryas to the boreal
References
Bond, G.; et al. (1997). “A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates”. Science 278 (5341): 1257-1266. doi:10.1126/science.278.5341.1257
Bond, G.; et al. (2001). “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene”. Science 294 (5549): 2130-2136. doi:10.1126/science.1065680.
Gupta, Anil K.; Anderson, David M.; Overpeck, Jonathan T. (2003). “Abrupt changes in the Asian southwest monsoon during the Holocene and their links to the North Atlantic Ocean”. Nature 421 (6921): 354-357. doi:10.1038/nature01340.
Yongjin Wang; et al. (2005). “The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate”. Science 308 (5723): 854-857. doi:10.1126/science.1106296.
Parker, Adrian G.; et al. (2006). “A record of Holocene climate change from lake geochemical analyses in southeastern Arabia”. Quaternary Research 66 (3): 465-476. doi:10.1016/j.yqres.2006.07.001.
Viau, Andre E.; et al. (2002). “Widespread evidence of 1,500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr”. Geology 30 (5): 455-458. doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)0302.0.CO;2.
Cox, John D. (2005). Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means for Our Future. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press. pp. 150-155. ISBN 0309093120.
Swindles, Graeme T.; Plunkett, Gill; Roe, Helen M. (2007). “A delayed climatic response to solar forcing at 2800 cal. BP: multiproxy evidence from three Irish peatlands”. The Holocene 17 (2): 177-182. doi:10.1177/0959683607075830.
Dahl, Svein Olaf; et al. (2002). “Timing, equilibrium-line altitudes and climatic implications of two early-Holocene glacier readvances during the Erdalen Event at Jostedalsbreen, western Norway”. The Holocene 12 (1): 17–25. doi:10.1191/0959683602hl516rp.
Zhou Jing; Wang Sumin; Yang Guishan; Xiao Haifeng (2007). “Younger Dryas Event and Cold Events in Early-Mid Holocene: Record from the sediment of Erhai Lake”. Advances in Climate Change Research 3 (Suppl.): 1673-1719.
