Talk:Orbital forcing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hemispheric Chauvinism?[edit]

The article does not make clear if the seasons referred to are Northern or worldwide. Does the lengthened summer season occur only in the north or does the southern hemisphere experience a lengthened summer as well? Hu 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely the amount of insolation on the Pacific ocean, a major driving force on climate variation, must change due to the various "Milankovitch"cycles.Currently the Pacific ocean, 50% of the earths surface, takes the full brunt of the sun's energy at some stage during the day. At other times due to the numerous orbital variations , the insolaton on the the Pacific ocean will be considerably less, surely this must influence the world's climate

The significance given to northern hemisphere insolation is not (entirely) chauvinism: the glacial- interglacial cycles reflected in the marine isotope record (and elsewhere) much more closely resemble northern than southern hemisphere insolation, and they are most readily understood and modelled as a response to northern hemisphere insolation. The cause of the asymetry is not entirely clear but is presumably linked to continental and oceanographic configuration; oceanic convection systems (such as that creating the "Gulf Stream", and carbon cycling (for example by land plants) are probably involved. Note that insolation over an entire year is globally averaged, except for the effects of eccentricity.
This does not, however, mean that the southern hemisphere does not play a role. In particular, the precise timing of deglaciations may well be connected with events in the southern hemisphere. Further back in the geological record (some tens of millions of years ago) the effects of southern hemisphere insolation may have been dominant over northern hemisphere insolation. Orbitalforam 17:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

View Edits[edit]

If anyone has a spare moment, please look over a paragraph edit starting at and the 3 subsequent edits. They could use a second opinion. Thanks.

Why: do you disagree with Berger & Loutre? William M. Connolley 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
where: Thank you for the prompt reply. I am unable to agree or disagree with Berger & Loutreas as the link you provided has no usable information. Do you have a new link, or could you sum it up for me? Is the quote related to orbital mechanics? Is CO2 a factor in planetary motion? I look forward to your reply.
Its orbital mechanics mostly with natural CO2 variations. Your library should have access to Science William M. Connolley 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but i don't understand your reference. Is the summary of the article that natural CO2 variations are related to orbital mechanics? When you say I should have access to "Science" do you mean the magazine?? Which volume or issue? Would you please provide a working link to the cited material? 10:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Follow the link. It will tell you which volume etc William M. Connolley 10:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I followed the link but it dead-ends at a password of $10 for 24 hours. I had a similar problem with the "Archer" document that was modified in my first edit. This doesn't feel quite right for Wiki. My private library does not include the reference document, nor does my local public library (I checked) subscribe to the site linked. Do you have a public domain copy of the document? Perhaps a copy of the research is available from another web site? Any links you might supply would be helpful as I am unable to verify the facts you reference on my own. As I mentioned earlier, I think the important points as applied to this article are "Is the quote related to orbital mechanics? Is CO2 a factor in planetary motion? 11:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
When I follow the link I get a short page, at the top of which it says Science 23 August 2002: Vol. 297. no. 5585, pp. 1287 - 1288 DOI: 10.1126/science.1076120 - can you not see that? Well if you can't I've put it here William M. Connolley 12:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, me again with a new user name.
It seems you have forgot to add the link to the data.McFudd 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I don't understand: what data? William M. Connolley 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Orbital forcing Hi. Please don't be silly about this. References to peer-reviewed literature don't merit comments about OR or VER. Quite why you're re-inserting the 120 kyr period when its well-known to be 100 kyr I don't know. Count them on the graph if you can't find Milankovitch cycles William M. Connolley 22:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyed from user page.

Hello, I appreciate your patience, I've only had a username for 2 days and have still got the training wheels attached. I do not wish to be difficult, be we do not seem to be communicating effectivly. I do not doubt the factual accuracy of what you are saying, in fact, having viewed your online credetials I am quite sure that you are correct.

My first edit in this cycle was due to a clear contradiction within the article, the is/not 'particularly regular' point from my first message, and a desire to clean-up some unattractive wording. You were good enough to post a external link but I am unable to find any meaningful information there that would satisfy WP:VER, which link you also provided.

I have viewed the site several times and honestly I can make no sense of it. This is my best guess:

"Today's comparatively warm climate has been the exception more than the rule during the last 500,000 years or more. " Today’s climate is relatively warm when viewed at the 500kyr level.

"If recent warm periods (or interglacials) are a guide, then we may soon slip into another glacial period." If we look to historic cycles for a prediction, it looks like we’re headed for a relatively cold period.

"But Berger and Loutre argue in their Perspective that with or without human perturbations, the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years." But the authors say don’t worry about it, whether or not humans have any affect on climate, we’ve still got 50kyr or so of the warm stuff.

"The reason is a minimum in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit around the Sun." Because of a factor detailed in Wiki Orbital Forcing.


You also made another edit in which you changed a numeric value (from 120 to 100) but didn't include a link or explanation. Again, I am quite sure that you are correct and the value should be 100. It is simply that the value was 120 when I got to the article, in fact it appears to have been there since Jan31, 2005, and without a verifiable link I thought best to revert it.

Do you think we could compromise? If you were to do a re-write the 2 pars in question, to clean up some of the awkward wording, make sure the factual information is accurate and post a link to a more easily verifiable website, we would have a Win/Win going here. You would be able to be sure of the information, and I would get a more attractive addition to an otherwise quite wonderful article.

Thank you. RW

ps, I won't insult someone of your experience by posting a ref to wp:ver, but I did read it and the burden of proof is explicitly on the posting editor.

McFudd 06:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't throw WP:VER around; it won't do any good. As to the two paras: I'm not sure whats unclear. But in all events, please discuss this on the OF talk page not here William M. Connolley 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from ""


Thanks for your reply, I actually found it on my user page, but I think I have it all here now.

I don't understand what you mean by "throw WP:VER around" and I really don't understand "it won't do any good." You are aware that I'm a newbie here. Is WP:VER something threatening or aggressive? If so please allow me to appologize immediately, I did not mean any harm.

It was actually you who provided me with a copy of "Pillars of Wiki" and I have spent some time reading it. It provides clear instructions on how to identify a problem and I, in good faith, found a problem and have approached you repeatedly to help solve it. I have not had a great success in that regard and so will now state my case directly.

You recently made a series of reversions and edits to this article. I have read those edits and I challenge the external link citation you supplied for those edits. I am not challenging the accuracy or veracity of the edits, only that the citation link provided is not equal to Wiki Standards.

Thank You. RW McFudd 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

rv para3&4, WP:Ver, WP:OR is throwing VER around. As to your last para: the external link is to the peer-reviewed journal Science. It provides the exact journal ref. This satisfies VER: it seems to be a common newbie mistake to think that web references are superior to journals: they aren't William M. Connolley 19:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree: Science is a highly respected, widely available peer reviewed journal and the fair citation of an article published in it is perfectly proper and commendable. Interestingly, in an earlier version of this study, Berger and Loutre were unable to model ice-age/interglacial transitions without including CO2 variation forcing among the drivers, and one attempt to model the future climate variations involved "borrowing" CO2 variations from the previous interglacial as a "best guess" to what might happen in the future unravelling of this interglacial. By an independent means, Nick Shackleton came to the same conclusion (the glacial/interglacial cycles involve CO2 variations as well as orbital forcing) shortly before his death. The Vostok and EPICA CO2 records make it clear that current (in part anthropogenic) CO2 levels are massively outside the envelope of past variation over the last 800,000 years, and so the shape of "our" interglacial seems very likely to be anthropogenically perturbed.Orbitalforam 17:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I vote yes for the merger proposal between orbital forcing and Milankovitch cycles.
Michael H 34 05:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

  • Time's up. I removed the merge tag today, to merge to Milankovitch_cycles. There's no active discussion, no consensus, and furthermore the two tags (one on each page) did not even link to the same location for a discussion. Let a proposer put forward, with a link to a well-stated argument to merge on the same talk page for both articles.
    -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a new proposal, discussed here. prokaryotes (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Earth[edit]

Hello i have recently proposed the Wikiproject Earth. This Wikiproject`s scope includes this article. This wikiproject will overview the continents, oceans, atsmophere and global warming Please Voice your opinion by clicking anywhere on this comment except for my name. --IwilledituTalk :)Contributions —Preceding comment was added at 15:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Much?[edit]

Gregory Benson, please find a source who isn't you. A textbook or link to another wiki article would be much more appropriate. I'll make some changes in a few days if there's no response. Therealhazel (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Error in the caption of the first figure[edit]

The caption of the figure sais, that the current date is on the left of the graph. Actually I think this is not true in this case, albeit normally in paleoclimatic time-series the current date is left, in this figure it is the way around. This can be recognized definitely by the high-frequency flickering ocurring around the zero-values that clearly represent the high-resolution data that is available for the Holocene, as well as the stable high values. Further, if this notion is really wrong, what I do not doubt, the statment, that from the figure it can be seen that there is a strong cooling in the beginning of an glacial-period with a slow recovery to an interglacial does not hold true. I had some paper where the opposite was stated, what was in accordance with the Figure, but I do not find it right now. Andreas — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Yeah, I came here to ask "Is that 'left' in the sense of 'right'?" Nat (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It was correct in the original figure. In 2010, someone replaced the PNG with a more gorgeous and superb SVG, but didn't bother keep the orientation or correct the caption William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)