What is the Best Textbook on Ice Ages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter giann_tee
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Ice
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying a suitable textbook on Ice Ages, with participants sharing recommendations and expressing concerns about the reliability and currency of existing literature. The scope includes theoretical considerations, historical context, and the implications of recent research findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests Imbrie's "Ice Ages" but expresses concern about its age and relevance.
  • Another participant lists alternative texts, including "Milankovitch and Climate" by A. Berger, and provides links to additional resources.
  • A different viewpoint argues that no single textbook exists that is not contradicted by newer evidence, particularly regarding oceanic interactions and volcanism during deglaciation.
  • One participant reflects on the complexity of Milankovitch's theories, noting the need to consider historical arrangements of celestial bodies and their impact on climate.
  • Another participant critiques the Milankovitch cycles hypothesis, suggesting that the evidence may not support the proposed explanations for glaciation cycles.
  • Some participants express that while the theories may be crude, they still find value in them, emphasizing the importance of understanding the last 700,000 years of climate history.
  • One participant discloses their background in astronomy, indicating that their perspective may differ from those in meteorology.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best textbook or the validity of existing theories regarding Ice Ages. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain regarding the interpretation of evidence and the adequacy of current literature.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the existing literature, including the potential for outdated information and the complexity of integrating various scientific factors into a cohesive understanding of Ice Ages.

giann_tee
Messages
129
Reaction score
1
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.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

:-)
 
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.

:-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 87 ·
3
Replies
87
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 101 ·
4
Replies
101
Views
32K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K