<p>Observe the vertical green lines in this diagram:
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/hsBAB.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/hsBAB.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a>
Those events shows when temperature starts to sink when radiance is at top or even before that. If there was a simple connection between radiance and temperature the temperature should start to sink after radiance maximum.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What climatic mechanisms could start a global cooling when the
  radiance is maximal or heading to maximal, due to the Milankovitch
  cycles? Could it be a drastic increase of convection?</p>
</blockquote>

<hr>

<p><strong>Constructive answers will be rewarded with bounties</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T11:50:31.687Z
I think your premise is not 100% justified. Looking at this graph, we see that 1.) the T-amplitudes and S-amplitudes are far from being perfectly correlated 2.) between -200k and -150k yrs, T doesn't react to S at all, 3.) yes, there is maybe some small indication that in some cycles T starts to decline earlier than S, but on that scale that is hard to see, and taking into account 2.) might not be significant. Can you maybe show a zoom-in of one of the events you think fits your premise, together with error bars?
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T12:35:48.870Z
@AtmosphericPrisonEscape: I don't doubt orbital forcing, I'm just pointing of some facts. And obviously there are three ways for transmitting heat energy from earth, but in the end of a global warming only convection seems efficient enough, since there may be a lot of CO2 and vapor in the atmosphere.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-29T12:45:10.147Z
What? That was not at all what I critisied. I said that the facts you're pointing out, are not facts. They're supported by at most 50% of the peaks in your graph, and in the others you don't see the effect which you're stating that exists clearly. In science one has to be careful what one might see after looking at a graph for longer, therefore, a clearer analysis is required.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T02:52:52.970Z
There is a consensus about the correlation between the Milankovitch cycles and the glaciation periods, but not about *how* it works. The energy accumulated in the oceans has to be transported away somehow. Neither melting ice nor decreasing radiance from the sun will do that job.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T04:00:48.187Z
You are taking far too much data from climatedata.info, a well known denialist site. They cherry pick, they fudge, they out-and-out lie. You are not going to learn a thing, @Lehs, if you're primary source of information is denialists.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T04:09:01.190Z
@DavidHammen: I didn't know about their denialism and only care about correct data. And it's not a primary source of information. I'm trying to understand the "natural" processes, but understand that the situation today is critical.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T04:35:54.567Z
@Lehs - The petrochemical industry has known for forty years that climate change is real and is largely due to them. There are a large number of people who deny climate change, primarily for religious reasons. For reasons I do not understand, the very existence of climate change is a massive threat to some peoples religious beliefs. For reasons I do not understand, this threat to their beliefs justifies bald faced lies. Because these people have influence on people like you, the petrochemical industry has no problem with giving them massive amounts of money.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T05:22:18.233Z
@DavidHammen Yes, but I don't ask about today climate and I understand why people don't want to know. This is not about my question. I'm asking about principles: how heat energy transport from earth. It will for sure. And then we will have problems. Neanderthals survived a glaciation, but the market will not.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T05:47:38.953Z
@DavidHammen I checked the data. The Milankovitch data is from NOA and the core data is from Vostok. If the data is OK, then is the diagram.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T09:04:54.383Z
*the temperature should start to sink after radiance maximum* Probably incorrect assumption. Just like the temperature during the day, that is at its heighest some hours **after** the moment of maximum radiation. Not that that explains what you're observing, I'm just illustrating how hard interpretation is.
Jan Doggen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T11:03:56.453Z
@JanDoggen - Similarly, temperatures don't start to drop right after the summer solstice. The summer solstice instead roughly marks when the hottest part of summer starts rather than when it peaks. The hottest part of summer is a month or so after the solstice (mid July to early August).
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T13:55:22.897Z
You two guys seems confused. Yes, the temperature should raise some time after the maximal insolation and *then* start to drop, because of radiation, conduction and *convection*.
Lehs
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-05-30T15:11:35.983Z
@Lehs: All those processes take seconds to minutes as response times to a changing irradiation. The delay timescale of ?hundreds of years you want to see in this data is therefore not it. As i repeatedly said, go into the data, zoom in.
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<climate-change><glaciation><convection><milankovitch-cycles><global-weirding>
Milankovitch cycles and what?
Lehs
# Milankovitch cycles and what?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-05-29)

Observe the vertical green lines in this diagram:
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/hsBAB.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/hsBAB.jpg)
Those events shows when temperature starts to sink when radiance is at top or even before that. If there was a simple connection between radiance and temperature the temperature should start to sink after radiance maximum.

> What climatic mechanisms could start a global cooling when the
> radiance is maximal or heading to maximal, due to the Milankovitch
> cycles? Could it be a drastic increase of convection?

---

**Constructive answers will be rewarded with bounties**

**Tags:** climate-change, glaciation, convection, milankovitch-cycles, global-weirding

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think your premise is not 100% justified. Looking at this graph, we see that 1.) the T-amplitudes and S-amplitudes are far from being perfectly correlated 2.) between -200k and -150k yrs, T doesn't react to S at all, 3.) yes, there is maybe some small indication that in some cycles T starts to decline earlier than S, but on that scale that is hard to see, and taking into account 2.) might not be significant. Can you maybe show a zoom-in of one of the events you think fits your premise, together with error bars?  
> **username_0**: @username_1: I don't doubt orbital forcing, I'm just pointing of some facts. And obviously there are three ways for transmitting heat energy from earth, but in the end of a global warming only convection seems efficient enough, since there may be a lot of CO2 and vapor in the atmosphere.  
> **username_1**: What? That was not at all what I critisied. I said that the facts you're pointing out, are not facts. They're supported by at most 50% of the peaks in your graph, and in the others you don't see the effect which you're stating that exists clearly. In science one has to be careful what one might see after looking at a graph for longer, therefore, a clearer analysis is required.  
> **username_0**: There is a consensus about the correlation between the Milankovitch cycles and the glaciation periods, but not about *how* it works. The energy accumulated in the oceans has to be transported away somehow. Neither melting ice nor decreasing radiance from the sun will do that job.  
> **username_2**: You are taking far too much data from climatedata.info, a well known denialist site. They cherry pick, they fudge, they out-and-out lie. You are not going to learn a thing, @username_0, if you're primary source of information is denialists.  
> **username_0**: @username_2: I didn't know about their denialism and only care about correct data. And it's not a primary source of information. I'm trying to understand the "natural" processes, but understand that the situation today is critical.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - The petrochemical industry has known for forty years that climate change is real and is largely due to them. There are a large number of people who deny climate change, primarily for religious reasons. For reasons I do not understand, the very existence of climate change is a massive threat to some peoples religious beliefs. For reasons I do not understand, this threat to their beliefs justifies bald faced lies. Because these people have influence on people like you, the petrochemical industry has no problem with giving them massive amounts of money.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Yes, but I don't ask about today climate and I understand why people don't want to know. This is not about my question. I'm asking about principles: how heat energy transport from earth. It will for sure. And then we will have problems. Neanderthals survived a glaciation, but the market will not.  
> **username_0**: @username_2 I checked the data. The Milankovitch data is from NOA and the core data is from Vostok. If the data is OK, then is the diagram.  
> **username_3**: *the temperature should start to sink after radiance maximum* Probably incorrect assumption. Just like the temperature during the day, that is at its heighest some hours **after** the moment of maximum radiation. Not that that explains what you're observing, I'm just illustrating how hard interpretation is.  
> **username_2**: @username_3 - Similarly, temperatures don't start to drop right after the summer solstice. The summer solstice instead roughly marks when the hottest part of summer starts rather than when it peaks. The hottest part of summer is a month or so after the solstice (mid July to early August).  
> **username_0**: You two guys seems confused. Yes, the temperature should raise some time after the maximal insolation and *then* start to drop, because of radiation, conduction and *convection*.  
> **username_1**: @username_0: All those processes take seconds to minutes as response times to a changing irradiation. The delay timescale of ?hundreds of years you want to see in this data is therefore not it. As i repeatedly said, go into the data, zoom in.  

---

## 0 answers

