Sentences with phrase «orbital cycles for»

Though Milan Milankovitch would not perform his definitive calculations of the Earth's orbital cycles for three decades yet, the Serb was not the first to consider the effects of cyclic orbital changes.

Not exact matches

How much it might vary is very difficult to tell, but for instance, it is clear that from the Pliocene to the Quaternary (the last ~ 2,5 million years of ice age cycles), the climate has become more sensitive to orbital forcing.

Although the primary driver of glacial — interglacial cycles lies in the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of incoming solar energy driven by changes in the geometry of the Earth's orbit around the Sun («orbital forcing»), reconstructions and simulations together show that the full magnitude of glacial — interglacial temperature and ice volume changes can not be explained without accounting for changes in atmospheric CO2 content and the associated climate feedbacks.

These are well described cycles, which have become known as Milankovitch cycles, after the name of the Russian scientist who for the first time in the 1920s was able to correlate these orbital and rotational variations (which other scientists had known about for many years) with the dates of various ice ages which had been more recently determined.

Multiple causal factors have been suggested for the LIA: insolation change due to orbital cycles; low solar activity; high volcanic activity; and reduced atmospheric CO2 due to forest regrowth following human population collapses (the «Black Death» in Europe and Asia, and Columbian contact in the Americas.)

So, I tend to believe the new results, they confirm what has been shown by several other studies — human - caused CO2 has a large enough effect lasting long enough that it will greatly affect the natural ice - age cycling — but I'll listen to Peter, Andre and the others with great interest, and I don't think this is the last word on exactly what CO2 level is needed for exactly what orbital configuration for ice - age initiation.

There is good evidence and physical grounds for CO2 and orbital variations influencing glacial cycles, but that by no means shows that they completely control the glacial system.

There absolutely is climate change in accordance with the cycles of glaciation, orbital cycles, solar cycles and related for millions of years.

But a major problem exists for the standard orbital hypothesis of glaciation: Late Pliocene and early Pleistocene glacial cycles occur at intervals of 40 ky (8 — 11), matching the obliquity period, but have negligible 20 - ky variability.

Limited validations for the results include comparisons of 1) the PERSIANN - derived diurnal cycle of rainfall at Rondonia, Brazil, with that derived from the Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Coupled Oceanï ¿ 1/2 Atmosphere Response Experiment (TOGA COARE) radar data; 2) the PERSIANN diurnal cycle of rainfall over the western Pacific Ocean with that derived from the data of the optical rain gauges mounted on the TOGA - moored buoys; and 3) the monthly accumulations of rainfall samples from the orbital TMI and PR surface rainfall with the accumulations of concurrent PERSIANN estimates.

Orbital tuning * does * weaken the evidence for the reality of an orbital cycle.

Those Bond Events appear to be recurrent pseudo cycles of a 4300 to 5500 year decay recurrences for a 23K year orbital cycle of perturbations.

For instance the ice ages are caused by orbital cycles called the Milankovitch cycles, which cause a slight warming which is amplified by greenhouse gases in the NH.

See, for example, Richard A. Muller, «Glacial cycles and orbital inclination,» Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL - 35665 (1994), available at http://www-physics.lbl.gov­/www/astro­/nemesis­/LBL-35665.html.

If the Babcock mechanism for reversing the polarity also operates on the star, each cycle will have opposite polarities as an incidental consequence of the Babcock mechanism, but that does not alter the fact that the generation of activity by the tides is the fundamental process with a period equal to the orbital period of the planet.

From first glance the 100 - thousand - year orbital eccentricity cycle had seemed to be a perfect fit for that approximately same interval for inter-glacial periods appearing.

If a person is fully aware of the cycles and the very clear cause and effect that the orbital cycles have the Earth's climate, trying to say that the orbital part is really only responsible for 1 / 6th of the warming is intentionally misleading.

All this drove home that it scarcely mattered which came first, for the chief effect of the Milankovitch - cycle orbital changes was to initiate a powerful feedback loop.

This is a little bit silly, since the authors titled an entire section of their paper The trigger for deglacial warming, discussing that the first warming (of the Arctic 19,000 years ago) was indeed triggered by orbital cycles.

Ultimately, there are many dozens of factors that could account for the ultimate cooling of the climate that would have zero to do with the original (probably orbital) forcing, and any hypothesis would have to account for each of these potential forcings in the context of the relevant cycles and dynamics over an appropriate time scale.

I came to think of solar radiation as being the ultimate (and only) external forcing of the climate system, which, except for the orbital seasonal changes and the 11 - year sunspot cycle, has been essentially constant over the past several decades of precision solar irradiance monitoring.

This combines with insolation in orbital cycles to set the conditions for runaway ice and snow feedbacks.

AQUA has a self - correcting propulsion system, so the UAH annual cycle, and the cyclic component of UAH - RSS divergence, can not be the result of differing methods of correction for diurnal drift resulting from orbital decay.

Based just on orbital forcing, and following previous ice age cycles, we are due for a long period of gradual cooling to the next ice age.

Why isn't it just a matter of orbital cycles with GHGs (CO2 AND H2O) going along for the ride so to speak?