Jump to content

Talk:Milankovitch cycles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milankovich's theory revisited

[edit]

I removed this recent addition [1]. It appears to come from https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/1/13/pdf, Jean-Louis Pinault. It might be a copyvio (though that does say "Copyright: © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/)" but that journal does not look reliable to me, so I think this is essentially self-pub William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar has been added elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, following a certain amount of technical kerfuffle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milankovich's theory revisited, the new article has now been moved w/o redirect to Milankovich's theory (once the editor stops recreating it under the old title) to get rid of the obvious POVFORK title. Now let's please talk about what to do with the content.

Proposed merge of Milankovich's theory

[edit]

As noted, I'm getting the impression that this is a paradigmatic WP:POVFORK - a revisionist or alternate take on a topic, with a lot of targeted special argumentation. We Don't Do That in separate articles. If there is anything worthwhile in there, it should be integrated into the main article. As to whether that's the case, I'm somewhat out of my depth here. I will note that the main publication behind the editor's drift ([2]; authored by themselves) is published by a journal that we have down as "borderline source that often fails higher sourcing requirements". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed look like a WP:POVFORK with a dose of WP:COI, and MDPI journals are iffy propositions at best. Language like the greatest mysteries of modern climate science and avoiding the many opportunistic assumptions intended to lift the veil on the many vagaries of the climate system is not encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment This appears to be a need for a merge of forked content and possible deletion of same. Plus, throw in a correction of the spelling of the article title for good measure. The additions to this and other articles appear to be made by the author of the journal article that he is inserting as references to his changes. Therefore, these changes must be looked at with COI and SPAM implications. The person making these changes appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather as an attempt to promote and legitimize his work published in a possibly unreliable source that has lax or no editorial oversight, and possible paid-for publishing. I am currently Neutral on a merge of the deleted article's redirect, but leaning Oppose. GenQuest "scribble" 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment I modified some details of the article “Milankovitch theory” to make it easier to read. I think this version is pretty much mature, being intended to merge with the “Milankovitch cycles”. I have not allowed myself to do so until now because I wanted the consent of the scientific community. Indeed, the merger of the two articles supposes some alterations of the host page, which I refused to do. This article does not question what is said in “Milankovitch cycles”, quite the contrary. It is intended to complete the Milankovitch theory to propose a straightforward explanation to the numerous pending issues raised by the theory of orbital forcing. Personally, I would like the discussion to focus on the substance of the article as well as the papers cited in the references rather than the form. Wikipedia indeed offers a great opportunity to confront the different points of view in a constructive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Louis Pinault (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021 - Mass "Citation Needed"

[edit]

Any statement without a source immediately following it has been slapped with a "citation needed" flag, which in some cases seems like utter overkill and unnecessary. In other cases such a flag definitely seems fitting, while in other still different flags like the relevance of a statement might be useful.

For instance: "Axial precession is the trend in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation relative to the fixed stars, with a period of 25,771.5 years. This motion means that eventually Polaris will no longer be the north pole star." - This has been hit with a citation needed template, but it really does seem unnecessary per WP:BLUE (or I suppose more specifically, WP:CSIOR) - The stars can and often are presumed to be fixed in location (relative to our solar system) and clearly are in this article (i.e. they are being treated as a fixed reference point to explain axial precession). If the earth's axis is wobbling around, then obviously something once 'above it' would no longer be exactly above it. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In May 2021, I had the opportunity to remove some of these, but ran out of "free" time. I hope to continue to remove these in the remainder of this year. At least a few of these tag fairly intuitive statements; nevertheless, it is fairly easy to come up with citations, given available time. Hopefully my clarification today of the linkage in the section you mentioned will stand. IveGoneAway (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for expansion

[edit]

Consequences of Milankovitch cycles are not restricted to variations in glaciation. Glaciation is present in only a fraction of Earth's geological history, yet the 7th order insolation variations that these Milankovitch cycles occur continuously throughout the Earth's existence regardless of the climate changes dominated by the higher order causes.

  • Brad Sageman, J. Rich, G. E. Birchfield, Michael A. Arthur (March 1997). "Evidence for Milankovitch Periodicities in Cenomanian-Turonian Lithologic and Geochemical Cycles, Western Interior U.S.A." Journal of Sedimentary Research. Retrieved 29 August 2021.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

IveGoneAway (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Incorrect Title

[edit]

Why is this page called ‘Malankovitch Cycles’ (plural)?

There is only one Milankovitch cycle, which is the insolation value at high latitudes (north and south) over the millennia. The Milankovitch Cycle does indeed use and compute four orbital cycles to derive a solution, but there is only one solution - the Milankovitch Cycle (singular).

Mythos. Mythosmann (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC) .[reply]

Disagree Look at the RS technical citations for the article's References that use the plural in their titles. In several examples, only one the three main cycles is reflected in the rocks. In the Greenhorn, all three are seen, but in different combinations in different times, different depths, and different latitudes.
Please, give citation to support your position.
IveGoneAway (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC) IveGoneAway (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are using cycles (plural) because a Cycle (singular) can oscillate many times (plural). But that is incorrect, because nearly every sine wave is cyclical and we do not use plurals for their titles.
We don’t say Obliquity Cycles or Apsidal Cycles, just because the Cycle (singular) continues back into the past. It is the Obliquity Cycle and the Apsidal Cycle (singular). The series is singular, but it continues cycling.
Milankovitch discovered the Milankovitch Cycle (a singular cycle) which is a combination of the effects upon high latitude insolation, from all of the cycles just mentioned. Thus the Milankovitch Cycle is singular.
Mythos Mythosmann (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In common English, "cycles" sounds more natural to me, but it could be "cycle". But, that doesn't matter, what matters is what the sources say and use; and I think they say "cycles" William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

[edit]

The graph at the top of the page and the description/key, which is supposed to be underneath, look terrible on a mobile device. The image is too wide and the text is overlapping and barely legible. nagualdesign 01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milankovitch cycles and climate change

[edit]

I see at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244 that Milankovitch cycles are proposed by one Stuart A. Harris ([3]) as a better explanation of climate change than anthropogenic CO² emissions, if I understand aright. Is this a common thesis, and should this page say something about it? PJTraill (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very late to the show here, but just for the record, climate change as is an issue for the environment is not at all related it Milankovitch cycles. There are graphic representations of this all over the place, with xkcd [4] for one; Milankovitch cycles take tens of thousands of years at minimum to go from one end of the cycle to the other, whereas anthropogenic climate change has gone from 0-to-100 within the last century years. Milankovitch cycles are slower by several orders of magnitude than anthropogenic climate change; they are not correlated.
Nevertheless many people (often people who otherwise deny climate change) say that what’s happening with sea level rise, global warming, and other aspects of climate change are just because “the climate has changed before” and often cite the Milankovitch cycles. This is not a common thesis, and any article that says M-cycles are a better explanation for observed trends than anthropogenic climate change are definitely not mainstream or at all reliable. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Milankovitch_cycles&oldid=1255611231"