Talk:Bond event

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.


These arguments for and against are arguments to the argument. How about just letting the theory be described and arguments for it rather than judging that it exists? There are a great deal of opinions that exist in the world for which there is no cogent proofs. That the argument exists should not force the argument itself to be denied, pithy characterizations like "hot air," "junk," and "wacko" are mere name-calling rather than logical argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.157.118 (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article problems

This article is currently a disaster, and is apparently based entirely on two popular books, neither of which sounds reliable (Avery/Singer is definitely junk (Note: Is This a weasel?)) William M. Connolley 10:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but in its defense it's a brand new article, and new articles always have kinks that need to be worked out. (I hope you don't mind, but I added the above section title here.) I suggested some references to Ugajin (talk) earlier because he was still working on it and I don't have time to thoroughly research and work on this article right now:
Note that the second link above points out that Bond and others don't think the cycle casts any doubt on anthropogenic global warming, which is not clear in the article as it is currently written. Some more information on problems with the cycle and the disputed claims regarding it would give a more balanced article.
The "timeline" is hard to follow as well, and it would probably be better as a graph with some real data in it so people can easily see size and consistancy of the cycle, both in the North Atlantic and globally. If it is kept as a list then WP:LIST should be followed, including the points about providing references and no original research for the list.
Some other problems: 1) someone should make sure the lead section follows the guidelines in WP:LEAD, 2) phrases like "Some climatologists and climate modelers argue..." and "Global warming skeptics have ... argue[ed]..." should be avoided per WP:WEASEL, 3) the article has no sections, 4) references could be improved by using citation templates, and 5) the "but the hypothesis itself exists independent of political considerations" line seems unclear and confusing (is it merely stating the obvious or is it trying to say the hypothesis has support from both sides? Even if it's the latter, different conclusions are still drawn by both sides.). -- HiEv 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
One further reference:
Note that on page 4 when discussing Dr. Bond's 1,500-year cycles it says:
While offering a useful basic framework, this pattern alone does not account for all aspects of past fluctuations and thus is not a sufficient predictor for the future. For example, we usually think of cycles as having a regular, bell-like shape. But during the millennia corresponding to the last ice age, Bond's 1,500-year cycles were closer to rectilinear, indicating sudden starts and stops. As is clearly recorded within the deep layers of Greenland's ice, the transitions often took just a few decades. This abruptness was especially pronounced as the climate warmed. Has this also been the case during our own epoch, the Holocene? If the Holocene's "Bondian" cycles, too, have been rectilinear, one would expect the post-Little Ice Age warming to have been completed within a few decades. One would also expect that in the absence of the Industrial Revolution, global temperature would have stabilized for a warm plateau of several hundred years. But in fact, global temperatures in the decades immediately after the Little Ice Age did not simply jump to a new plateau.
This seems to suggest that the cycle's pattern may have changed again since the Little Ice Age and it makes it clear that other factors are also (if not more) important. -- HiEv 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunaely this stuff has got emboiled in GW politics, in that some wackos have taken it up as the explanation for the current warming. [1] is this category. Notice taht with the implausible events removed, there are very few "events" within the holocene William M. Connolley 08:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem and I agree. While the evidence somewhat supports such a cycle for some of Earth's recent history, it does not refute the overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic global warming. (And the cycle certainly isn't "unstoppable" as Avery and Singer claim.) Still, you should probably refrain from using words like "wackos" here since that may be seen as a personal attack. -- HiEv 23:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Never edited a wikipedia page; don't think I'll start. None of the ice cores actually exhibit a 1500-year cycle. They only exhibit a 1500-year pacing, that is, D-O events tend to come in multiples of 1500 years. This is a pattern typical of stochastic resonance. This article also appears to confuse a Bond cycle (sets of progressively colder D-O events that terminate with a Heinrich Event) with Bond's 1500-year cycle. These are two different things. Bond's 1500-year cycle refers to the percentage of hematite-stained quartz and feldspar grains eroded by glaciers and deposited in the North Atlantic as ice-rafted debris (IRD), that is marine sediment cores, not ice cores. Somebody (other than me) might want to highlight this in the article. To find an excellent reference, using google scholar search for 'schulz 2002 1470'. This will explain the pacing v. cyclicity issue as well as why GISP2 exhibits a 1500-year periodicity in it's Delta O-18 power spectrum (giving great insights into the nature of time series analysis). And no, I am not Micheal Schulz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb4r (talk • contribs) 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the dates should be at least converted to absolute, and the Before the Present stuff dropped, and possibly the BCE just changed to BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.41.67 (talk) 12:42, September 18, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Events?

So where does

  1. ≈2400 BC (Bond event 3) — the Middle Neolithic cold epoch
  2. ≈3900 BC (Bond event 4) — the Early Neolithic cold event

comes from? Neither gets any google hits. Bond in Science mentions none of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You sure you googled it? Try [2] and [3] in Google Scholar. —Bender235 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No silly, not the event number, which I left, its the bit I removed that you invented, errm, thats why I removed it, I don't think you invented the number 3. Try [4] or [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you meant those exact names? Yes, I admit, they weren't proposed by Bond, I just added them provisorily. —Bender235 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. Then perhaps you can stop re-adding them, since there is no source for them William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, we're getting better. Now I've removed "cold" from the unknown events, because Bond specifically notes that his events *don't* show up as cold periods in the Greenland cores. He finds them in ice-rafted debris stuff, I think, which isn't known to correlate to temperature. I may have missed something, though, so if you can find Bond calling these "cold" please re-add William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that. —Bender235 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)