(no subject)

[miraje]

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.

Comments

[asheypp.livejournal.com]

wow. that's all way over my head....way over!

heather...you so smaht

[miraje.livejournal.com]

Ha, it made sense when I wrote it, but now I keep reading through it and wondering if it has any coherence whatsoever. There's a hugely long sentence in the middle that seems to make absolutely no sense every time I try to read it. Methinks some changes are in order!