Scientific American had the interesting article this month Ice-age sea-level rise brings up questions about glacier melting (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higher-watermarks). Do these speleothems finally confirm the mystery 'millennial cycle' (Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971114070632.htm)) at last?

Mallorca, Spain’s largest island, is not just a desirable place for a Mediterranean vacation; it is also a treasure trove of data on the earth’s past. Thanks to the island’s long-term geologic stability, the caves record sea levels over the past tens to hundreds of thousands of years in the form of stone structures. In examining such rock formations, a team of geologists conclude that, compared with today, sea levels were roughly one meter higher 81,000 years ago, when the world was thought to be experiencing an ice age that should have locked up water in glacial ice, which should have lowered sea level as much as 30 meters.

Hushed silence..

On a less serious note, this certainly puts a big dent in Dr. Hansen's insistence of the Big Underwater Apple (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/) due to AGW, or whatever they're calling it this hour. Give it enough time, though, and I'm sure his prediction will eat our pride.:poke:

But at least one positive thing has occurred: psychics and 2 pence prof... I mean... prophets, have finally gained some respect. In the hard sciences of all places!

***Moderator Note***
Two posts moved to Cesspool and locked as off topic, pseudoscientific, strawman based political trolling.

Only your type of views allowed still, eh Trippy ?

Only your type of views allowed still, eh Trippy ?

Predictable.

And predictably contradicted by emperical evidence.

If that were true, I would have moved both of Giambattista's posts and over a dozen threads (besides which, I've demonstrated several times that you don't actually understand what my view is).

What is your view on the scientific speleothem evidence of +1m sea levels 81,000 years ago? Do you agree or disagree?

Scientific American had the interesting article this month Ice-age sea-level rise brings up questions about glacier melting (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higher-watermarks). Do these speleothems finally confirm the mystery 'millennial cycle' (Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971114070632.htm)) at last?No, they don't. Why on Earth would you think that reports of elevated sea levels at one specific time would support a theory of cyclic cooling?

What is your view on the scientific speleothem evidence of +1m sea levels 81,000 years ago? Do you agree or disagree?Trippy?

No, they don't. Why on Earth would you think that reports of elevated sea levels at one specific time would support a theory of cyclic cooling?
Common Sense Seeker?

Common Sense Seeker?Because there's other supporting evidence of a 1,500 year climate cycle. Take the Congo rainforest in Africa; there's hard evidence that there was extensive farming in the centre of the jungle around 2000 years ago. The experts have concluded after further study that the landscape was totally different, with large trees restricted to river banks and streams etc. Drought conditions lasting for at least a 1000 years are to blame..

Because there's other supporting evidence of a 1,500 year climate cycle. Take the Congo rainforest in Africa; there's hard evidence that there was extensive farming in the centre of the jungle around 2000 years ago. The experts have concluded after further study that the landscape was totally different, with large trees restricted to river banks and streams etc. Drought conditions lasting for at least a 1000 years are to blame..

You still haven't answered the question. How does a report of a singular instance of heightened sea levels support a 1,500 year climate cycle. There is nothing in the research you quote that has any relationship whatsoever to such a cycle. So why are you offering it in support of the cycle.

Please note I am not saying there is not a 1500 year cycle. I am saying the research you referenced offers zero in the way of support for it.

Scientific American had the interesting article this month Ice-age sea-level rise brings up questions about glacier melting (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=higher-watermarks). Do these speleothems finally confirm the mystery 'millennial cycle' (Earth Cools In Persistent, 1,500-Year Rhythm, Say Columbia Scientists, Working From Sea Cores (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971114070632.htm)) at last?

The first link does not support your claim whatsoever. It does not mention any 1,500 year cycles. Which would be ODD if it supported your claim, as the techniques covered should have revealed such.
The answer to what is now post 7 is simple: It Is Irrelevant to your claim.

The second link covers the following data:
-Atlantic ocean sediment cores. It does not explain HOW or WHY these cores support a 1,500 year cycle. Data minimal, Claims extensive.
-Greenland Ice cores. These somehow showed that the air above the ice at points in time may have cooled, assuming the ice layers where exposed. Data minimal, claims slightly realistic.
-Sediment particles in cores. This claim says that particles from certain locations were carried by glacier movement and deposited. Data adequate, claims reasonable. Inconclusive by itself.
-Skeletal remnants of microscopic marine plankton. This claim is absurd. This could be very poor journalism at work. Perhaps he meant FOSSILS. Skeletal remains would only be good for a year at most. Data ridiculously presented, claims unverified by data. Possibility of horrible journalsim.
-Claim that radiocarbon dating only conclusive to 32,000 years ago. Accurate to some degree, however, very misleading. Radiometric dating is accurate further back than a small 32,000 years. More accurate techniques apparently went unused. Unimpressive.

The second link is very poorly written, lacking in any kind of verifiable or even slightly informative data but makes extensive claims.

Bad science.


Only your type of views allowed still, eh Trippy ?
Nonsense. The posts are still publicly viewable. They were rule violations, not views and were dealt with properly. Citing censorship is unimpressive without consistent evidence.

Happy Earth day ! :D