Johhny Electriglide wrote:
I read the link and you are full of crap. Nothing about us being in the middle of an interglacial, and the graphs had no details for the present Anthropocene. The only useful item it did say is that the WAIS could collapse with present AGW, within a 500 year time span and accompanied by EAIS melting, leading to up to a 7 meter sea level rise. It also said the record has numerous 1Ma gaps.
The longest interglacial in the past was about double the normal 10-15K years. The Milankovich Cycle(100K years) is NOT exactly in synch with the axis tilt wobble cycles(23K years, 11* tilt wobble), and that is what makes up the majority of variation.
The present interglacial was on a cooling trend as the Earth's axis tilt went past 22* to the max of 23* and the maximum ellipticity of orbit of the Milankovich cycle coincides, this time. In 2000 more years, we should have been entering the ice age epoch, but will not because of HGHGs. You can compare it to the 400PPM CO2 of over 4 million years ago, but the continents are moved and CO2 will go far beyond 400PPM.
So with AETM we get another 22' of sea level rise to top off the over 500' rise from early in the interglacial. Humans will have died off and be in small numbers. If the Yellowstone super volcano erupts in 2K years it will cool it only 1/3 of the way, and only until the aerosols settle out. What could have helped the start of the ice age will do nothing to stop a period of skipping two complete ice ages, until the CO2 is re-sequestered. Then it will be several million more to get back species diversity, and probably no humans left to study the WAIS.
Funny that as I didn't say anything about the paper, or research saying what we are in but was showing the graph representing the interglacials and how the end of the graph (on the right, or 0ybp) shows the position we are in compared to the others. Another thing I believe I mentioned is that they only discuss the last million years on one or two papers and the rest discuss 3-5, 17-24 and 30-50 million years.
Thanks for the lesson on the Milnkovich cycles but you are slightly off.