The modern icehouse world we live in is geologically rare

[Crick]

Ding, you were threatening to expose my shortcomings several posts back. I'm still waiting for that to take place.

I am fully aware that the rarity of bipolar glaciation is a central thesis in that paper. But it still says that such a thing occurred repeatedly over the last 22 million years and you are going to have to explain to us why you believe one exists now. Where on today's Earth do you find continental glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere? Seems a simple question. Got an answer?

 

[ding]

I am fully aware that the rarity of bipolar glaciation is a central thesis in that paper. But it still says that such a thing occurred repeatedly over the last 22 million years

No. You obviously are not aware that the rarity of bipolar glaciation is a central thesis in that paper. If you were you would not have been arguing against it or still claiming that it repeatedly occurred over the last 22 million years. You are still being dishonest. What do you not understand about the conclusions of the paper below? The study concluded that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely. The study concluded that no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation

"For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years."

 

[ding]

Ding, you were threatening to expose my shortcomings several posts back. I'm still waiting for that to take place.

Your shortcomings are dishonesty and incompetence. I have been exposing them for anyone who has half a brain to see.

 

[ding]

you are going to have to explain to us why you believe one exists now. Where on today's Earth do you find continental glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere? Seems a simple question. Got an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. My answer is that you must not know anything about climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. You may have heard about them before. You know.. climate change. Please tell me that you are not so uninformed that you know nothing at all about past climate changes. After all the best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change, right? You are aware of the role that history matching plays in climate modeling, right?

Given the ignorance of your argument let me explain to you the science between the glacial and interglacial cycles that our modern icehouse world is currently in.

 

[Crick]

you are going to have to explain to us why you believe one exists now. Where on today's Earth do you find continental glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere? Seems a simple question. Got an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. My answer is that you must not know anything about climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. You may have heard about them before. You know.. climate change. Please tell me that you are not so uninformed that you know nothing at all about past climate changes. After all the best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change, right? You are aware of the role that history matching plays in climate modeling, right?

Given the ignorance of your argument let me explain to you the science between the glacial and interglacial cycles that our modern icehouse world is currently in.

Would you care to explain why you stated, twice, in another thread, that we WERE in a glacial period? Then, how about answering my question since YOU were the one who said such a condition exists, uniquely, today

 

[ding]

you are going to have to explain to us why you believe one exists now. Where on today's Earth do you find continental glaciation in the Northern Hemisphere? Seems a simple question. Got an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. My answer is that you must not know anything about climate change. We are in an interglacial cycle. You may have heard about them before. You know.. climate change. Please tell me that you are not so uninformed that you know nothing at all about past climate changes. After all the best way to understand future climate change is to study past climate change, right? You are aware of the role that history matching plays in climate modeling, right?

Given the ignorance of your argument let me explain to you the science between the glacial and interglacial cycles that our modern icehouse world is currently in.

Would you care to explain why you stated, twice, in another thread, that we WERE in a glacial period? Then, how about answering my question since YOU were the one who said such a condition exists, uniquely, today

I didn't. Show me where I stated that we were in a glacial period. I suspect it is your limited understanding of this topic which has led you to a faulty interpretation of what I wrote. The conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exist today: 1. polar regions isolated from the warm marine currents 2. Atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.

You do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of extensive glaciation, glaciation and episodic ice sheets.

Besides why do you believe this matters? It has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the world we live in today is considered to be an icehouse world, that icehouse worlds are characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients. It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is not the norm for our planet. It has no bearing on the fact that bipolar glaciation is rare and possibly unique. It has no bearing on there is no evidence of a previous bipolar glaciation in the geologic record. It has no bearing on the fact that the conditions which led to bipolar glaciation are the poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppm.

The reality is that you only read the abstract and you made an error in that. I have read and posted the full paper. I have taken the conclusions from the full paper. And those conclusions say you are full of shit. Funny how this has come full circle, isn't it?

 

[Crick]

Your very first statement in this thread contends that we live in an "icehouse" world. I now see my mistake. I took the term to mean we were in a glacial period. I see that it does not.

You were right and I was wrong.

However, you still resorted to personal attacks and now deny having made them. I believe you owe me an apology.

 

[ding]

Your very first statement in this thread contends that we live in an "icehouse" world. I now see my mistake. I took the term to mean we were in a glacial period. I see that it does not.

You were right and I was wrong.

However, you still resorted to personal attacks and now deny having made them. I believe you owe me an apology.

That is a start. We may yet be able to have civil conversations yet.

 

[Crick]

And your apology for the personal insults?

 

[ding]

And your apology for the personal insults?

You want me to apologize to you for dragging you back to reality?

 

[SSDD]

Your very first statement in this thread contends that we live in an "icehouse" world. I now see my mistake. I took the term to mean we were in a glacial period. I see that it does not.

You were right and I was wrong.

However, you still resorted to personal attacks and now deny having made them. I believe you owe me an apology.

Once again...the hypocrisy literally drips....you asking for an apology for personal insult is absolutely hilarious since personal insult is your goto mode of conversation...

 

[SSDD]

And your apology for the personal insults?

You want me to apologize to you for dragging you back to reality?

You realize, I hope that you are having a conversation with someone who will barely acknowledge that in any time in the past history of the earth....all of it...that it was ever warmer than 2016...

 

[ding]

And your apology for the personal insults?

You want me to apologize to you for dragging you back to reality?

You realize, I hope that you are having a conversation with someone who will barely acknowledge that in any time in the past history of the earth....all of it...that it was ever warmer than 2016...

I do. Thanks.

 

[Crick]

That would seem to call the lie on any desire on your part for a civil conversation.

 

[ding]

That would seem to call the lie on any desire on your part for a civil conversation.

Yes, it would deem that way, but only because you have yet to change. The ball is still in your court.

 

[Crick]

Try holding your breath.

 

[ding]

Try holding your breath.

Wow... you take this CO2 thing seriously. Seriously though, I'm good either way.

 

[Crick]

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusions regarding the role of human activity in the warming observed over the last century?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusions regarding the role of human activity in the warming observed over the last century?

Do you accept Michael Mann bullshitted his hockey stick graph?

Do you admit the real motive for this deception is social economic change.

 

[ding]

Do you accept the IPCC's conclusions regarding the role of human activity in the warming observed over the last century?

That depends on how much warming they say occurred and what the radiative forcing of the delta CO2 calculates.