Amazon Data Contradicts Glacial Aridity Hypothesis Of The Ice Age

[sylas]

The 'Hot Sun/Cold Sea' hypothesis is favorable to explain the heinrich events as well imo Heinrich Events: Marine Record of Abrupt Climate Changes in the Late Pleistocene. Cold seas would promote coastal glaciation, whilst increased insolation overall would warm the 'middle green blanket', or land between the highlands and the freezing coast. Meltwater streams would lubricate the lower glaciers and allow them to slide into the sea..

Your reference does not back up the specifics of a "Hot Sun/Cold Sea" hypothesis at all. It's true enough that there can be sudden shifts in climate due to various effects considered in the slide set you have linked, but there's no mention there of "Hot Sun". It's rather about the work being done to explore Heinrich events, and very good introduction to the phenomenon and the work being done to investigate them.

The final slide in the set concludes as follows:

Heinrich events and other mysteries of the Earth's climate system.

While we now know more than ever before about Heinrich events, there are still many questions to be answered: Why were these changes so abrupt? What drove them? Are they a reflection of variations in glaciological regimes, or are they driven by global climatic changes? How might they have been related to changes elsewhere in the world?

These issues are important, for they provide a better knowledge of the past that may prove essential in understanding the course of future changes in Earth's climate system. Most important, perhaps, is the potential instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Some scientists fear that this enormous ice sheet is unstable and might collapse, thus generating modern-day Heinrich events in the Southern Hemisphere. The consequences of such a collapse would be dire indeed: a rapid 1-5 m rise in global sea levels that flood heavily-populated low-lying areas across the globe.

In the twenty-first century, perhaps more data, improved methodologies, and a new generation of scientists will put within our reach the knowledge we need to understand Heinrich events and other mysteries of the Earth's climate system.​

Given that this whole discussion area is about to be closed, we can't really go into it more. But for the record, there is an enormous difference between the perspective you are enunciating yourself, and the perspective described within your link.

That's a problem. You are not sticking to the forum guidelines here at all. What we need to do here -- not only in climate, but in all discussions -- is actually look at the real practice of science. NOT invent controversial new interpretations or notions of our own, and then cite that to papers which merely look at the problem for which you have some a unique set of claims not appearing in that paper.

You, and Andre, consistently fail to understand that. This is not a forum for you to propose new ideas you have for doing science better. There are other forums where you can try to reform science. Not this one.

If you cite a paper, the idea is to explain the work described in the paper, or else cite papers that directly back up the specifics of what we are describing ourselves. The aim is to make papers comprehensible, occasionally to criticize it -- though criticism should itself be backed up by other references to show that the criticism is actually a part of the science mainstream and not your own personal animus.

We must keep the focus on the actual work being done by scientists -- NOT our own personal theories for how they could do it differently. There are other forums where you can try doing your own independent theory development. This forum has a focus on exploring the current practice of science.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[aspergers@40]

There are other forums where you can try to reform science. Not this one.

I appreciate I stepped over the line with lateral thinking w.r.t the heinrich event mystery. The link was just an informative tool to describe the known phenomenon to the unitiated.

The original paper of this thread IS consistent with the rules of this forum. You have failed to answer the simple objection that the data contradicts the glacial aridity hypothesis. The Congo fan sediment data similarly contradicts the glacial aridity hypothesis:

This large temperature difference between land and ocean surface resulted in drier conditions compared to the current situation, which favors the growth of a lush rainforest

 

[sylas]

I appreciate I stepped over the line with lateral thinking w.r.t the heinrich event mystery. The link was just an informative tool to describe the known phenomenon to the unitiated.

The original paper of this thread IS consistent with the rules of this forum. You have failed to answer the simple objection that the data contradicts the glacial aridity hypothesis. The Congo fan sediment data similarly contradicts the glacial aridity hypothesis:

This large temperature difference between land and ocean surface resulted in drier conditions compared to the current situation, which favors the growth of a lush rainforest

I don't have any particular problem with what the paper says, from what I have seen. I don't see why you think I need to "answer" it. I haven't said it is wrong.

Of course the paper is consistent with the forum guidelines. It might have been better for subsequent discussion to try to explain to people a bit better the content of the paper, but the idea of some modifications to existing notions is not particularly controversial. Science thrives on such challenges.

The difficulty is that the thread had diverged a number of times into more sweeping claims than what appears to be made or supported in the paper.

I am well used to science having open questions and alternative hypotheses. I'd prefer us to focus a bit better on the specifics of hypotheses actually given in the paper.

I thought [post=2519363]msg #10[/post] by mspelto gave some useful input, challenging the implication that there ever really was a requirement for aridity in the Amazon region during the LGM. But alas, that was not taken up, and the discussion went off in the usual way to look at far more sweeping personal objections to conventional ideas of the LGM rather than consideration of what is actually being investigated and challenged by the scientists cited... (I think).

But do note we need to be winding this up now, unfortunately.

Cheers -- sylas