[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Late Cretaceous Arctic Climates
I don't think that ice alone accounts for changes in climate. What is
more, the mechanims that govern changes in ice and in climate are
dynamically complex, and unstable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Marjanovic" <email@example.com>
To: "DML" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:45 AM
Subject: Re: Late Cretaceous Arctic Climates
Collin... exactly what I'm talkin' about. Eventually, the myth that
"it was too warm in the Mesozoic for ice" will melt away.
Interestingly enough, there's been quite a stir lately in the
climatology world about how climate models are really, really
terrible at handling CO2. If we can't get it right for today's and
"recent" ice-age climates......
Hang on a second. How much ice is necessary to account for the sea-level
changes? Does that amount really necessitate inland ice, or are mountain
glaciers (like those in southern Alaska which reach the sea through a
temperate rainforest) enough to explain the sea-level changes and the
Australian glacier sediments?
The sea level is supposed to have changed by 25 m, right? 22 m is the
difference between today and 400,000 years ago when Greenland and West
Antarctica were ice-free. Is there a way to distribute that much ice over
the high-altitude and high-latitude mountains of the Early Cretaceous
Finally, how much CO2 was there really in the air in the EK? Some proxies
consistently give way too high numbers (for the Cenozoic at least), and
the best one -- counts of stomata in *Ginkgo* and *Metasequoia* -- doesn't
go that far back.