Talk:Marine Isotope Stage 11

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dtolson1. Peer reviewers: Jmead2, 65Eq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Old

Ciao Mente et malleo, good job, as usual!

May I suggest to give some lines of introduction, and link the article to Marine isotope stage? The average reader would better understand what is this article about.

Anyways, I'm happy you are doins such a good job, keep on going!

--Kaapitone 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The English of the astronomical forcing section needed a bit of tidying. Hope this helps.Orbitalforam (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In addition, the point about 400 kyr cyclicity being stretched to 500 kyr in this interval is very strange and difficult to understand. Stage 11 is part of a ~ 100 kyr cyclicity and neither a 400 nor a 500 kyr cyclicity is straightforwardly observed in the late Pleistocene oxygen isotope record. For this reason and others it is also debateable whether any of the glacial/interglacial 100 kyr cycles can be simply explained with respect to conventional eccentricity forcing, although there are indeed a large number (perhaps around 30) potential explanatory frameworks available, most involving nonlinearities of one kind or another.Orbitalforam (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

red flags

(copied from main MIS article talk) When somebody next edits this, please take a look at http://www.whoi.edu/pclift/Ruddiman.pdf, or http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/865.full.pdf+html by Ruddiman, Kutzbach, Vavrus in The Holocene Aug 2011. I think they make a pretty good case (or at least, raise some good red flags) about Stage 11 being considered the best analog of Stage 1., but rather being an outlier in multiple ways. JohnMashey (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Since, uniquely Marine Isotopic Stage 11 has its own article, that is the best initial place for that. I'll copy this section there. I think that "somebody" is you. Johnbod (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I expected that, but when I think about editing a page I've never examined before, especially to change/cast doubt on some conclusions, I like to Talk first, in case someone else is already working on it. JohnMashey (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Intentions for improving this article

I chose to expand on the article for Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS 11) to include sections for potential causes and why it is currently considered an analog for Holocene climate. The current article for MIS 11 mentions in the lede that there there may be some correlation between climatic elements of MIS 11 and the Holocene, but there is no exploration of why that is. Additionally, the article focuses on what we know of climate characteristics from proxy records, but does not discuss the lead in processes or what might have caused MIS 11 to last longer than most other interglacial periods in the climate record. I might begin by discussing those climate elements (ice volume, ocean temperature, etc) that are known to be similar and what proxies tell us that. Next I would add a discussion of why MIS 11 is theorized to be an analog for the future Holocene/Anthropocene climatic trend and how our observation of this period in the past can help us model predictions for the future. Finally, I would consider changing or elaborating on this lede, particularly to address the comparison of MIS 5 to MIS 11 which I have not been able to find any evidence for yet. This will require more research but it may be erroneous or outdated information.

Potential Sources (to be expanded):

1. Mcmanus, Jerry; Oppo, Delia; Cullen, James; Healey, Stephanie (2003-01-01). W.oxler, André; Poore, Richard Z.; Burckle, Lloyd H., eds. Earth's Climate and Orbital Eccentricity: The Marine Isotope Stage 11 Question. American Geophysical Union. pp. 69–85. doi:10.1029/137gm06/summary. ISBN 9781118668498.
2. Rohling, E. J.; Braun, K.; Grant, K.; Kucera, M.; Roberts, A. P.; Siddall, M.; Trommer, G. (2010-03-01). "Comparison between Holocene and Marine Isotope Stage-11 sea-level histories". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 291 (1–4): 97–105. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.12.054.
3. Tzedakis, P. (Spring 2017). "The MIS 11 – MIS 1 analogy, southern European vegetation, atmospheric methane and the "early anthropogenic hypothesis"" (PDF). Climate of the Past. 6: 131–144.
4. Loutre, M. F. (2003-07-15). "Clues from MIS 11 to predict the future climate – a modelling point of view". Earth and Planetary Science Letters. 212 (1–2): 213–224. doi:10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00235-8.

Dtolson1 (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review for updates to the article

When I read the introduction I felt the same way, the author mentions a relation to present day climate but does not really elaborate. Perhaps you can also add a better graph of temperature variability (Vostok) centered in MIS11, and perhaps if available other proxies that show Carbon and Sea level variability during MIS11. You might also consider the "Red flags" the previous reviewer left here, and adding a couple lines in the main "Marine Isotope Stages" topic. Cheers! 65Eq (talk)65Eq —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

General Revision to this Article

I have completely revised this article from its previous form. I welcome any suggestions or revisions on the new content. Dtolson1 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your work improving this article. A few comments. 1. Some paragraphs are still unreferenced. 2. It is usual to give the full name at first mention of an authority (e.g. Thomas Cronin). 3. I think it would be worth mentioning that MIS 11 followed the most severe glaciation of the Pleistocene ( MIS 12 or Anglian stage in Britain). 4. This article could be merged with the one on the Hoxnian, but I assume that is beyond the scope of your project. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe the 12 June 2017 revisions by Dtolson1 regarding Hodell are incorrect. The new text reads as if Hodell et al 2000 implies all proxy and ice core studies may have erroneous amplitude readings. This isn't correct, Hodell et al 2000 was only about the resolution and readings of a single ocean sediment core.

The new text actually reads "This conclusion caused Hodell to revise their previously reported findings (1993) of high temperatures after analyzing ice core proxies with higher temporal resolutions[4][5]." Yet the referenced studies by Hodell aren't about ice core proxies but the resolution of ocean sediment proxies.

There is also a section that reads "Hodell et al. cite the combination of eccentricity and precession lows that led to fewer cold substages of MIS 11, substages which were much stronger when eccentricity and precession variables were stronger in the later Marine Isotope Stages[8]." Yet reference 8 is Bowen et al and unrelated. This is likely the way reference were added. Actually reference 4 and 7 are the same.

Additionally it reads "This theory has been challenged by evidence that suggests sea level was closer to today's levels, and possibly no more than ~6 meters higher[8]." Yet reference 8 is to Bowen et all which is Sea level ~400 000 years ago (MIS 11): analogue for present and future sea-level? which doesn't in any way show evidence that sea level during MIS 11 was closer to today's levels. [unsigned comment by] 98.193.221.114

This article is a mess. I'll let someone more familiar with editing to clean up this mess, but going back to before the June 2017 edits would be a good start.

Oh dear, student assignments! I think I will do that for now. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the section Astronomical features a citation is needed. I believe you are looking for Berger and Loutre 2002 "An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.221.114 (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Glad to see the Wikipedia community is so actively gatekeeping! You know, a professor reviewed my edits to this article and did not have the same reaction y’all did. But we aren’t bigshot Wiki editors so what do we know. I put time and effort into those edits, but if they are TRULY valueless then y’all should point this out to the general Wiki community and work to end the practice of assigning poorly-maintained Wiki articles for students to edit and fill out. Dtolson1 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

CO2 Irrelevant as Greenhouse Gas

Please bear with me, I will 1st give a theoretical reason why CO2 is irrelevant, then 2nd I will give an empirical proof:

1.) The CO2 contribution to atmospheric gases @ .04% is minimal, compared with the main constituents N2 @ 78%, O2 @ 21% and Ar @1%. While it is true that IR band radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2 will be passed on by Brownian motion to N2, O2 and Ar, the amount is very small due to CO2 presence at a low .04%.

2.) During the recent solar eclipse Aug 21, 2017 we could observe the chill of the air almost immediately, within minutes. My own location was particularly suitable although >250 miles from the 70 mile strip of totality, we still had 87% coverage of the Sun's disk by the Moon. There was brilliant sunshine and calm air before and after the eclipse. At about 12:00 CST, my electronic backyard thermometer (radio) showed the temperature dropping from 92 F to 86 F almost instantaneously, within a few minutes. Thereafter, temperature climbed to 94 F by 2:30 CST. The air was dry and no clouds present with low relative humidity, water vapor was scarce. The drop in temperature meant that vast amounts of thermal energy had been lost to space by IR band radiation (the only means available in the absence of heat conduction or convection). Ergo: The tiny amount of CO2 was of no avail when it came to stopping IR loss to space.

In conclusion, it is time to face the reality that CO2 is irrelevant. Recent studies show anthropogenic climate change has far more to do with aerosols, cloudiness and albedo. Climate experts have pointed this out for over a decade, esp. in Japan. Humans, who are largely carbon, should not have to worry about being subject to carbon sequestration, or replaced by automata and robotic AI. Kollauwanderer (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)