Talk:Marine Isotope Stage 11

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

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  red flags 

message: 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):
#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. .
#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.
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Intentions for improving this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Peer Review for updates to the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CO2 Irrelevant as Greenhouse Gas