New paper finds Arctic was up to 12.6°C warmer than today

[Dubya]

The global average temperature was 2 to 3 degrees C warmer than today. The ocean circulation was vastly changed and the Atlantic Ocean cooled.

Read dubya....the arctic was at least 11 degrees warmer. That doesn't translate to 11 degrees all over the earth and the ocean circulation was practically identical. One only need look at the positions of the land masses at the time to see that.

dumbdumb is a SUPER DUPER Genius, he doesn't read anything...he just believes. Hmmmm, that sounds religious zeolot like doesn't it.

Why don't you read? Why is an arctic being warmer relative to the rest of the Earth hard to understand? Where has it been warming at the fastest rate on Earth?

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled. You have Greenland getting an ice sheet, the start of arctic sea ice, the creation of the modern thermohaline circulation, the modern Gulf Stream forming, the Mediterranean Sea drying up at the beginning, global sea levels 25 meters higher and major changes in flora to a cooler, drier and seasonal world. The tropical rainforests retreated to just around the equator and savannahs, grasslands and deserts spread around the world. The 2.7 million year changes during the Pliocene is what ushered in the Ice Age Pleistocene.

 

[westwall]

Read dubya....the arctic was at least 11 degrees warmer. That doesn't translate to 11 degrees all over the earth and the ocean circulation was practically identical. One only need look at the positions of the land masses at the time to see that.

dumbdumb is a SUPER DUPER Genius, he doesn't read anything...he just believes. Hmmmm, that sounds religious zeolot like doesn't it.

Why don't you read? Why is an arctic being warmer relative to the rest of the Earth hard to understand? Where has it been warming at the fastest rate on Earth?

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled. You have Greenland getting an ice sheet, the start of arctic sea ice, the creation of the modern thermohaline circulation, the modern Gulf Stream forming, the Mediterranean Sea drying up at the beginning, global sea levels 25 meters higher and major changes in flora to a cooler, drier and seasonal world. The tropical rainforests retreated to just around the equator and savannahs, grasslands and deserts spread around the world. The 2.7 million year changes during the Pliocene is what ushered in the Ice Age Pleistocene.

I have read everything you have posted. I have also read many things that you have never even heard of. The events you describe are a theory. They are not fact. It is not known what causes the ice ages. If you do figure it out, it is an automatic PhD.

We do know certain things however. Yes indeed sea levels were MUCH lower during the ice age...makes sense when you have miles of ice covering the continents. Also we have human population centers that have been found along the continental shelves hundreds of feet below the ocean, the source of the Gilgamaic and biblical flood legends?

Who knows for sure, what we do know is that we really don't know all that much. That's why you political, religious types can get away with making these ridiculous claims, there's no evidence for, or against them, so you just spew them out and hope they stick. The problem arises whenever someone decides to really look into your claims.....that's when they are found to be wrong or outright BS.

 

[Dubya]

dumbdumb is a SUPER DUPER Genius, he doesn't read anything...he just believes. Hmmmm, that sounds religious zeolot like doesn't it.

Why don't you read? Why is an arctic being warmer relative to the rest of the Earth hard to understand? Where has it been warming at the fastest rate on Earth?

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled. You have Greenland getting an ice sheet, the start of arctic sea ice, the creation of the modern thermohaline circulation, the modern Gulf Stream forming, the Mediterranean Sea drying up at the beginning, global sea levels 25 meters higher and major changes in flora to a cooler, drier and seasonal world. The tropical rainforests retreated to just around the equator and savannahs, grasslands and deserts spread around the world. The 2.7 million year changes during the Pliocene is what ushered in the Ice Age Pleistocene.

I have read everything you have posted. I have also read many things that you have never even heard of. The events you describe are a theory. They are not fact. It is not known what causes the ice ages. If you do figure it out, it is an automatic PhD.

We do know certain things however. Yes indeed sea levels were MUCH lower during the ice age...makes sense when you have miles of ice covering the continents. Also we have human population centers that have been found along the continental shelves hundreds of feet below the ocean, the source of the Gilgamaic and biblical flood legends?

Who knows for sure, what we do know is that we really don't know all that much. That's why you political, religious types can get away with making these ridiculous claims, there's no evidence for, or against them, so you just spew them out and hope they stick. The problem arises whenever someone decides to really look into your claims.....that's when they are found to be wrong or outright BS.

You are full of it.

Milankovitch Cycles cause about a 7% decline in solar radiation from the max. With the world in it's present shape and with it's present thermohaline circulation, that's enough to cause Ice Ages and Interglacials. Having a nearly land locked ocean at a pole and a continent at the other makes the Earth prone to glaciation, as does a hugh land mass across the equator. Antarctica has a circum-polar current and circum-polar winds and that's what isolated it around 50 million years ago. Weathering of the Himalayas around that time started reducing CO2. Antartica was getting colder, but the arctic stayed fairly warm, until North and South connected, which killed off what remained of a circum-equatorial current that had been around since the Cretaceous. New ocean current patterns were formed including the powerful Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream carries both warm water and moisture to the north. The Atlantic Ocean and Greenland cools so it gets an Ice Sheet and the arctic sea ice builds up. Once it's not warm enough to melt snow cover in an area, a glacier is formed.

The feedbacks for radiative forcing work to warm or cool the Earth. The Earth gets less solar radiation, glaciers and snow reflect more sunlight and CO2 is reduced. They all work to cool the Earth to an Ice Age, just like they all work in reverse to warm it to an Interglacial.

Now, how can you get a degree in Geology and not know that? Geology is more than just rocks.

 

[westwall]

Why don't you read? Why is an arctic being warmer relative to the rest of the Earth hard to understand? Where has it been warming at the fastest rate on Earth?

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled. You have Greenland getting an ice sheet, the start of arctic sea ice, the creation of the modern thermohaline circulation, the modern Gulf Stream forming, the Mediterranean Sea drying up at the beginning, global sea levels 25 meters higher and major changes in flora to a cooler, drier and seasonal world. The tropical rainforests retreated to just around the equator and savannahs, grasslands and deserts spread around the world. The 2.7 million year changes during the Pliocene is what ushered in the Ice Age Pleistocene.

I have read everything you have posted. I have also read many things that you have never even heard of. The events you describe are a theory. They are not fact. It is not known what causes the ice ages. If you do figure it out, it is an automatic PhD.

We do know certain things however. Yes indeed sea levels were MUCH lower during the ice age...makes sense when you have miles of ice covering the continents. Also we have human population centers that have been found along the continental shelves hundreds of feet below the ocean, the source of the Gilgamaic and biblical flood legends?

Who knows for sure, what we do know is that we really don't know all that much. That's why you political, religious types can get away with making these ridiculous claims, there's no evidence for, or against them, so you just spew them out and hope they stick. The problem arises whenever someone decides to really look into your claims.....that's when they are found to be wrong or outright BS.

You are full of it.

Milankovitch Cycles cause about a 7% decline in solar radiation from the max. With the world in it's present shape and with it's present thermohaline circulation, that's enough to cause Ice Ages and Interglacials. Having a nearly land locked ocean at a pole and a continent at the other makes the Earth prone to glaciation, as does a hugh land mass across the equator. Antarctica has a circum-polar current and circum-polar winds and that's what isolated it around 50 million years ago. Weathering of the Himalayas around that time started reducing CO2. Antartica was getting colder, but the arctic stayed fairly warm, until North and South connected, which killed off what remained of a circum-equatorial current that had been around since the Cretaceous. New ocean current patterns were formed including the powerful Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream carries both warm water and moisture to the north. The Atlantic Ocean and Greenland cools so it gets an Ice Sheet and the arctic sea ice builds up. Once it's not warm enough to melt snow cover in an area, a glacier is formed.

The feedbacks for radiative forcing work to warm or cool the Earth. The Earth gets less solar radiation, glaciers and snow reflect more sunlight and CO2 is reduced. They all work to cool the Earth to an Ice Age, just like they all work in reverse to warm it to an Interglacial.

Now, how can you get a degree in Geology and not know that? Geology is more than just rocks.

Well SUPER DUPER GENIUS...I know this much...we don't know much. We suspect, and we theorize, but we know very little. Even the Milankovitch theory has been called into question by several scientists based on ocean bottom and other isotopic evidence that refutes MT.

Dr. Muller of Berkely says it best...get it...BEST...


"We have been studying the cycles of the ice ages using data collected from sea-floor cores, Greenland ice, and other terrestrial sources. We have published a careful spectral analysis that shows that the "standard" Milankovitch theory for the glacial cycles is wrong, and we have proposed an alternative explanation: that the cycles are driven by extraterrestrial accretion."

Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, Specturm of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 8329-8334, August 1997

 

[Dubya]

I have read everything you have posted. I have also read many things that you have never even heard of. The events you describe are a theory. They are not fact. It is not known what causes the ice ages. If you do figure it out, it is an automatic PhD.

We do know certain things however. Yes indeed sea levels were MUCH lower during the ice age...makes sense when you have miles of ice covering the continents. Also we have human population centers that have been found along the continental shelves hundreds of feet below the ocean, the source of the Gilgamaic and biblical flood legends?

Who knows for sure, what we do know is that we really don't know all that much. That's why you political, religious types can get away with making these ridiculous claims, there's no evidence for, or against them, so you just spew them out and hope they stick. The problem arises whenever someone decides to really look into your claims.....that's when they are found to be wrong or outright BS.

You are full of it.

Milankovitch Cycles cause about a 7% decline in solar radiation from the max. With the world in it's present shape and with it's present thermohaline circulation, that's enough to cause Ice Ages and Interglacials. Having a nearly land locked ocean at a pole and a continent at the other makes the Earth prone to glaciation, as does a hugh land mass across the equator. Antarctica has a circum-polar current and circum-polar winds and that's what isolated it around 50 million years ago. Weathering of the Himalayas around that time started reducing CO2. Antartica was getting colder, but the arctic stayed fairly warm, until North and South connected, which killed off what remained of a circum-equatorial current that had been around since the Cretaceous. New ocean current patterns were formed including the powerful Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream carries both warm water and moisture to the north. The Atlantic Ocean and Greenland cools so it gets an Ice Sheet and the arctic sea ice builds up. Once it's not warm enough to melt snow cover in an area, a glacier is formed.

The feedbacks for radiative forcing work to warm or cool the Earth. The Earth gets less solar radiation, glaciers and snow reflect more sunlight and CO2 is reduced. They all work to cool the Earth to an Ice Age, just like they all work in reverse to warm it to an Interglacial.

Now, how can you get a degree in Geology and not know that? Geology is more than just rocks.

Well SUPER DUPER GENIUS...I know this much...we don't know much. We suspect, and we theorize, but we know very little. Even the Milankovitch theory has been called into question by several scientists based on ocean bottom and other isotopic evidence that refutes MT.

Dr. Muller of Berkely says it best...get it...BEST...


"We have been studying the cycles of the ice ages using data collected from sea-floor cores, Greenland ice, and other terrestrial sources. We have published a careful spectral analysis that shows that the "standard" Milankovitch theory for the glacial cycles is wrong, and we have proposed an alternative explanation: that the cycles are driven by extraterrestrial accretion."

Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, Specturm of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 8329-8334, August 1997

You definitely don't know much, or you would know what scientific crap is.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Personally, I'm thinking mother earth gets rid of things that need to be gotten rid of.

Where are all the worst cities?


Along side water.


I'm thinking this is called; Natural selection, it's science, so the liberals living there won't mind.

 

[SSDD]

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled.

What circum-equatorial current dubya? It is obvious that you believe there was one, and I have seen the writing that claims it existed. But, unlike you, I don't accept a thing just because it is written down somewhere, even if the writer is a so called experit. Alll one need do is look at the positions of the land masses over the eons to wonder when this circum-equatorial current might have existed. When you look at them, the obvious conclusion must be that it never existed.

One more time, I am going to show you the postions of the land masses through history. You point out to me in which one you believe a circum-equatorial current could have existed.

And before you complain about the source, the graphics come from a highly respected source called the paleomap project. It has received awards from both scientific american and NSTA.

First, here is the modern world. Clearly no circum-equatorial current here

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Miocene...about 14 million years ago. Obviously, possibility of a circum-equatorial current there.

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Eocene....about 50 million years ago. No sign of any circum-equatorial current there.

Lets jump on back to the Cretaceous period....about 94 million years ago. See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current there?

Moving along, here is the Triassic...about 237 million years ago. How about here? See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current?

Lets go on back to the Early Carboniferous period...about 356 million years ago. How about here? See anything like a circum-equatorial current there?

Here we are back at teh Ordovician period....waaaaaaayyyyyy back, nearly 500 million years ago. I see a current there that could be called circum-global but even that doesn't move strictly around the equator as the name circum-equatorial would suggest.

Here is a short video showing a "time lapse version of the above pictures. When do you believe that circum -equatorial current might have existed?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ft-dP2D7QM4]Science on a Sphere: Plate Tectonics and Paleo Animation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dubya]

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled.

What circum-equatorial current dubya? It is obvious that you believe there was one, and I have seen the writing that claims it existed. But, unlike you, I don't accept a thing just because it is written down somewhere, even if the writer is a so called experit. Alll one need do is look at the positions of the land masses over the eons to wonder when this circum-equatorial current might have existed. When you look at them, the obvious conclusion must be that it never existed.

One more time, I am going to show you the postions of the land masses through history. You point out to me in which one you believe a circum-equatorial current could have existed.

And before you complain about the source, the graphics come from a highly respected source called the paleomap project. It has received awards from both scientific american and NSTA.

First, here is the modern world. Clearly no circum-equatorial current here

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Miocene...about 14 million years ago. Obviously, possibility of a circum-equatorial current there.

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Eocene....about 50 million years ago. No sign of any circum-equatorial current there.

Lets jump on back to the Cretaceous period....about 94 million years ago. See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current there?

Moving along, here is the Triassic...about 237 million years ago. How about here? See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current?

Lets go on back to the Early Carboniferous period...about 356 million years ago. How about here? See anything like a circum-equatorial current there?

Here we are back at teh Ordovician period....waaaaaaayyyyyy back, nearly 500 million years ago. I see a current there that could be called circum-global but even that doesn't move strictly around the equator as the name circum-equatorial would suggest.

Here is a short video showing a "time lapse version of the above pictures. When do you believe that circum -equatorial current might have existed?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ft-dP2D7QM4]Science on a Sphere: Plate Tectonics and Paleo Animation - YouTube[/ame]

It's written in all scientific literature that explains our past world, but you avoid reading anything about the subject and live in a fantasy world. There was a major ocean current that basically followed the equator from the Cretaceous to the Pliocene. Did you notice North and South haven't connected yet in the Miocene?

Another problem you have is using these snapshots to represent the whole past. Sea level was 25 meters higher in the Pliocene, but North America was connected to Asia. To understand Paleoclimatology and why things changed, you're going to have to read the subject. There were many sea level changes between your scotese snapshots and all kinds of major events happening over those millions of years. Changes over millions of years aren't the same as making rapid changes. The oceans also transport heat around the world and making a major change in thermohaline circulation can drastically change the climate of an area and the whole world.

 

[SSDD]

It's written in all scientific literature that explains our past world, but you avoid reading anything about the subject and live in a fantasy world. There was a major ocean current that basically followed the equator from the Cretaceous to the Pliocene. Did you notice North and South haven't connected yet in the Miocene?

I have read the literature dubya. I told you that I have read the papers saying that it existed. What I am asking you is when did it exist. Your last link claimed that the remnants of it still remained during the Pliestocene epoch but when you look at the positions of the land masses of the time, the question has to be asked.

If all of the scientific literature explained that the easter bunny delivers colored eggs and candy, would you believe that in the face of evidence to the contrary also?

As to a circum equatorial current existing from the Cretaceious to the Pliocene, again look at the maps. During the Cretaceous, Africa presents a major league hurdle to any circum equatorial current. The land masses of europe were still there under a shallow sea which precudes the presence of any curcum equatorial current and then there is north and south america...you don't seem to realise that even though they were under water, the water was shallow...not nearly deep enough to support a major ocean current....especially one that supposedly moved unbroken around the entire earth.

Another problem you have is using these snapshots to represent the whole past.

You think land masses jumped around to entirely different locations in the middle time between the snapshots?

Sea level was 25 meters higher in the Pliocene, but North America was connected to Asia. {/quote]

I have news for you dubya....25 meters isn't enough to support a major ocean current. The fact is that the facts don't support your claimed circum equatorial current.

To understand Paleoclimatology and why things changed, you're going to have to read the subject.

I have read the subject as I said. There are questions to be answered and obviously, you have no answers any more than whatever dolt invented a circum equatorial current to delete and cause cliamte change. Once more dubya, when could a circum equatorial current possibly have existed and describe its route.

There were many sea level changes between your scotese snapshots and all kinds of major events happening over those millions of years.

Sure there were, but none that would allow for a major ocean current running around the entire earth. A current like that would require very deep water and it simply did not exist in any way that would allow an unbroken current to go around the world within 40 degrees of the equator.

Changes over millions of years aren't the same as making rapid changes.

No they aren't and you don't seem to get that. The land mass that connected north and south america were there, just at the bottom of a shallow sea...same for europe. There is no time after several hundred million years ago when an unbroken current could have gon around the world anywhere near the equator.

If you believe one existed, then show me a graphic of a globe with land masses in place that would allow it.

The oceans also transport heat around the world and making a major change in thermohaline circulation can drastically change the climate of an area and the whole world.

Now you are just dodging. Show me a graphic of a globe at a time when you believe that circum equatorial current existed and describe its route....or stop believing in fairy tales and wake up to the reality that you have been tricked.

 

[Dubya]

I said the circum-equatorial current ended in the Pliocene, not the Pleistocene and started in the Cretaceous. That means it was around for about 150 million years. I posted when it ended and gave links. Try doing some research for a change and stop wasting my time asking the same thing over and over!

Our present thermohaline circulation couldn't have existed with that circum-equatorial current, but to really understand why you would have to examine our present thermohaline circulation and see how heat is transferred around the planet. Don't you think packing 25 meters of sea level on ice sheets also has an effect on ocean currents?

The Pliocene was a major time of changes and one we know a lot about, because it wasn't that long ago.

 

[westwall]

You are full of it.

Milankovitch Cycles cause about a 7% decline in solar radiation from the max. With the world in it's present shape and with it's present thermohaline circulation, that's enough to cause Ice Ages and Interglacials. Having a nearly land locked ocean at a pole and a continent at the other makes the Earth prone to glaciation, as does a hugh land mass across the equator. Antarctica has a circum-polar current and circum-polar winds and that's what isolated it around 50 million years ago. Weathering of the Himalayas around that time started reducing CO2. Antartica was getting colder, but the arctic stayed fairly warm, until North and South connected, which killed off what remained of a circum-equatorial current that had been around since the Cretaceous. New ocean current patterns were formed including the powerful Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream carries both warm water and moisture to the north. The Atlantic Ocean and Greenland cools so it gets an Ice Sheet and the arctic sea ice builds up. Once it's not warm enough to melt snow cover in an area, a glacier is formed.

The feedbacks for radiative forcing work to warm or cool the Earth. The Earth gets less solar radiation, glaciers and snow reflect more sunlight and CO2 is reduced. They all work to cool the Earth to an Ice Age, just like they all work in reverse to warm it to an Interglacial.

Now, how can you get a degree in Geology and not know that? Geology is more than just rocks.

Well SUPER DUPER GENIUS...I know this much...we don't know much. We suspect, and we theorize, but we know very little. Even the Milankovitch theory has been called into question by several scientists based on ocean bottom and other isotopic evidence that refutes MT.

Dr. Muller of Berkely says it best...get it...BEST...


"We have been studying the cycles of the ice ages using data collected from sea-floor cores, Greenland ice, and other terrestrial sources. We have published a careful spectral analysis that shows that the "standard" Milankovitch theory for the glacial cycles is wrong, and we have proposed an alternative explanation: that the cycles are driven by extraterrestrial accretion."

Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, Specturm of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 8329-8334, August 1997

You definitely don't know much, or you would know what scientific crap is.

Oh, I do mr. "man of science" who doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation and reverts to simpleminded rejoinders when asked actual scientific questions.

FYI Muller is your boys latest "man of the hour" but it seems he doesn't agree with all of your nonsense, just that that he can make money from.

 

[westwall]

When the circum-equatorial current ended, it isolated the Atlantic Ocean and it cooled.

What circum-equatorial current dubya? It is obvious that you believe there was one, and I have seen the writing that claims it existed. But, unlike you, I don't accept a thing just because it is written down somewhere, even if the writer is a so called experit. Alll one need do is look at the positions of the land masses over the eons to wonder when this circum-equatorial current might have existed. When you look at them, the obvious conclusion must be that it never existed.

One more time, I am going to show you the postions of the land masses through history. You point out to me in which one you believe a circum-equatorial current could have existed.

And before you complain about the source, the graphics come from a highly respected source called the paleomap project. It has received awards from both scientific american and NSTA.

First, here is the modern world. Clearly no circum-equatorial current here

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Miocene...about 14 million years ago. Obviously, possibility of a circum-equatorial current there.

Here is what the land masses looked like during the Eocene....about 50 million years ago. No sign of any circum-equatorial current there.

Lets jump on back to the Cretaceous period....about 94 million years ago. See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current there?

Moving along, here is the Triassic...about 237 million years ago. How about here? See any possibility of a circum-equatorial current?

Lets go on back to the Early Carboniferous period...about 356 million years ago. How about here? See anything like a circum-equatorial current there?

Here we are back at teh Ordovician period....waaaaaaayyyyyy back, nearly 500 million years ago. I see a current there that could be called circum-global but even that doesn't move strictly around the equator as the name circum-equatorial would suggest.

Here is a short video showing a "time lapse version of the above pictures. When do you believe that circum -equatorial current might have existed?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ft-dP2D7QM4]Science on a Sphere: Plate Tectonics and Paleo Animation - YouTube[/ame]

It's written in all scientific literature that explains our past world, but you avoid reading anything about the subject and live in a fantasy world. There was a major ocean current that basically followed the equator from the Cretaceous to the Pliocene. Did you notice North and South haven't connected yet in the Miocene?

Another problem you have is using these snapshots to represent the whole past. Sea level was 25 meters higher in the Pliocene, but North America was connected to Asia. To understand Paleoclimatology and why things changed, you're going to have to read the subject. There were many sea level changes between your scotese snapshots and all kinds of major events happening over those millions of years. Changes over millions of years aren't the same as making rapid changes. The oceans also transport heat around the world and making a major change in thermohaline circulation can drastically change the climate of an area and the whole world.

No, it isn't. Smith and Pickering I think it was, back in 2002 or 2003 tried to define a CEC to explain the "greenhouse" to "icehouse" (their words) cycles of the Earth. This is an old memory but they contended that during the late ordovician plate tectonics pushed continental masses into the polar regions and also closed off the CEC causing more constrained gyres which caused the "icehouse" cycles to begin.

As SSDD has shown however, there was no time when a CEC could have existed. Period, end of story.

 

[Dubya]

Well SUPER DUPER GENIUS...I know this much...we don't know much. We suspect, and we theorize, but we know very little. Even the Milankovitch theory has been called into question by several scientists based on ocean bottom and other isotopic evidence that refutes MT.

Dr. Muller of Berkely says it best...get it...BEST...


"We have been studying the cycles of the ice ages using data collected from sea-floor cores, Greenland ice, and other terrestrial sources. We have published a careful spectral analysis that shows that the "standard" Milankovitch theory for the glacial cycles is wrong, and we have proposed an alternative explanation: that the cycles are driven by extraterrestrial accretion."

Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, Specturm of 100-kyr glacial cycle: Orbital inclination, not eccentricity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., Vol. 94, pp. 8329-8334, August 1997

You definitely don't know much, or you would know what scientific crap is.

Oh, I do mr. "man of science" who doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation and reverts to simpleminded rejoinders when asked actual scientific questions.

FYI Muller is your boys latest "man of the hour" but it seems he doesn't agree with all of your nonsense, just that that he can make money from.

Who has claimed Milankovitch Cycles only involve orbital shape? Milankovitch never did.

 

[westwall]

I said the circum-equatorial current ended in the Pliocene, not the Pleistocene and started in the Cretaceous. That means it was around for about 150 million years. I posted when it ended and gave links. Try doing some research for a change and stop wasting my time asking the same thing over and over!

Our present thermohaline circulation couldn't have existed with that circum-equatorial current, but to really understand why you would have to examine our present thermohaline circulation and see how heat is transferred around the planet. Don't you think packing 25 meters of sea level on ice sheets also has an effect on ocean currents?

The Pliocene was a major time of changes and one we know a lot about, because it wasn't that long ago.

Don't you mean sea ice floating on 25 meter deeper water? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. There has been no time when a CEC could have existed. Africa kind of precludes that.

 

[SSDD]

I said the circum-equatorial current ended in the Pliocene, not the Pleistocene and started in the Cretaceous. That means it was around for about 150 million years. I posted when it ended and gave links. Try doing some research for a change and stop wasting my time asking the same thing over and over!

I know what you said. I asked you to show me a graphic showing land masses in a position that would allow a circum equatorial current. I can't help but notice that you haven't provided one.

I have done the research dubya which is why I am asking the question. The research doesn't support the claim. It is you who is beliving on faith.

Again, lets see the graphic showing land masses in a position that would allow such a current.

Our present thermohaline circulation couldn't have existed with that circum-equatorial current, but to really understand why you would have to examine our present thermohaline circulation and see how heat is transferred around the planet. Don't you think packing 25 meters of sea level on ice sheets also has an effect on ocean currents?

You are simply assuming a circum equatorial current. The land masses clearly haven't allowed for any current that could be rationally called circum equatorial for more than 500 million years.

Once again, if you want to argue for a circum equatorial current, you are going to have to show me land masses in such a position to allow for such a current. So far, the fact that you haven't really hurts your argument.

The Pliocene was a major time of changes and one we know a lot about, because it wasn't that long ago.

The land masses were where they were dubya and clearly there was no possibility of a circum equatorial current with the land masses in those positions. Are you arguing that they were somewhere else? Lets see the grapic if you believe so.

 

[westwall]

You definitely don't know much, or you would know what scientific crap is.

Oh, I do mr. "man of science" who doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation and reverts to simpleminded rejoinders when asked actual scientific questions.

FYI Muller is your boys latest "man of the hour" but it seems he doesn't agree with all of your nonsense, just that that he can make money from.

Who has claimed Milankovitch Cycles only involve orbital shape? Milankovitch never did.

The problem dear child is that the observed data doesn't support the idea of Milankovitch Cycles except superficially. That's the problem with you, you don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

 

[Dubya]

I said the circum-equatorial current ended in the Pliocene, not the Pleistocene and started in the Cretaceous. That means it was around for about 150 million years. I posted when it ended and gave links. Try doing some research for a change and stop wasting my time asking the same thing over and over!

Our present thermohaline circulation couldn't have existed with that circum-equatorial current, but to really understand why you would have to examine our present thermohaline circulation and see how heat is transferred around the planet. Don't you think packing 25 meters of sea level on ice sheets also has an effect on ocean currents?

The Pliocene was a major time of changes and one we know a lot about, because it wasn't that long ago.

Don't you mean sea ice floating on 25 meter deeper water? You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper. There has been no time when a CEC could have existed. Africa kind of precludes that.

You are definitely not a Geologist and say things like a total idiot.

 

[Dubya]

Oh, I do mr. "man of science" who doesn't understand that correlation does not equal causation and reverts to simpleminded rejoinders when asked actual scientific questions.

FYI Muller is your boys latest "man of the hour" but it seems he doesn't agree with all of your nonsense, just that that he can make money from.

Who has claimed Milankovitch Cycles only involve orbital shape? Milankovitch never did.

The problem dear child is that the observed data doesn't support the idea of Milankovitch Cycles except superficially. That's the problem with you, you don't seem to understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

Now you're telling us the ice ages just caused themselves, right?

 

[SSDD]

There has been no time when a CEC could have existed. Africa kind of precludes that.

But "they" said.......and "they" wrote it down.....and those continents did a whole lot of jumping around between epochs that science just does't know about.....Why, for a little while, aliens abducted Africa and probed it on the dark side of the moon. That allowed for a sort of circum equatorial current for just long enough to create conditions in which man's CO2 could overheat the globe and turn us into a flaming gassball.

Unless we all bow down to the great and terrible gaia that is.

 

[SSDD]

Now you're telling us the ice ages just caused themselves, right?

The point, dubya, is that we don't know what caused them or what caused the turn arounds to warm periods. We are guessing....making up stories in an attempt to explain.

That circum equatorial current theory is busted though because the land masses have not been in positions that would allow for such a current in more than 500 million years.