논문 상세보기
밀란코비치 가설에 대한 검증연구 KCI 등재
STRENGTH AND LIMIT OF MILANKOVITCH HYPOTHESIS
- 언어ENG
- URLhttps://db.koreascholar.com/Article/Detail/452358
pp.49-56
With consent of Köppen and Wegener, Milankovitch asserted that the Pleistocene Ice Ages were induced by solar insolation reduction associated with the changes in the Earth’s orbital shape and obliquity angle and that the summer insolation at latitude 65N would have been the crucial factor. While his theory has been widely accepted nowadays, there also were opposing disputes pointing that a long periodicity of about 100 kyr - prominent in the climate proxy records - does not exist in his predicted solar insolation time series. In this investigation, the Earth’s solar insolation history for the past one million years has been re-estimated for three cases: (i) the July solar insolation at 65N, (ii) whole Earth year-average solar insolation, (iii) again whole Earth year-average solar insolation with assuming constant albedo. From the calculation results, we found that whole Earth year-average solar insolation time series during the past one million years contain the long periodic variations of period 90-120 kyr, while the July insolation at 65N show strong periodicities of 19.0, 22.4, 23.9 and 40.4 kyr. Also is confirmed that the calculated past July insolation at 65N show fair resemblance with a proxy climate record of oxygen isotope concentration. Such resemblance strongly advocates the assumption of Milankovitch-Köppen-Wegener. However, the long periodic variation (90-120 kyr) of the whole Earth solar insolation has been too small (over 200 times difference in amplitude) to drive the Earth’s temperature variation. It has been found that coarse time interval consideration of solar insolation (aliased signal) misled Milankovitch to presume that the advent of the Ice Ages would be completely explained by his theory. We could not find the cause of the long periodic climate variation from solar insolation time series.
1. INTRODUCTION
2. METHOD
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4. CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
APPENDIX
A1. Supplementary from Imbrie & Imbrie
A2. Milankovitch’s Figure 48
