Artic Ice: CO2, Solar or Ocean Currents?

[westwall]

The bolded text isn't true. Continents are easily plastic enough to deform under the weight of 2 miles of ice and don't rely on "memory" to return to a previous shape after the ice melts. Even if they weren't plastic, continents maintain their elevations because they are lighter than surrounding magma and heavier materials that form sea beds.

If the continents didn't deform when the weight of ice was lifted from them they would simply rise as a single plate due to the release of pressure on their surface.

But the rest of what you posted is true. Glaciation is a cycle that has been advancing and retreating for 4 million years, before that year round ice was usually non existent even at extreme latitudes and high elevations.

There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice.

There is a reason to fear all of Russia, Canada, Greenland and Antarctica as well as 1/3 the US being shrouded under miles of ice while sea levels drop a few hundred feet.

Take a geology class then get back to us.

Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong.

I hate to tell you mate, but that type of response just makes you look foolish. I was serious about taking a geology class, start with Historical Geology and your whole view of the world and how it functions will change.

For a continent to deform there must be a source of energy to do so. There are several that will cause land to rise, orogenies is the most common, but isostatic rebound only occurs when a great weight is lifted from the land or as a byproduct of an asteroid strike. There are no astroblemes in the Great Lakes region that I know of so that leaves a continental ice sheet as the cause. This is a simple fact. Look it up.

 

[loosecannon]

Take a geology class then get back to us.

Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong.

I hate to tell you mate, but that type of response just makes you look foolish. I was serious about taking a geology class, start with Historical Geology and your whole view of the world and how it functions will change.

For a continent to deform there must be a source of energy to do so. There are several that will cause land to rise, orogenies is the most common, but isostatic rebound only occurs when a great weight is lifted from the land or as a byproduct of an asteroid strike. There are no astroblemes in the Great Lakes region that I know of so that leaves a continental ice sheet as the cause. This is a simple fact. Look it up.

Your use of the term isostatic rebound is therefore a red herring. It's use implies automatically a return to a previous condition: rebound.

But it's just a word and has no real merit aside from what it does for us today.

In the real world the continents deform and re-deform due to forces, not memory. When a continent deforms it isn't dependent on a previous circumstance to which it must return, at all, in any way whatsoever. Continents are plastic. They deform under force and never return to previous shape. It is all based on specific gravity and the weight of the column above sea level.

Perhaps you should take a basic geology course so you can understand the basic concepts.

 

[westwall]

Thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong.

I hate to tell you mate, but that type of response just makes you look foolish. I was serious about taking a geology class, start with Historical Geology and your whole view of the world and how it functions will change.

For a continent to deform there must be a source of energy to do so. There are several that will cause land to rise, orogenies is the most common, but isostatic rebound only occurs when a great weight is lifted from the land or as a byproduct of an asteroid strike. There are no astroblemes in the Great Lakes region that I know of so that leaves a continental ice sheet as the cause. This is a simple fact. Look it up.

Your use of the term isostatic rebound is therefore a red herring. It's use implies automatically a return to a previous condition: rebound.

But it's just a word and has no real merit aside from what it does for us today.

In the real world the continents deform and re-deform due to forces, not memory. When a continent deforms it isn't dependent on a previous circumstance to which it must return, at all, in any way whatsoever. Continents are plastic. They deform under force and never return to previous shape. It is all based on specific gravity and the weight of the column above sea level.

Perhaps you should take a basic geology course so you can understand the basic concepts.

Here's a wiki definition for you to keep it simple. I was a geology professor for many years, I have the basics and the advanced levels covered

Darned computer failed me yet again! Anyway here is your wiki link plus a bunch more. Have fun and learn something.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/isost.html

http://web.srv.cmes.utah.edu:8080/geoant/ancient-evidence/rebound.htm

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/isostasy1/

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/ndnotes/Rebound/Glacial Rebound.htm

 

[uscitizen]

"There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice."

Tell that to Floridians and tens of millions of others who would be flooded out.

They can move. The good news is that there would be 25% more habitable, arable real estate to move to.

For 4 million years we have been vacillating between a world in which half the land was covered in a mile of ice and a world in which only 20% of it was.

Considering that reality doesn't a little warming sound like a reprieve?

Yeah move at a cost of many trillions of dollars.
the transition would be painful and think of the illegal immigrants going to Canada from the USA.
Damn fools would likely want to build a dike all around FL.

 

[loosecannon]

I hate to tell you mate, but that type of response just makes you look foolish. I was serious about taking a geology class, start with Historical Geology and your whole view of the world and how it functions will change.

For a continent to deform there must be a source of energy to do so. There are several that will cause land to rise, orogenies is the most common, but isostatic rebound only occurs when a great weight is lifted from the land or as a byproduct of an asteroid strike. There are no astroblemes in the Great Lakes region that I know of so that leaves a continental ice sheet as the cause. This is a simple fact. Look it up.

Your use of the term isostatic rebound is therefore a red herring. It's use implies automatically a return to a previous condition: rebound.

But it's just a word and has no real merit aside from what it does for us today.

In the real world the continents deform and re-deform due to forces, not memory. When a continent deforms it isn't dependent on a previous circumstance to which it must return, at all, in any way whatsoever. Continents are plastic. They deform under force and never return to previous shape. It is all based on specific gravity and the weight of the column above sea level.

Perhaps you should take a basic geology course so you can understand the basic concepts.

Here's a wiki definition for you to keep it simple. I was a geology professor for many years, I have the basics and the advanced levels covered

Hey Prof! You forgot to post the definition!

But don't bother, I know what the term means.

As I stated previously isostatic rebound is just a catch phrase, not a real description of why continents rise and fall.

If you make the tardo assumption that isostatic rebound is the cause of the continents deforming under the weight of glaciers you might fool yourself into believing crap like this:

the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it.

which is of course completely false. The reason why continents can rebound is because geological forces and the weight of continents, their specific gravity and their bearing vs sea level demand it.

All of which would be true regardless of whether the term "isostatic rebound" ever existed.

Clearly you are not quite groking elementary concepts of logic and geology.

Maybe you should take some refresher courses.

 

[uscitizen]

Now I know what happened to our education system!

 

[westwall]

Now I know what happened to our education system!

Yes, you failed to partake!

 

[konradv]

There is no reason to fear a world with no ice caps, no glaciers and no entire continents covered with ice.

There is a reason to fear all of Russia, Canada, Greenland and Antarctica as well as 1/3 the US being shrouded under miles of ice while sea levels drop a few hundred feet.


You don't fear something that could happen in less than a hundred years, but you do fear something that would take at least thousands? That doesn't make much sense!

 

[Old Rocks]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

Guess what? The acceleration of the rate is a recent occurance. Of course, you knew that, but no way was going to mention it.
Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Nature Geoscience 3, 404 - 407 (2010)
Published online: 16 May 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo845


Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science

Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss
Yan Jiang1, Timothy H. Dixon1 & Shimon Wdowinski1


Top of pageVertical motions of the rocky margins of Greenland and Antarctica respond to mass changes of their respective ice sheets1, 2. However, these motions can be obscured by episodes of glacial advance or retreat that occurred hundreds to thousands of years ago3, 4, 5, 6, which trigger a delayed response because of viscous flow in the underlying mantle. Here we present high-precision global positioning system (GPS) data that describe the vertical motion of the rocky margins of Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. We focus on vertical accelerations rather than velocities to avoid the confounding effects of past events. Our data show an acceleration of uplift over the past decade that represents an essentially instantaneous, elastic response to the recent accelerated melting of ice throughout the North Atlantic region. Our comparison of the GPS data to models for glacial isostatic adjustment suggests that some parts of western coastal Greenland were experiencing accelerated melting of coastal ice by the late 1990s. Using a simple elastic model, we estimate that western Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating at an average rate of 8.7±3.5 Gt yr−2, whereas the rate for southeastern Greenland—based on limited data—falls at 12.5±5.5 Gt yr−2

 

[westwall]

Parts of greenland are rising at an inch or more per year because of the reduced weight of ICE on it.

Guess what? The area around the Great Lakes is too. It is called isostatic rebound and the only reason why the ice can rebound in the first place is because once upon a time there was no ice on it. At one time the sub-continent of Greenland was higher, it was warmer, there was no ice sheet. Then the ice came and compressed the land down. Now, for the last 10,000 to 15,000 years it has been rising. It is NOT A RECENT OCCURENCE, it has been going on for millenia. Just another irrefutable fact the alarmists don't want you to find out.

Guess what? The acceleration of the rate is a recent occurance. Of course, you knew that, but no way was going to mention it.
Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss : Abstract : Nature Geoscience

Nature Geoscience 3, 404 - 407 (2010)
Published online: 16 May 2010 | doi:10.1038/ngeo845


Subject Categories: Climate science | Cryospheric science

Accelerating uplift in the North Atlantic region as an indicator of ice loss
Yan Jiang1, Timothy H. Dixon1 & Shimon Wdowinski1


Top of pageVertical motions of the rocky margins of Greenland and Antarctica respond to mass changes of their respective ice sheets1, 2. However, these motions can be obscured by episodes of glacial advance or retreat that occurred hundreds to thousands of years ago3, 4, 5, 6, which trigger a delayed response because of viscous flow in the underlying mantle. Here we present high-precision global positioning system (GPS) data that describe the vertical motion of the rocky margins of Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard. We focus on vertical accelerations rather than velocities to avoid the confounding effects of past events. Our data show an acceleration of uplift over the past decade that represents an essentially instantaneous, elastic response to the recent accelerated melting of ice throughout the North Atlantic region. Our comparison of the GPS data to models for glacial isostatic adjustment suggests that some parts of western coastal Greenland were experiencing accelerated melting of coastal ice by the late 1990s. Using a simple elastic model, we estimate that western Greenland’s ice loss is accelerating at an average rate of 8.7±3.5 Gt yr−2, whereas the rate for southeastern Greenland—based on limited data—falls at 12.5±5.5 Gt yr−2

And once again, they are comparing empirical data with COMPUTER MODELS. They are using subjective metrics on this...not the best thing to call on there olfraud. Simple elastic models ignore vast amounts of real world data. Thanks for playing.

 

[uscitizen]

Now I know what happened to our education system!

Yes, you failed to partake!

I partook back when it was better and you could whip the little bastards asses.

 

[antagon]

konrad, old rocks: present an argument which supports CO2 as a predominant factor in warming. refute the dominance of other better-fitting causes.

well, old rocks at least. konrad usually ignores any challenge to do more than parrot the state of the art half-assed CO2 science.

define predominant.

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

 

[konradv]

konrad, old rocks: present an argument which supports CO2 as a predominant factor in warming. refute the dominance of other better-fitting causes.

well, old rocks at least. konrad usually ignores any challenge to do more than parrot the state of the art half-assed CO2 science.

define predominant.

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

 

[westwall]

define predominant.

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

You folks ignore 5 BILLION YEARS of history and you expect us to take you seriously.

That's rich man, that's rich.

 

[konradv]

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

You folks ignore 5 BILLION YEARS of history and you expect us to take you seriously.

That's rich man, that's rich.

I care wehat's happened over the last ~200. That's OUR time. What's happened in the past is irrelevant, if we've changed the underlying conditions by emitting more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year.

 

[antagon]

define predominant.

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

dont play yourself konrad. eluded addressing what i've contended enough to satisfy me that your pretense of any integrity is a farce. nevertheless, i can meet your wee challenge:

energy is not permanently trapped within the atmosphere. it is eventually lost to outer space. notwithstanding that, it is replaced by new energy from the sun. where you argue that there needs to be an accounting for the energy which excesses of CO2 has trapped, i argue that this additional energy cannot be accounted for in global climate because it is not significant enough to illicit any substantial global warming whatsoever. CAN YOU REFUTE THIS? i point out that this fact is evidenced by a lack of coincidence in levels of CO2 and global temperatures. for this reason alternate causes which have empirically greater influence on climate are instead more plausible causes of global warming to the extent and at the times which it has been recorded. evidence of such is recorded in the charts in the OP which indicate causation via coincidence. evidence of the empirical dominance of H2O in vapor or liquid phase over CO2 has also been provided you in posts which you admit you've ignored. evidence of the influence of anomalous ocean activity coinciding with climate trends is also available.

what?

 

[Old Rocks]

ice

 

[Old Rocks]

pre·dom·i·nant
   /prɪˈdɒmənənt/ [pri-dom-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective
1. having ascendancy, power, authority, or influence over others; preeminent.

in this context, i would consider it to be the cause which is the most influential and which aligns best with charts like those in the OP. for those who believe that there is another cause fitting with this predominant characterization, i welcome them to argue how that is the case or otherwise why a less consequential causation might be justified in garnering the bear share of the concern over warming altogether.

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

You folks ignore 5 BILLION YEARS of history and you expect us to take you seriously.

That's rich man, that's rich.

Once more our faux geologist embarresses himself. In the 4.5+ billion years that this planet has existed, there have been many rapid climate changes from several causes. And most caused a significant reduction in life at the time.

By what evidence that we can measure, the rate of increase of GHGs in our atmosphere exceeds the rate of accumulation that led up to prior rapid climatic change events.

 

[antagon]

vanilla

ice

ice, baby.

 

[westwall]

Any challenges ignored are by those who can't explain where the energy trapped by CO2 is going. Just tell me what happens to it. Until you do that, I don't see where I have any challenges to meet. No one is saying that CO2 is predominant, just that unlike other natural cycles that go up and down, CO2 concentrations are going straight up and won't come down unless we do something about it.

You folks ignore 5 BILLION YEARS of history and you expect us to take you seriously.

That's rich man, that's rich.

Once more our faux geologist embarresses himself. In the 4.5+ billion years that this planet has existed, there have been many rapid climate changes from several causes. And most caused a significant reduction in life at the time.

By what evidence that we can measure, the rate of increase of GHGs in our atmosphere exceeds the rate of accumulation that led up to prior rapid climatic change events.

Prove your statement there olfraud. There is no evidence at all of "rapid climate change". There are computer models that say it happened but there is no empirical data whatsoever to support your claim. Your PETM "mass extinction" consisted of some benthic foarms getting wiped out, but terrestrial critters bloomed.

I'll refresh your woefully faulty memory here for you. From wiki so you can understand it better....the important bits are highlighted in blue. Your so called "mass extinction" "event" wasn't. Forams were wiped out in a relatively small portion of the globe while other types of forams did very well and proliferated. All while it was MUCH WARMER than today. Vertibrates also did exceptionally well.

Please show us where the increased heat was detrimental you twit. Other than a nice example of survival of the fittest as regards the Foram populations the increased warmth saw every other type of life bloom. Please illustrate how a 1000 year period is "rapid". I will grant you that in geologic terms it is, but not in the terms of life.

You are a broken faulty record. You have nothing to back up your ridiculous claims but a bunch of pathetic computer models that are incapable of recreating the weather that occured last week. Congrats, you bring new meaning to the term fool.




The PETM is accompanied by a mass extinction of 35-50% of benthic foraminifera (especially in deeper waters) over the course of ~1,000 years - the group suffering more than during the dinosaur-slaying K-T extinction. Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, who radiated profusely around this time.[/COLOR]The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent (mainly affecting the north Atlantic). General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosiveness due to carbonate-undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor which was global in extent was an increase in temperature, and it appears that the majority of the blame must rest upon its shoulders. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]

In shallower waters, it's undeniable that increased CO2 levels result in a decreased oceanic pH, which has a profound negative effect on corals.[21] Experiments suggest it is also very harmful to calcifying plankton.[22] However, the strong acids used to simulate the natural increase in acidity which would result from elevated CO2 concentrations may have given misleading results, and the most recent evidence is that coccolithophores (E. huxleyi at least) become more, not less, calcified and abundant in acidic waters.[23] Interestingly, no change in the distribution of calcareous nanoplankton such as the coccolithophores can be attributed to acidification during the PETM.[23] Acidification did lead to an abundance of heavily calcified algae[24] and weakly calcified forams.[25]

The increase in mammalian abundance is intriguing. There is no evidence of any increased extinction rate among the terrestrial biota. Increased CO2 levels may have promoted dwarfing[26] – which may (perhaps?) have encouraged speciation. Many major mammalian orders – including the Artiodactyla, horses, and primates – appeared and spread across the globe 13,000 to 22,000 years after the initiation of the PETM.[26]



Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia