What is the Best Textbook on Ice Ages?

[giann_tee]

I'm looking for a one single solid textbook about Ice Ages.

People are mentioning Imbrie's "Ice Ages" but it looks just a little old. I'll borrow it soon.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[giann_tee]

results

1. Milankovitch and Climate: Understanding the Response to Astronomical Forcing
by A. Berger

2. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11798

3. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers

 

[Andre]

It does not exist, such a textbook, that is, a book that has not been overrunned by contradictory evidence. So anything you read of before 2005-2004 is simply superseded by reality. Especially the recent publications about oceanic interactions challenge scholar views deep into the roots. Nobody seems to wonder why there was a global intensification of volcanism during the (last) deglaciation period. Concerning the whereabouts of the Pleistocene ice ages, we have seen nothing yet.

Recommended readings:

http://www.bgc.bris.ac.uk/documents/publications/2004/QUEEN_2004_climate.pdf

http://www.maureenraymo.com/2007_Lisiecki+Raymo.pdf

Robinson et al 2005

 

[giann_tee]

Amazing.

It become clear to me from reading Milankovitch himself that he had to take into account the arrangement of mass on Earth now and in the past, arrangement of moon and sun in the past along with the solar constant and transparency of atmosphere. Now that becomes just too complicated.

Its a sort of an "insolation theory" given that astronomical motions can be calculated from celestial mechanics and those few numbers to measure.

Basically there should be a match with soil samples.

In 21st century this should be readable and computed in short form with some programming code.

 

[Andre]

remember that the Milankovitch-cycles-trigger-ice-ages hypothesis is basically just like that. A proposal to explain the glaciation cycles. The Imbrie's thought that they had it proven it, given the limited evidence available. However, Lorraine Lisiecky and Maureen Raymo clearly show the struggle to find the right wrench to hammer in the right screw. And they were certainly not the first. Things get worse if you compare the *soil samples* of the Hubberten paper with the glaciation isotope calendar. In other words if the evidence does not fit, the idea might be wrong.

 

[giann_tee]

I expect it to be just fine theory - crude for today's number of parameters but just fine. I don't see why that is a problem.

Besides, if it is "wrong" then it means insolation theory does not equal the result - starting as a cause of ice ages, but adds a component of a summary or factors.

Last 700 000 years at most, and 200 000 for sure is just enough to get through the topic.

 

[giann_tee]

I forgot to mention that I'm not working in area of meteorology at all. The field is astronomy actually, so that might turn backwards some "truths" I implied.

:-)

 

[giann_tee]

I forgot to mention that I'm not working in area of meteorology at all. The field is astronomy actually, so that might turn backwards some "truths" I implied.

:-)