Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?And there's a good reason for it. The polar regions are isolated from the warmer marine currents. Plus a couple of other geologic features that provided the background conditions for a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet.
Too simplistic an explanation for a complex system ... and these "greenhouse planet" and "icehouse planet" are just made up terms, they don't mean anything outside political hack websites ... perhaps some definitions are in order? ...
Ocean currents play a very minor roll in the energy transfer ... far and away, it's the air currents that drive the climate system's energy transfer ... in fact, it's air currents that cause ocean currents ... and the breakup of Pangaea and the creation of the Atlantic ocean is coincident with the Earth's cooling in recent years, theories abound as to explain this ... but truthfully. it's still a mystery why our planet changes back and forth ... just random chance humans evolved during a horrifically cold period ... we'll be extinct long before the Earth warms back up to her normal 15 - 20ºC above today's temperatures ...
For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.we'll be extinct long before the Earth warms back up to her normal 15 - 20ºC above today's temperatures ...
And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?
So unless you believe in magic, there are reasons for this transition and those reasons start with the configuration of the plates and certain other geographic features which influence the circulation of heat; both in the ocean an in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated to find the smoking gun.
For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.
Why is it that extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere occurs at ~750 ppm and extensive glaciation occurs at the northern hemisphere at ~280 ppm?
C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.And yet the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet is well documented. Do you even oxygen isotope curve?
So unless you believe in magic, there are reasons for this transition and those reasons start with the configuration of the plates and certain other geographic features which influence the circulation of heat; both in the ocean an in the atmosphere. It's not that complicated to find the smoking gun.
How are you documenting something you won't define? ... the O-18 curve shows us clearly in a severe "icehouse" state ... as cold as it's been since the Cambrian ... permanent ice at sea level has been quite rare in the past half billion years ... dinosaur fossils abound in the polar regions ...
For that to happen would require the plates to remove the background configuration of an isolated polar region in the northern hemisphere which is the primary reason we have bipolar glaciation today. So sure, when that happens we will be long gone.
Why is it that extensive glaciation in the southern hemisphere occurs at ~750 ppm and extensive glaciation occurs at the northern hemisphere at ~280 ppm?
Above 30ºS latitude, the Earth is almost entirely open ocean ... no glaciation at all ... just a thin sliver of South America is all ... this might surprise you, but at 415 ppm, we do have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere ... Eurasia and North America ... so I don't know why these glaciers disappear at 280 ppm, they don't seem to ...
C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.
View attachment 417068
View attachment 417070
View attachment 417067
Gotta run. I will address the rest when I get back from the range. Gotta go sight in some scopes.
I wish I had seen this earlier. Stop being silly. The distinction is magnitude. If you like I can provide the link on the thresholds and you can argue with the authors of that paper. Suffice it so say, the difference in the thresholds has to do with the location of the landmasses. So plate tectonics play a big part.Above 30ºS latitude, the Earth is almost entirely open ocean ... no glaciation at all ... just a thin sliver of South America is all ... this might surprise you, but at 415 ppm, we do have extensive glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere ... Eurasia and North America ... so I don't know why these glaciers disappear at 280 ppm, they don't seem to ...
Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.C'mon man. Bipolar glaciation is self descriptive, right? The modern ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. The Mesozoic greenhouse world differed strongly from the modern icehouse world because there was no bipolar glaciation and there was a low latitudinal thermal gradient.
View attachment 417068
View attachment 417070
View attachment 417067
Gotta run. I will address the rest when I get back from the range. Gotta go sight in some scopes.
Well ... no ... I have no idea what you mean by "bipolar glaciation" ... how is this different from monopolar glaciation or tripolar glaciation? ... why just the poles, those are deserts, glaciation is inhibited ...
Start with your definitions of icehouse and greenhouse Earths ... with regard to you post #38: " ... a transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet." in the context of temperature records between 1895 and 2019 ... late Holocene, not early Quaternary ...
Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.
I already provided the definitions. An ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. A greenhouse world is characterized by an absence of bipolar glaciation and has a low latitudinal thermal gradient. I even provided some pretty pictures of it.
From 1895 to 2019 would have been an interglacial period of a modern icehouse world. The transition from greenhouse to icehouse was 3 to 5 million years ago.
Why are you doing this?
I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.Sure you have an idea what I mean by bipolar glaciation. There are only two poles so tripolar glaciation would be a sight to behold.
I already provided the definitions. An ice house world is characterized by glacial / interglacial cycles and has a high latitudinal thermal gradient. A greenhouse world is characterized by an absence of bipolar glaciation and has a low latitudinal thermal gradient. I even provided some pretty pictures of it.
From 1895 to 2019 would have been an interglacial period of a modern icehouse world. The transition from greenhouse to icehouse was 3 to 5 million years ago.
Why are you doing this?
You keep bringing this up ... I keep asking what it means ...
I'd like to know why these thermal gradients change with temperature ...
Wow! ok science lesson 101. Every scientist knows the sun warms the earth. The problem is when too much carbon is in the atmosphere the earth warms more. The sun also cycles with how much heat it throws at us. The reason for the confusion is it should not be called global warming although that is what is happening. It is an imbalance in the carbon cycle. The earth can process so much carbon. It is stored in trees and soil. It is even stored in fossil fuels. When too much is let out at one time the atmosphere is thickened. This causes a warming effect on the earth. The earth has gone through periods of hot and cold. We actually are in a cooler time historically. That is why the earth is able to hold all these two-legged locusts. If it gets much warmer crops will wilt and billions will starve. Look what that big yellow (white) ball does to plants when it is 90 degrees out. If that was more of the norm it should be easy to see how crops will die. No crops, no cow, not many homo-sapiens (humans). Yes, the earth will get warmer, we are just speeding it up by an exponential rate. Get you a book educate yourself on the carbon cycle and you can intelligently decide if 'global warming" is something we should be worried about. The choice is 100 years more of billions of humans or 1000.
I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.
Yes, I keep bringing it up because the rapid cooling from a GH world to an IH world was due to glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Understanding the transition from a GH world to an IH world is relevant to today's discussion on climate change. It is the single greatest example of climate change. No one disputes it happened. No one disputes that there are physical causes which caused the climate to change. So understanding the background conditions and their role is useful. That's why I keep bringing it up.
So besides it meaning that we can better understand future climate changes by understanding past climate changes it also means those conditions still exist. So it has bearing on the risk discussion.
I seem to recall you saying that the globe doesn't incrementally get warmer evenly. That the poles warm more than the other regions such as the equator. So I am pretty sure you already know why.
And has nothing to do with the transition from a GH to an IH planet.No one knows ... some say albedo, some say convection ... it may not even be real, just some weird readings ... very difficult getting temperatures in the polar regions of the world ... all we can say is that the poles have been warming twice as fast as the equator over the past 50 odd years ... we assume this will continue, and this is only an assumption ... not proved ...
Yes, I keep bringing it up because the rapid cooling from a GH world to an IH world was due to glaciation in the northern hemisphere. Understanding the transition from a GH world to an IH world is relevant to today's discussion on climate change. It is the single greatest example of climate change. No one disputes it happened. No one disputes that there are physical causes which caused the climate to change. So understanding the background conditions and their role is useful. That's why I keep bringing it up.
No. Not my theories. Not my definitions. Very much a real thing. I'm not shooting from the hip here.This seems based on your own theories ... your own definitions ... we live on a greenhouse Earth, if not for the GHGs we'd see average global temperatures closer to -15ºC ... conditions similar to the Cryogenian period, when the tropical oceans were frozen over ... the Official™ term we use is an Ice Age, times when permanent ice persists at sea level, starting at the poles and expanding down to the equator ... or in the case of our current Ice Age, down to around 45º latitude ... this all started in the mid-Cretaceous, a slow slow process of the Earth cooling such that this permanent ice feature at sea level appeared about 30 million years ago ... NOT 3-5 million years ago as you seem to think ...
www.astrobio.net
We have plenty of coincidences ... I mentioned the expanding Atlantic Ocean above ... the Farralons Plate finishing it's subduction and the death of the Sierra Nevadas/Sierra Madres ... the partial closing of the Central America passage between the Pacific and Atlantic ... Antarctica speeding to it's current polar position ... none, some or all of these events could have thrown the Earth into it's current frozen state ... back when human forebearers were not much bigger than mice ... all slow slow processes ...
Hardly the greatest example of climate change, it's something that has occurred many many times, at least three times since the Cambrian ... I'm more inclined to say the Oxygen Catastrophe was the biggest change in climate ... moving from an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide to one similar to today's 0.0415% ...
www.astrobio.net
So besides it meaning that we can better understand future climate changes by understanding past climate changes it also means those conditions still exist. So it has bearing on the risk discussion.
Yes ... you keep bring this up ... do you have anything new to add? ... it was much warmer 100 million years ago ... it may be much much warmer 100 million years from now ... what does this say about conditions 200 years from now? ... 500 years? ...
www.astrobio.net
This we agree on.I think all the Hysteria is total BS, but all the new research is really really cool ... long overdue IMEIO ... frankly, I don't think there's enough fossil fuel to economically burn to change climate ...
One should do their own experiments I would say. Take glasses maybe ten of tap water fill them with water. Put various amounts of water in them. Cover each with Siran wrap none on first, two on second, four on third, six on the fourth, etc. Place them in the sunlight for several hours or more. Then take the temperature. This will demonstrate what happens when more carbon establishes itself in the atmosphere.
If you are arguing there is a GHG effect, congratulations, there is. If you are arguing that CO2 drives climate change, that is an entirely different subject.One should do their own experiments I would say. Take glasses maybe ten of tap water fill them with water. Put various amounts of water in them. Cover each with Siran wrap none on first, two on second, four on third, six on the fourth, etc. Place them in the sunlight for several hours or more. Then take the temperature. This will demonstrate what happens when more carbon establishes itself in the atmosphere.
In this day in age, there is so much misinformation out there. I am sure people are making a living at spreading misinformation. It is a shame, and it is wrong. Remember an expert at something can make you believe anything about that topic, even if it's incorrect. Test the general principles of anything before you believe anyone, especially on the internet.
Just because some seems like a genius does not mean they are correct. They may have alternative motives.
The poles of the earth exist in most part from the tilt of the earth. You can not tilt earth so as to have three parts not getting direct rays from the sun. You can put too much carbon in the air to heat up the earth so much to have any poles. You can also have too little carbon to freeze the whole planet.
Thermodynamics would only apply in time in the form of diffusion.
