Solar Cycles and Ice Ages - Let's Move on Already.

Willis has another post on Solar Cycle forcing over at Watts Up With That, the Ice Box Heats Up.  He is using the same data, 65N (0r 60N) insolation and different methods and coming up with about the same results.  Imagine that?  He can probably do a couple hundreds of posts using the same data and different methods and come up with about the same result.  I would even expect it is "likely" he will continue using the same data and different methods and come up with about the same results.

65N is and above is about 3% of the global surface and last I check we live on a sphere. When Milankovitch proposed his orbital theory of the Ice Ages he decided that 65N was the go to insolation band to support his theory.  Thanks to that 65N has a comfortable place in climate science tradition even thought it tends to cause problems with Milankovitches theory.

I am borrowing Willis chart to show part of his new twist.  first difference of 60N insolation.  This choice was prompted by a paper he read in defense of Milankovitch.  It shows the same pretty much hap hazard correlations.

This is my chart of Berger solar insolation done in a way someone concerned with energy in the system would do it.  The Average for the whole sphere and the peak energy in the firebox, the tropics.   This does not included the adjustment for ocean surface area, what I am more concerned with, just the gross Peak values.  The "Tropical" region, 30S-30N is roughly 50% of the global surface area, so I would expect the 0 Peak to contribute about 50% of the variation in temperature.  That would fill the "gaps" in the ~20 kyr precessional cycle.  It is like a bridge rectifier conditioning the signal.

Now if we stick with the electrical analogy, ocean heat capacity would be similar to a battery which would help filter the output of the bridge rectifier.

 Since there are a lot of nice scientists doing all sorts of scientific stuff, it isn't hard to find paleo reconstructions of temperature.  Saraswat and company produced one of the Indian Ocean in 2005 and kindly archived the data at NCDC paleo.  In this particular case I, first have year instead of kyr and second have scaled Langleys/day.  That scaling would represent how much energy that thin ten degree band of the equator would contribute to "global" ocean energy.  It is not an exact indication of anything.  It would be just a scaled signal and you can imply anything you like, but that would be roughly the contribution of the equatorial band as provided by Berger et al.to "global" ocean energy.  I haven't vetted, verified or homoginized my rough estimated as It is a work in progress like most things on my plate.

With the rectification, you should expect any combination of frequencies in multiples of 10 kyr +/- 2 kyr.  There is no need to "explain" the lack of 100,000 year Milankovitch frequencies because there is a perfectly good reason to expect 90kyr, 100kyr, 110kyr etc. etc. etc. because the "system" responds to the "forcing".

I had posted these previously, using the same equatorial peak though without the scaling.  The numbers come from the sources, all archived on NCDC paleo if you are that bored or I can even upload a spread sheet for the deranged that are into nits.  The point is that the Equatorial Signal is an important factor and the 65 or 60 N signal, a not so important factor.  Milankovitch was right but left some unfinished business for his new age critics.

I didn't use Willis" Huyber's geological time source and don't care to because I have other irons in the fire.  I also don't have meticulous attention to citing detail because all of this is just a Google away.  If anyone is concerned with solving problems instead of creating them, I am more than happy to provide as much detail as time will allow.