Historically, no Antarctic ice shelf when CO2 is above 400 ppm

[EMH]

I want to see where you get the idea that "scientists" want us to believe that dinosaurs were living on a mile of ice at -60F. You have a serious misunderstanding or have made a significant mistake here. I'm curious to see where it originated.

Here is a map of the Earth 50 MYA.
View attachment 710400

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Ypresian_Earth_50_mya.jpg

That strip of land across the bottom of the map is Antarctica. The bottom edge of the map is the geographic south pole.

Cut paste and parrot...

Where was AA 125 million years ago?

A: attached to South Africa

What caused the transantarctic mountains to be formed and perfectly aligned with the mountains on the west side of South America?

Why was southern South America glaciated in the past 10-15 million years?

It is all the same answer.

South America and Antarctica were still attached

43 million years ago
25 million years ago

I'd even go to 15 million based on the 3D maps of the bottom of the ocean.

 

[Crick]

Cut paste and parrot...

If by that you mean I look up good information and post it here, yes, I do that.

Where was AA 125 million years ago?

Who cares? The study went back 49 million years and that is the period to which its conclusions apply.

A: attached to South Africa

That is exciting.

What caused the transantarctic mountains to be formed and perfectly aligned with the mountains on the west side of South America?

Did you actually lose the thread here or are you simply trying to hide the fact that you completely flopped your last few posts.

Why was southern South America glaciated in the past 10-15 million years?

It is all the same answer.

South America and Antarctica were still attached

43 million years ago
25 million years ago

I'd even go to 15 million based on the 3D maps of the bottom of the ocean.

Show us a map from a reputable source (better than mine (see below)) that shows them still attached, 43, 25 and even 15 million years ago and I will demur. I got my map from a Wikipedia article on the Eocene (56 million - 34 million).

The actual source for my map above, according to Wikimedia, is Ron Blakey, NAU Geology, CCA-by-SA 4.0 License . Mr Blakey works for Colorado Plateau Geosystems whose site may be visited at Deep Time Maps™ - maps of ancient Earth. There is a page on their site showing a series of maps of the world going back in time 10 million years at a pop. That may be seen at Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time - Deep Time Maps™. On those maps, South American and Africa separated 100 million years ago and Antarctica had separated from them (and the Madagascar plate) 140-160 MYA. But let's see what you've got. And if you're unable to find anything to support your contention or if what you find supports what Mr Blakey has produced here, I'd really like to see you come here and tell us. It's something the character on which you based your avatar would do.

 

[EMH]

Parrots are all the same, short circuited

"I'm parroting a greater guru than you"

Without having a clue on subject matter.


Does this beaked birdbrain recognize tectonic plate movement?

How are mountain ranges formed?

If AA was attached to Africa 125 million years ago, when did Scotty beam it to the South Pole?

 

[Crick]

Parrots are all the same, short circuited

"I'm parroting a greater guru than you"

Without having a clue on subject matter.


Does this beaked birdbrain recognize tectonic plate movement?

How are mountain ranges formed?

If AA was attached to Africa 125 million years ago, when did Scotty beam it to the South Pole?

Is this the Trumpian strategy of always doubling down, no matter how badly you've blown it?

I can't say I've sourced a better guru than you have because you haven't sourced anyone, despite my repeated requests that you do so.

I have a bachelor's degree in Ocean Engineering that included two pertinent classes: Intro to Geology and Oceanographic Geology.

I'm pretty sure that Mr Blakey is some sort of geology heavy and if you had bothered to use any of the links I provided you would not have asked if he recognized tectonic plate movement. Why make new world maps every 10 million years if you don't? To be honest, you would be VERY hard pressed to find an employed geologist in this day and age that disputes the theory of plate tectonics.

Mountain ranges are formed by the collision of plates or other sources of uplift.

As I stated, Antarctica seems to have lost contact with South America, Africa and Madagascar between 140 and 160 million years ago. The series of maps to which I linked go back deep into the Paleozoic and in every one there is land very close to the southern pole if not actually on it. Since you are unwilling to go their site (or unwilling to admit you've done so) here are copies of a few of their maps with dates. You will note that at 160 MYA, Antarctica is attached to Africa and Madagascar. to the west, South America is attached to Africa but is NOT touching Antarctica. As the Antarctic plate moves south, the peninsula at the southern tip of the South American plate and the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula remain relatively close but at no time does any land bridge exist between them :

Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time - Deep Time Maps™

Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep TimeGlobal Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time Series The Global Paleogeography and Tectonics in Deep Time series was completed in early 2016. The maps were completely redone using latest data and...

deeptimemaps.com

 

[EMH]

No land bridge. A parrot and a color photo chart.

Good grief....


How do you explain the alignment of the mountain ranges on AA and SA without seeing it?

Lol...

That is THE SAME MOUNTAIN RANGE ripped apart when the two broke apart.

 

[Crick]

No land bridge. A parrot and a color photo chart.

Good grief....


How do you explain the alignment of the mountain ranges on AA and SA without seeing it?

Lol...

That is THE SAME MOUNTAIN RANGE ripped apart when the two broke apart.

I'll get back to you when you can provide some sort of reputable geographical reference to support your claims. Till you do, you can rant by yourself.

 

[EMH]

I'll get back to you when you can provide some sort of reputable geographical reference to support your claims. Till you do, you can rant by yourself.

A parrot only accepts parroting of Algore certified "scientists" who make a living dodging issues like AA.

Crick's explanation of AA is that AA went into hyperspace and then stopped. While satellites show very little if any current movement by AA, that it moved from Africa to the South Pole is undeniable. When it moved, like SA, it formed a mountain range on the coast of the direction it moved towards.... Just like SA.... So much so that anyone who looks at a map of SA and AA can see

The two mountain ranges align.

Amazing coincidence.....

But without an Algore certified fudge baking liar to parrot, the "the science" invalids like crick completely whiff....

 

[Crick]

A parrot only accepts parroting of Algore certified "scientists" who make a living dodging issues like AA.

Crick's explanation of AA is that AA went into hyperspace and then stopped. While satellites show very little if any current movement by AA, that it moved from Africa to the South Pole is undeniable. When it moved, like SA, it formed a mountain range on the coast of the direction it moved towards.... Just like SA.... So much so that anyone who looks at a map of SA and AA can see

The two mountain ranges align.

Amazing coincidence.....

But without an Algore certified fudge baking liar to parrot, the "the science" invalids like crick completely whiff....

One last. Notice that there are mountains the full length of the western sides of North and South American continents. Those weren't all formed by collisions with Antarctica, were they?

Geology​

The Andean mountain system is the result of global plate-tectonic forces during the Cenozoic Era (roughly the past 65 million years) that built upon earlier geologic activity. About 250 million years ago the crustal plates constituting the Earth’s landmass were joined together into the supercontinent Pangaea. The subsequent breakup of Pangaea and of its southern portion, Gondwana, dispersed these plates outward, where they began to take the form and position of the present-day continents. The collision (or convergence) of two of these plates—the continental South American Plate and the oceanic Nazca Plate—gave rise to the orogenic (mountain-building) activity that produced the Andes.

Andes Mountains | Definition, Map, Plate Boundary, & Location

Andes Mountains, South American mountain system that contains the highest peaks in the Western Hemisphere. One of Earth’s great natural features, the Andes form an unbroken rampart over some 5,500 miles—from the southern tip of South America to the continent’s northernmost coast on the Caribbean.

www.britannica.com

********************************************************
It’s been understood that the Andes mountain range has been growing as the Nazca oceanic plate slips underneath the South American continental plate, causing the Earth’s crust to shorten (by folding and faulting) and thicken. But that left two questions: How quickly have the Andes risen to their current height, and what was the actual process that enabled their rise?

Several years ago (2006-2008), Garzione and several colleagues provided the first estimates of the timing and rates of the surface uplift of the central Andes (“Mountain Ranges Rise Much More Rapidly than Geologists Expected”) by measuring the ancient surface temperatures and rainfall compositions preserved in the soils of the central Altiplano, a plateau in Bolivia and Peru that sits about 12,000 feet above sea level. Garzione concluded that portions of the dense lower crust and upper mantle that act like an anchor on the base of the crust are periodically detached and sink through the mantle as the thickened continental plate heats up. Detachment of this dense anchor allows the Earth’s low density upper crust to rebound and rise rapidly.

Andes mountains formed by 'growth spurts'

Scientists have long been trying to understand how the Andes and other broad, high-elevation mountain ranges were formed. New research by Carmala Garzione, professor of earth and environmental sciences, provides an explanation.

www.rochester.edu

I could find no one who even suggested that any portion of the Andes Mountains were created by a collision with the Antarctic plate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Easy to see .. there were none #sshole,.
Thanks for the lay-up/underline.
You couldn't see that? everything close in gap was over a much longer period.
AGW.

You are a One line troll, Most of whose posts are stupid backfiring riddles.
You contribute Nothing in the way of Info
You've wasted your brain... all 75 IQ points
and you have NO integrity.
You are shlt whose devoted most of his days trolling the internet with nothing to say.
`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atmospheres are not all atmospheres. Compare Venus' to Earth's; explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury. Or were you being facetious?

What is atmospheric pressure, Alex?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Simple. Solar, albedo, ocean currents, evaporite cooling, etc.

Soot for albedo > modern CO2 newfound climate Forcing ability

 

[EMH]

One last. Notice that there are mountains the full length of the western sides of North and South American continents. Those weren't all formed by collisions with Antarctica, were they?

Geology​

The Andean mountain system is the result of global plate-tectonic forces during the Cenozoic Era (roughly the past 65 million years) that built upon earlier geologic activity. About 250 million years ago the crustal plates constituting the Earth’s landmass were joined together into the supercontinent Pangaea. The subsequent breakup of Pangaea and of its southern portion, Gondwana, dispersed these plates outward, where they began to take the form and position of the present-day continents. The collision (or convergence) of two of these plates—the continental South American Plate and the oceanic Nazca Plate—gave rise to the orogenic (mountain-building) activity that produced the Andes.

Andes Mountains | Definition, Map, Plate Boundary, & Location

Andes Mountains, South American mountain system that contains the highest peaks in the Western Hemisphere. One of Earth’s great natural features, the Andes form an unbroken rampart over some 5,500 miles—from the southern tip of South America to the continent’s northernmost coast on the Caribbean.

www.britannica.com

********************************************************
It’s been understood that the Andes mountain range has been growing as the Nazca oceanic plate slips underneath the South American continental plate, causing the Earth’s crust to shorten (by folding and faulting) and thicken. But that left two questions: How quickly have the Andes risen to their current height, and what was the actual process that enabled their rise?

Several years ago (2006-2008), Garzione and several colleagues provided the first estimates of the timing and rates of the surface uplift of the central Andes (“Mountain Ranges Rise Much More Rapidly than Geologists Expected”) by measuring the ancient surface temperatures and rainfall compositions preserved in the soils of the central Altiplano, a plateau in Bolivia and Peru that sits about 12,000 feet above sea level. Garzione concluded that portions of the dense lower crust and upper mantle that act like an anchor on the base of the crust are periodically detached and sink through the mantle as the thickened continental plate heats up. Detachment of this dense anchor allows the Earth’s low density upper crust to rebound and rise rapidly.

Andes mountains formed by 'growth spurts'

Scientists have long been trying to understand how the Andes and other broad, high-elevation mountain ranges were formed. New research by Carmala Garzione, professor of earth and environmental sciences, provides an explanation.

www.rochester.edu

I could find no one who even suggested that any portion of the Andes Mountains were created by a collision with the Antarctic plate.

OK, so the ANDES were formed as SA moved WEST away from Africa.

How were the Transantarctic mountains formed?

As AA moved SW from Africa.

SAME MOTION

And the two ranges ALIGN....


Nobody said they CRASHED together.... Geez....


Same mountain range formed by the same motion only to be separated by the relatively recent separation of AA and SA....

 

[Crick]

OK, so the ANDES were formed as SA moved WEST away from Africa.

How were the Transantarctic mountains formed?

As AA moved SW from Africa.

SAME MOTION

And the two ranges ALIGN....


Nobody said they CRASHED together.... Geez....


Same mountain range formed by the same motion only to be separated by the relatively recent separation of AA and SA....

You have been arguing that Antarctica was attached to Africa and much further north of its current position as late as 15 million years ago. The point of that argument was to suggest that it invalidated the OP's claim that in the last 49 million years, Antarctic sea ice has not existed when CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm. Have you given that up?

 

[EMH]

You have been arguing that Antarctica was attached to Africa and much further north of its current position as late as 15 million years ago. The point of that argument was to suggest that it invalidated the OP's claim that in the last 49 million years, Antarctic sea ice has not existed when CO2 levels exceeded 400 ppm. Have you given that up?

Lol

No, the 15 million year old claim is about when SA and AA broke apart. Reading comprehension is not good.

Dodging the entire issue of the ALIGNMENT of Andes and transantarctic mountains again.....

Precisely identifying when AA "stopped" moving tectonically would begin with modeling how fast it moved from Africa to the South Pole. Clearly, 70 million years ago, with live dinosaurs, AA was not in ice age. Clearly, with the glaciation of southern SA, the two were "recently" attached. Looking at the ocean bottom maps proves that.

Speed of 20-50 miles per million years.

AA stopped moving in the past 10 million years, and 43 million years ago was likely a good guess as to when AA first got within 600 miles of South Pole and hence started its continent specific ice age still ongoing.

 

[Crick]

Lol

No, the 15 million year old claim is about when SA and AA broke apart. Reading comprehension is not good.

I was trying to be kind since the Antarctic and South American plates have never been in direct contact. Ever.

Dodging the entire issue of the ALIGNMENT of Andes and transantarctic mountains again.....

I agree both chains are running generally north and south but that does not put the Antarctic plate north of the 66th parallel.

Precisely identifying when AA "stopped" moving tectonically would begin with modeling how fast it moved from Africa to the South Pole.

None of the Earth's tectonic plates have stopped moving and the maps at the link I provided could easily provide a rough estimate to the velocity of the plate's relative movement. But it is obviously going to result in the same dates you see inscribed on those maps.

Clearly, 70 million years ago, with live dinosaurs, AA was not in ice age. Clearly, with the glaciation of southern SA, the two were "recently" attached. Looking at the ocean bottom maps proves that.

Speed of 20-50 miles per million years.

AA stopped moving in the past 10 million years, and 43 million years ago was likely a good guess as to when AA first got within 600 miles of South Pole and hence started its continent specific ice age still ongoing.

I am not challenging the discovery of dinosaur fossils in Antarctica. I am stating that according to a - so far by this group - unchallenged study finds that at no time in the last 49 million years have sea surface temperatures been cold enough to suggest that Antarctica had ice shelves while CO2 levels were above 400 ppm. Your obsession with the tectonics of the region, particularly given your abysmal batting average for sourced real data, is completely irrelevant. Find yourself a geology thread and post away.

 

[ReinyDays]

If you agree with crick, you are a parrot and nothing more.

Truth be told, the entire analysis that crick parrots about AA is completely wrong.

Do you think co2 causes warming?

What is your evidence of this?

If "your evidence" is that you parrot, remember this


Parroting is not science
Fraud is not science
Fudging data is not science

All of my analysis is mine, and is 100% backed up by the truth of the unfudged data.

Actually ... I'm relying on the information from the meteorology class I took many years ago ... if Crick, or anyone, repeats what is basically "textbook" logic, then don't we have to agree? ... maybe you don't, you're an idiot ...

It's kitchen counter chemisty to demonstrate carbon dioxide's qualitative roll in global warming ... it's yet to be determined what the quantitative roll is ... i.e. "how much" warming is yet to be answered ...

All of my analysis is mine, and is 100% backed up by the truth of the unfudged data.

Where are you getting your "unfudged" data? ... and in your analysis, how are you deciding SB's emissivity factor? ...

 

[EMH]

I was trying to be kind since the Antarctic and South American plates have never been in direct contact. Ever.


I agree both chains are running generally north and south but that does not put the Antarctic plate north of the 66th parallel.

None of the Earth's tectonic plates have stopped moving and the maps at the link I provided could easily provide a rough estimate to the velocity of the plate's relative movement. But it is obviously going to result in the same dates you see inscribed on those maps.

I am not challenging the discovery of dinosaur fossils in Antarctica. I am stating that according to a - so far by this group - unchallenged study finds that at no time in the last 49 million years have sea surface temperatures been cold enough to suggest that Antarctica had ice shelves while CO2 levels were above 400 ppm. Your obsession with the tectonics of the region, particularly given your abysmal batting average for sourced real data, is completely irrelevant. Find yourself a geology thread and post away.

Amazing how your fudge baking heroes are so precise with sea surface temps from 49 million years ago next to a piece of land they are WRONG about WHERE IT WAS....




Truth be told, this exercise proves the whole case.

AA is 90% of Earth ice today.

When dinosaurs roamed it 70 mil years ago, it did not have ice save mountain tops....

We both agree AA moved from Southern Africa to South Pole.

I say THAT IS WHY IT FROZE, because it moved.

You and your side say ONLY CO2 was the cause....

The empirical evidence today is that the overwhelming majority of earth ice is on land near a pole.

Climate change is caused by land moving in and out of polar circles.

Not co2 that isn't warming anything.

 

[EMH]

Actually ... I'm relying on the information from the meteorology class I took many years ago ... if Crick, or anyone, repeats what is basically "textbook" logic, then don't we have to agree? ... maybe you don't, you're an idiot ...

It's kitchen counter chemisty to demonstrate carbon dioxide's qualitative roll in global warming ... it's yet to be determined what the quantitative roll is ... i.e. "how much" warming is yet to be answered ...

All of my analysis is mine, and is 100% backed up by the truth of the unfudged data.

Where are you getting your "unfudged" data? ... and in your analysis, how are you deciding SB's emissivity factor? ...

All gas molecules absorb some part of the EM spectrum.

Ozone absorbs UV

Co2 absorbs weak IR

Co2 doesn't do jack for earth climate change

 

[Crick]

All gas molecules absorb some part of the EM spectrum.

Ozone absorbs UV

Co2 absorbs weak IR

Co2 doesn't do jack for earth climate change

Do you realize how many PhD scientists disagree with you on that point?

 

[EMH]

Do you realize how many PhD scientists disagree with you on that point?

This is the difference between science and "the science."

"The science" is 100% about parroting.

It is not about data or truth. It is about shouting down truth by claiming "I am parroting a greater guru."

The simple truth is as follow.

The overwhelming majority of earth ice is on land near an earth pole. Land moves.

It should not take too much more for anyone with any intelligence to figure out the rest...