Non-marine tetrapod extinctions solve extinction periodicity mystery

Abstract

Based on their compiled data set of ten extinction episodes (four of which had no known extinction rates), Rampino et al. ( 2020) claimed a 27.5-My period in non-marine-tetrapod extinctions. I reassessed that claim using the Gauss-Vaníček spectral analysis (GVSA), which revealed spectra of extremely low fidelity (mostly << 1) dominated by the Earth's axial precession, without 99%-significant periods, but with hundreds of 95%-significant periods unrelated to the extinctions and the claimed period. Therefore, the data are physically nonsensical as far as any underlining cyclicity is concerned. The analysis did not reveal the claimed period in any band, at either 99% or 95% significance, so the claimed period is a ghost due to intermediary astronomical forcing of highly gapped data sampled arbitrarily and processed with inapt techniques. Thanks to the GVSA's absolute accuracy, and insensitivity of non-marine data to the oceantidal component, I present remarkable proof that very long periods such as ~9 My (~27 My), ~11 My (~22 My), and ~33 My (~66 My), previously claimed in extinction data sets, have a common astronomical origin. They primarily arise due to the Earth's axial precession, enforcing of which then is a must in paleostudies.

Transformative resonant moderation of geomagnetic polarity and strata

“…Other workers, however, do recognize this modulation as physically unrealistic and proceed on to examine possible non-orbital causes for its presence, see, e.g., Boulila et al (2012) study of a ~9-My pseudoperiod in Cenozoic carbon isotope record δ13C but who also fail to explain the presence of this pseudoperiod. In a recent example from non-marine tetrapod extinction record (compiled by , insensitive to the ocean-tidal component as the largest systematic noise constituent, Omerbashich (2021b) found that most if not all of the periods claimed in the past as mass-extinction cycles are instead astronomical reflections, of Earth's axial precession primarily, i.e., n•p. A mass-extinctions period of 27.5 My extracted by ibid.…”

“…More of the similarly simple mathematical relations are noticed readily amongst detected periods in paleodata. For example, looking at the nine periods from Table 2 of Omerbashich (2021b), the 33.84146-My period is just the 8.48624-My period quadrupled, or 6.67870-My quintupled, while the 11.93548-My period is simply the 7.95129-My period tripled-halved, etc. As mentioned earlier, these subharmonic relations -doubling, halving, and tripling primarily -represent discrete time translation symmetry characteristic of subharmonic resonant response of rigid multi-body systems to external periodic forcing.…”

Extramartian forcing of Mars seismicity at Rieger periods

“…Subsequently, the method went through simplifications into non-rigorous (strictly non-least-squares) formats, such as the Lomb-Scargle technique. GVSA provides total (absolute) accuracy in extracting periods from natural data sets -to the prescribed accuracy of analyzed data themselves (Omerbashich, 2021). Fed raw data, the GVSA outputs spectral peaks with magnitudes in variance percentages (var%) against linear background noise levels.…”

External forcing of Moon and Earth seismicity at Rieger periods

“…Subsequently, the method went through simplifications -into non-rigorous (strictly non-least-squares) formats, such as the Lomb-Scargle technique. GVSA provides total accuracy in extracting periods from natural data sets -to the prescribed accuracy of analyzed data themselves (Omerbashich, 2021b). Once fed raw data, the GVSA outputs spectra with spectral magnitudes in variance percentages, var%, or decibels, dB (Pagiatakis, 1999) against linear background noise levels.…”