Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely

[ding]

I understand the mechanism you’re describing.

The distinction is that this explains past natural fluctuations and regional differences, but it doesn’t explain the unprecedented rate of global warming today. Human driven CO2 emissions are increasing atmospheric concentrations faster than natural processes have ever done, which adds a radiative forcing that is independent of these regional ice thresholds. In other words, even if ocean circulation continues to redistribute heat, the background warming is being amplified by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The warming isn't unprecedented. It's natural for a deglaciating northern hemisphere. You need to look at the data for the Arctic. Lot's of temperature increases and decreases.

δ18O from the GISP2 ice core for the past 10,000 years.

 

[ding]

Human driven CO2 emissions are increasing atmospheric concentrations faster than natural processes have ever done, which adds a radiative forcing that is independent of these regional ice thresholds.

1C per doubling of CO2 over hundreds of years is insignificant. There is nothing catastrophic about that. The planet is warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended and the northern hemisphere is deglaciating. They are attributing all natural warming to CO2 which is idiotic.

 

[EMH]

The volcanoes under West Antarctica are causing some melting, but overall it’s been gaining

That's the peninsula aka Transantarctic mountains. They go off, not that frequently though. The % of AA's ice on the peninsula is miniscule. That's why CO2 FRAUd always is there, screaming when a piece of ice breaks off.

 

[EMH]

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

WRONG. That the ice grew a new ice layer is proof there was no "global ice melt" which is the very definition of "interglacial."


Explain how Greenland froze while North America thawed at the same time...

 

[EMH]

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.

There is ZERO evidence of any "contraction" on either Greenland or AA. Greenland's ice has grown for the past million years, AA's the past 40 million, and during the past 3 million North America LOST 5+ million cubic miles of ice...

 

[Anomalism]

1C per doubling of CO2 over hundreds of years is insignificant. There is nothing catastrophic about that. The planet is warming like it always does after a glacial period has ended and the northern hemisphere is deglaciating. They are attributing all natural warming to CO2 which is idiotic.

The key misunderstanding here is about rate and context. Yes, the northern hemisphere triggers glacial interglacial cycles through orbital and insolation changes, and ocean circulation plays a role in distributing heat. Those processes explain the timing of natural cycles over tens of thousands of years. But that doesn’t justify conflating the post-glacial warming we’re seeing today with past natural deglaciation.

What makes the current warming different is that CO2 is rising far faster than anything in the paleoclimate record, roughly 120 ppm in about 150 years. That sudden, global radiative forcing is independent of regional ice thresholds or ocean circulation patterns. The 1C per doubling figure is a baseline; when you include feedbacks from water vapor, ice-albedo, and ocean-atmosphere interactions, the system amplifies warming. The past shows the planet responds to CO2, but in those cases it was often slower and mixed with competing geophysical forcings. Today, those slow forcings are essentially static, while CO2 is being injected at a geologically unprecedented rate. That is what makes modern warming both measurable and largely anthropogenic, not just a continuation of natural deglacial trends.

 

[Anomalism]

There is ZERO evidence of any "contraction" on either Greenland or AA. Greenland's ice has grown for the past million years, AA's the past 40 million, and during the past 3 million North America LOST 5+ million cubic miles of ice...

Glacial and interglacial periods are not defined by uniform melting everywhere at the same time. They’re defined by the growth and retreat of the major continental ice sheets, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, Greenland and North America, over tens of thousands of years. Regional differences exist because ice sheet dynamics depend on local temperature, precipitation, topography, and ocean-atmosphere circulation. That’s why Greenland and parts of North America can experience different local trends at the same time, but the overall continental ice mass still reflects the interglacial or glacial state.

In other words, an interglacial doesn’t require every ice sheet everywhere to shrink simultaneously; it’s about the net expansion or contraction of the large continental ice sheets.

 

[EMH]

In fact, ice cores show CO2 levels and temperature rise and fall together

Another CO2 FRAUD lie ...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

In other words, when the planet Earth is warming because it has NET land moving outside of 600 miles to a pole and hence is net melting ice age glaciers (like North America did in the past 3 million years), that increased the amount of "life activity" on Earth and blips up CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 does absolutely nothing and that is the current ACTUAL data from

satellites
balloons
surface air pressure

 

[EMH]

Natural processes explain past ice ages

600 miles to the pole explains ALL ice ages, including

AA
Greenland
North America

 

[EMH]

partial retreat of ice sheets

LOL!!!

Milankovich was cooked up to replace North American Ice Age.

Milankovich is 100% bullshit, IQ over 5 required...

Thread 'The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago'

Aug 9, 2023

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure...

We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils, and clearly they did not live on top of 2+ mile thick ice at -60F...

• EMH
• Replies: 63
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

 

[EMH]

What makes the current warming

There is NO EVIDENCE of warming on planet Earth

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY
NO RISE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE

 

[Anomalism]

Another CO2 FRAUD lie ...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’

Here's something American media are virtually guaranteed to not report: a British court has determined that Al Gore's schlockumentary "An Inconvenient Truth" contains at least eleven material falsehoods. It seems a safe bet Matt Lauer and Diane Sawyer won't be discussing this Tuesday morning...

www.newsbusters.org

• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

In other words, when the planet Earth is warming because it has NET land moving outside of 600 miles to a pole and hence is net melting ice age glaciers (like North America did in the past 3 million years), that increased the amount of "life activity" on Earth and blips up CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 does absolutely nothing and that is the current ACTUAL data from

satellites
balloons
surface air pressure

You’re conflating a historical detail about timing with causation in the modern climate context. Ice core records do show that in past glacial-interglacial cycles, CO2 lagged temperature by several hundred to a couple thousand years during natural deglaciations. That doesn’t mean CO2 does nothing. It acted as a feedback. Orbital changes triggered initial warming, which caused CO2 to be released from oceans, and that additional CO2 then amplified warming globally. So in the past, CO2 wasn’t the trigger, it was the amplifier.

Today, the situation is different: we’re injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere at a rate faster than any natural feedback in the last millions of years. Here, CO2 is a forcing, not just a feedback. Laboratory measurements, radiative physics, and observations all confirm that increasing CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. Satellites, balloons, and surface measurements show warming consistent with that forcing. The ice core lag doesn’t invalidate the physics; it just reflects the natural sequence of past glacial cycles, not the current human-driven situation.

 

[Anomalism]

There is NO EVIDENCE of warming on planet Earth

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT
NO OCEAN RISE
NO BREAKOUT IN CANE ACTIVITY
NO RISE in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE

The mechanism for ice ages is not a single distance to the pole metric. It’s a combination of orbital parameters (tilt, precession, eccentricity) that affect seasonal insolation, and the feedbacks in ice sheets, oceans, and atmosphere. That’s what Milankovitch cycles describe: they don’t magically replace any ice age; they provide a timing signal that explains why glaciations and deglaciations happen when they do.

Partial retreats and advances of ice sheets aren’t trivial; even small changes in summer insolation can trigger large feedbacks in ice-albedo, ocean circulation, and CO2 release. Greenland, North America, and Antarctica respond differently because of geography, topography, and oceanic context. The idea isn’t that all ice sheets behave identically, but that the orbital-driven forcing plus Earth system feedbacks explains the pattern and timing of glacial cycles observed in the geologic record.

Saying “Milankovitch is 100% bullshit” ignores decades of paleoclimate evidence and modeling that successfully reproduces glacial-interglacial timing. The framework isn’t about replacing one ice age with another; it’s about understanding why ice sheets wax and wane over tens of thousands of years in a way consistent with multiple continents and proxies.

 

[EMH]

Orbital changes

WHEN did Earth's orbit change?

So in the past, CO2 wasn’t the trigger, it was the amplifier.

There is more gas trapped in AA ice than is in the atmosphere now. Melt that ice and it increases the atmosphere, and THAT amplifies warming REGARDLESS of the gas breakdown, as ALL GASSES absorb some part of Sun's EM, much much stronger than weak weak IR....

 

[EMH]

Saying “Milankovitch is 100% bullshit” ignores decades of paleoclimate evidence and modeling that successfully reproduces glacial-interglacial timing

You wouldn't state that bs under oath.

So tell us how Antarctica has really just stayed on the South Pole for the past 80 million years while SA broke off from Africa... and is clearly documented as moving...




in reality, when SA broke off from Africa 125 million years ago, it was attached to Antarctica, and only recently broke apart.... visual here...

 

[Anomalism]

WHEN did Earth's orbit change?






There is more gas trapped in AA ice than is in the atmosphere now. Melt that ice and it increases the atmosphere, and THAT amplifies warming REGARDLESS of the gas breakdown, as ALL GASSES absorb some part of Sun's EM, much much stronger than weak weak IR....

Yes, ice sheets contain enormous amounts of trapped gases, and when they melt, some CO2 and other gases are released. That is exactly the feedback mechanism that amplifies orbital driven warming in past glacial interglacial cycles. In those cases, orbital changes trigger initial warming, ice sheets partially melt, CO2 is released, and the greenhouse effect amplifies the warming.

The critical difference today is that we are bypassing the slow orbital trigger. Humans are injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere much faster than ice sheets can respond, producing radiative forcing independent of orbital or ice-driven feedbacks. The physics of IR absorption still applies; the difference is the rate and source of the CO2. Past amplifications depended on slow, regional processes; today, the forcing is global and rapid.

 

[EMH]

Yes, ice sheets contain enormous amounts of trapped gases, and when they melt, some CO2 and other gases are released. That is exactly the feedback mechanism that amplifies orbital driven warming in past glacial interglacial cycles. In those cases, orbital changes trigger initial warming, ice sheets partially melt, CO2 is released, and the greenhouse effect amplifies the warming.

The critical difference today is that we are bypassing the slow orbital trigger. Humans are injecting CO2 directly into the atmosphere much faster than ice sheets can respond, producing radiative forcing independent of orbital or ice-driven feedbacks. The physics of IR absorption still applies; the difference is the rate and source of the CO2. Past amplifications depended on slow, regional processes; today, the forcing is global and rapid.

The first part of adding more gas to an atmosphere is an increase in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE.

This is MARS which has polar caps of CO2 that sublime, but the correlation to DISTANCE FROM SUN aka planetary temperature is undeniable.

When MARS warms, its surface air pressure rises

When Pluto warms its surface air pressure rises
When Earth warms its surface air pressure rises, Jurassic and other periods have estimated 3-5 times current SAP


PROBLEM for CO2 FRAUD - Earth SAP not going up, not AT ALL....

 

[Anomalism]

The first part of adding more gas to an atmosphere is an increase in SURFACE AIR PRESSURE.

This is MARS which has polar caps of CO2 that sublime, but the correlation to DISTANCE FROM SUN aka planetary temperature is undeniable.

When MARS warms, its surface air pressure rises

When Pluto warms its surface air pressure rises
When Earth warms its surface air pressure rises, Jurassic and other periods have estimated 3-5 times current SAP


PROBLEM for CO2 FRAUD - Earth SAP not going up, not AT ALL....

Yes, South America and Antarctica were once connected, and the continents have drifted over tens of millions of years. That doesn’t change the fact that Antarctica has been glaciated for roughly 34 million years, long after the breakup of Gondwana, once it reached polar latitudes. Its ice sheet persisted because of latitude, orbit, and topography, not because it was stationary relative to South America. Plate tectonics explains the drift; paleoclimate explains the ice formation. Both are consistent and well documented.

Regarding your Mars point - Mars’ polar CO2 caps do sublimate seasonally, and surface pressure varies slightly, but the scale and mechanism are completely different from Earth. The IR absorbing physics of CO2 and greenhouse warming on Earth operates in a dense atmosphere with oceans, ice, and circulation. The small pressure changes on Mars don’t replicate Earth’s global energy balance or the radiative forcing from rapidly increasing anthropogenic CO2. The correlation between distance from the Sun and Mars’ temperature is a planetary energy balance issue, not a counterargument to CO2 forcing on Earth.

Continental drift and Mars’ polar caps don’t invalidate the physics of CO2 or the observed mass loss from Earth’s ice sheets.

 

[ding]

the northern hemisphere triggers glacial interglacial cycles through orbital

Show me.

 

[ding]

Those processes explain the timing of natural cycles over tens of thousands of years. But that doesn’t justify conflating the post-glacial warming we’re seeing today with past natural deglaciation.

The data OVERWHELMINGLY shows that when the northern hemisphere deglaciates the temperatures of the oceans and atmosphere warm.

The warming we are seeing today isn't unprecedented and is perfectly natural. CO2 has contributed between 0.22 to 0.5C to the warming.

This warming will continue until the next glacial period is triggered by rising temperatures when density/salinity changes (i.e. thermohaline circulation) shut down heat transport to the Arctic. At which time extensive continental glaciation will begin and the feedback from increasing albedo amplifies and spreads that glaciation over parts of three continents.