“Glacial” and “interglacial” aren’t arbitrary labels or fraud. They’re defined by the presence and extent of continental ice sheets over tens of thousands of years, which is exactly what ice cores, sediment layers, and other proxies track. Antarctica’s ice cores don’t refute the concepts; they provide the detailed data that allow scientists to identify glacial cycles, temperature trends, and CO2 variations across millions of years.The last refuge of the CO2 FRAUD is essentially "water causes ice," that "ocean currents" cause "ice ages."
Pretty sad, as even a 5th grader knows water is too warm to cause ice, but that is where CO2 FRAUD is pinned.
The CO2 FRAUD defines an "interglacial" as
We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene
which is completely refuted by the truth of Antarctica's ice core...
But as Paul Voosen reports for Science, the team recently dug even deeper into Earth's glacial history, unearthing an ice core that dates back 2.7 million years.
What is an ice age?
Apparently we really need a "debate" over the term ICE AGE because y'all are all wrong...
What is an ICE AGE? Most apparently still believe it is a terrifying horror movie event where Earth all at once freezes up. The data has never supported such a scenario. Since 2010, there has been a massive effort to re-write Earth climate history into a series of rapid "glaciations" and ice...www.usmessageboard.com
Can anyone here find one piece of land today not in ice age that is within 600 miles of a pole?
NO
Can anyone here find one piece of land in ice age outside of 600 miles of a pole?
NO
100% correlation
NO refutation
"Glacials" and "Interglacials" are 100% pure bullshit and proven so by Antarctica's ice core.
Yes, most of Earth’s ice is concentrated on Greenland and Antarctica. That’s exactly why “glacial” and “interglacial” periods are defined the way they are: they describe the expansion and contraction of these massive continental ice sheets over geological time.
Ice sheet growth is driven by orbital cycles, solar insolation, and local temperature-precipitation dynamics. That’s how glacial periods form naturally. That doesn’t mean CO2 has no effect on climate. In fact, ice cores show CO2 levels and temperature rise and fall together, and the rapid increase in CO2 from human emissions today is unprecedented in speed compared with natural cycles.
You're misrepresenting the definition of an interglacial. Interglacials are warmer periods between glacial periods, which often involve partial retreat of ice sheets, not the complete disappearance of all ice. Ice retreat is relative, not total.
That's not exactly correct. The glacial cycles are driven by the northern hemisphere; specifically the Arctic. The effect of which is felt worldwide - oceans and atmosphere - and even at the south pole.
Orbital cycles are a red herring. It's ocean currents distributing or not distributing heat to the northern latitudes. When heat distribution from the Atlantic to the Arctic is disrupted because of density/salinity changes (which are temperature dependent), the northern hemisphere glaciates. When heat distribution from the Atlantic to the Arctic resumes the northern hemisphere deglaciates like it is doing today and the oceans and atmosphere warm until the next glacial phase is triggered.
You're right that glacial cycles are strongly influenced by northern hemisphere insolation changes, particularly in the Arctic, which act as a trigger for feedbacks across oceans and the atmosphere. That said, the definitions of "glacial" and "interglacial" are still based on the growth and retreat of the major continental ice sheets, primarily Greenland and Antarctica, because their mass dominates Earth's ice total.
Not when you realize the northern hemisphere is deglaciating because heat is being circulated by ocean currents from the Atlantic to the Arctic. Climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty INCREASED when the planet became bipolar glaciated.
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) and its role in transporting heat northward absolutely contributes to regional ice growth and retreat in the Northern Hemisphere, and it interacts with orbital forcing, solar insolation, and other factors.
I understand the mechanism you’re describing.
No. Not strongly influenced. The climate of the planet is driven by what happens in the northern hemisphere. Even today, the warmest average temperature readings of the planet occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunlight and the coldest average temperature readings of the planet occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sunlight.
Do you know why the northern hemisphere and not the southern hemisphere triggers the feedbacks?
I don't believe so. I believe it is ocean currents which triggers ABRUPT climate changes. How can slow acting orbital changes cause ABRUPT climate changes?
There are tons of papers describing the evidence and the reasons why changing ocean currents cause abrupt glaciation and abrupt deglaciation in the northern hemisphere. I have yet to see any evidence for orbital forcing to causing abrupt glaciation and abrupt deglaciation in the northern hemisphere. There is no evidence, there are only poor correlations which are not consistent with the time frames for glaciation and deglaciation.
No, they don't. Did orbital cycles change? How do orbital cycles cause abrupt warming?
