(no subject)
Feb. 20th, 2005 03:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
In this paper, Ruddiman basically calls the validity of the methods and conclusions of the SPECMAP model into question and offers a different approach that incorporates the older CLIMAP model’s implications with the SPECMAP’s d18O data. Most of his arguments against SPECMAP’s “training energy” theory involve inconsistencies of the time scale of its implied climatic fluctuations with the phases of the Earth axis’s rotation, specifically phases of obliquity, precession, and eccentricity. He also points out a sparcity of physical evidence for points that are used to form the SPECMAP conclusions. He claims that these issues are “fatal” problems of the SPECMAP model, and offers the previously mentioned approach as a better-fitting alternative.
*blank stare* I just spent the last two hours reading 25 pages of a painfully technical research journal article to turn in a whopping 4-sentence summary. School sucks.
*blank stare* I just spent the last two hours reading 25 pages of a painfully technical research journal article to turn in a whopping 4-sentence summary. School sucks.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-20 11:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-21 12:21 am (UTC)I can't really say who I agree with more since I have not read any literature from the SPECMAP side. Ruddiman's points seem to generally be valid ones, but I can't say I know enough about the science to form opinions on it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-21 12:50 am (UTC)heather...you so smaht
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-21 01:28 am (UTC)