{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01452991452991453, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.036082474226804, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modeling Glacial Termination

Forcing factors possibly driving the glacial termination cycle are examined with a differential equation model. The overlying question is whether or not the Milankovitch cycle alone is driving the glacial cycle, or whether there are other factors causing the observed pattern of ice ages followed by a rapid warming. The question is examined from a graphical and mathematical point of view by first examining the non-linear phase locking with Tziperman et al. model and analyzing several runs of the model with different parameters in place. The conclusions of Denton et al., that the mechanism is actually hemispheric teleconnections causing carbon dioxide release and warming, are examined. A carbon dioxide term is then introduced to the Tziperman model, and the results are analyzed and discussed. The main conclusion reached is that the model shows a good correlation with the observed cycle of glaciation and termination, but that this fit with the model does not show that the insolation variation is acting alone to drive the cycle. Instead, it appears to be driven by internal physical mechanisms, timed by the Milankovitch cycles.