On Sat, Bob Brown . wrote:

On Sat, Joe Fischer wrote:
The first link I mentioned above shows the
area covered by ice at three times in the relatively
recent past by clicking on the different age markers,
to view it in a browser, double click the underlined url.

Here is a link that describes the thickness of
the Greenland ice sheet;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Someone said "where I live the ice was a mile thick 20K years ago"

That was me.

I have to assume he meant some city in a well populated area, not some
area unpopulated like an ice shelf.

Why would you assume that, there is no evidence
of a well populated area or city from 20,000 years ago.

Again I ask, does anyone want to lay claim that where they live now,
20K years ago their wa ICE a "mile thick"?

Anybody in Ohio, Indiana, southeastern Canada,
maybe the Netherlands and Belgium and many other
places can claim that based on paleogeology studies.

I can re-quote the posting if needed.

So can I, is there any question about North America
and parts of Europe having an ice sheet as thick as
Greenland today?

With all the clickable links I posted, isn't the
accepted ice sheet data good enough?

There was global warming 20,000 years ago,
up until about 8,000 years ago, and smaller cycles
since then.
And there were very few men burning coal
or oil then.

Joe Fischer

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:35:06 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:

On Sat, Bob Brown . wrote:

On Sat, Joe Fischer wrote:
The first link I mentioned above shows the
area covered by ice at three times in the relatively
recent past by clicking on the different age markers,
to view it in a browser, double click the underlined url.

Here is a link that describes the thickness of
the Greenland ice sheet;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

Someone said "where I live the ice was a mile thick 20K years ago"

That was me.

I have to assume he meant some city in a well populated area, not some
area unpopulated like an ice shelf.

Why would you assume that, there is no evidence
of a well populated area or city from 20,000 years ago.

Again I ask, does anyone want to lay claim that where they live now,
20K years ago their wa ICE a "mile thick"?

Anybody in Ohio, Indiana, southeastern Canada,
maybe the Netherlands and Belgium and many other
places can claim that based on paleogeology studies.

I can re-quote the posting if needed.

So can I, is there any question about North America
and parts of Europe having an ice sheet as thick as
Greenland today?

With all the clickable links I posted, isn't the
accepted ice sheet data good enough?

There was global warming 20,000 years ago,
up until about 8,000 years ago, and smaller cycles
since then.
And there were very few men burning coal
or oil then.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:56:14 -0500, Joe Fischer
wrote:

I am sure that 20,000 years a ago, where I am,
the temperature was 50 degrees colder, because
ice was a mile thick here, so I am sure it is warmer
now, but I have not seen any evidence that there
is an "upward trend".

You said "where I am" indicating a known place were many humans live
TODAY. I have to assume you don't live in the artic circle so I want
to know how we could have ice "a mile thick" even 20K years ago?


5,280 feet high of ice?

If that was a common height at that time, could you explain where the
water went? I would also think 20K years isn't long enough, even under
extreme circumstances, to melt vast areas of ice "a mile thick",
wouldn't you?

I'm not harassing you, I just need a gentle answer.

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:35:38 -0400, Bob Brown . wrote:

5,280 feet high of ice?

If that was a common height at that time, could you explain where the
water went?

As the glacier that moved from Canada down across
Ohio and Indiana, the water from melting created the Ohio
and part of the Mississippi river channel.

And the water ran into the ocean, raising sea level.

I would also think 20K years isn't long enough, even under
extreme circumstances, to melt vast areas of ice "a mile thick",
wouldn't you?

It seems rather fast, but geology is pretty good,
I have always been amazed at the things specialists
can do, and because of disbelief, I have tracked their
methods, and they were good.

I'm not harassing you, I just need a gentle answer.

I suspect the amount of cloud cover was much
reduced, and the glacier moving down from Canada
might have moved into an area that had been above
freezing, and with less cloud cover, and maybe dirty
ice and no snow, the sun could have done a lot of
melting from the top and there is always melting of
a thick glacier from the bottom.

Sea level has definitely risen a lot since then,
the Bering Strait could be waded at least part of the
time at some point in time for the Asians to migrate
down the west coast (or South Americans to migrate
to Asia).
And the English Channel could be waded
at the time of Christ. But the English Channel
itself was covered by a glacier 20,000 years ago.

Temperatures have warmed since then,
although I am not able to appreciate how they
can estimate the temperature from even 500 years
ago within one degree, just to calibrate a thermometer
after it was invented would have been a tedious job
to assure that each degree took the same amount
of heat, and to establish the exact freezing point
and the exact boiling point.

And the proxy estimates from things like
tree rings would seem to be even more difficult
to be precise within one degree.

That is the main reason I am not concerned
with the present claimed increase in temperature
of one degree Celsius, and I do not consider the
premise of an average global temperature to be
a valid way to measure "warming" because the
amount of heat needed to warm water is not the
same as the amount of heat needed to warm the
same amount of air or stone.

The weather has seemed more stable the
last 10 years, but not what I would call noticeably
warmer, I simply can't find many all time new
high temperature records, almost all the records
talked about are day of the year records.

Joe Fischer