Ice Age theory includes the idea that sea levels drop as ice is locked up on land, a theory that has never really been tested with field data from the around the world. A new paper in the journal Nature openly admits that the Late Glacial Maximum far field sea levels and oxygen isotope proxy records do not fit. There is evidence in the North Atlantic, at this time, of a huge switch in sea levels – but did it have anything to do with the amount of water locked up as ice. The problem, as far as the researchers see it, is that when these are extended to Marine Isotope Stage 3, between 57,000 and 29,000 years ago, the reconstuction as used for the Late Glacial Maximum [following on from Marine Isotope Stage 3], did nto match the proxy based sea levels. This means that the relationship between marine isotopes and sea levels may not be as secure as assumed by mainstream, they say. In other words, the marine isotope therefore may be compromised. On the other hand the marine isotopes may be correct but the situation in marine isotope stage 3 may be quite different to that in the Late Glacial Maximum. The full pdf is available to view at www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21469-w.pdf
It begins by telling readers that during marine isotope stage 3 some region were ice free – in the Hudson Bay region for example. This is of course counter to mainstream who foresee a 100,000 year Ice Age, from around 120,000 years ago until around 18,000 years ago. The idea that the Late Glacial Maximum might have been a stand alone period of cool climate in North America and NW Europe is not on the radar of mainstream. Yet, this is what the evidence is telling them. The researchers of course cannot come straight out and infer that as it would be contravening basic geological theory on the Late Pleistocene period. They have to search for a reason why that occurred in a palatable way for others to digest – otherwise the paper would not have been published – and we would be none the wiser [apart from suspecting that was so]. Hudson Bay and Canadian Shield were buried under a massive ice sheet between 29,000 and 18,000 years ago. It is odd, then, that it might have been ice free in the period leading up to the LGM. Not so odd of course as cave paintings in Europe seem to show a savannah like environment with lions, hyena and various other exotic animals. Even if they were confined to eastern and southern Europe their existence would assume that even in northern Europe it was relatively ice free.
The authors continue by referring to this conundrum as the 'missing ice problem' but goes on to offer no relocation of the ice sheet [elsewhere] or to offer many clues about sea levels at this time in the North Atlantic. On the other hand, it does suggest sea levels were probably much higher than they were in the LGM and thereby any modelling had to take this into account. Somewhat later we are told that contemporary EuroAsian glaciation was confined to mountainous regions [during marine isotope stage 3]. They even suggest that LGM sea levels, at 120m below the modern average, may have been regional. In other words, the idea is to smooth the data, reduce the severity of LGM data in order to explain away the missing ice problem. This is necessary in order to escape from bringing down the pack of cards.
The authors went on to create a model of marine isotope stage 3 and resorted to some further geology – the idea of glacial rebound [the land rising and falling over time]. The model was developed in order to fit the facts into the mainstream construct. They did not use far field records of sea level, we are told. I wonder why. They also used software which is based on the assumption of preferabley plastic equilibrium conditions, doubled as a glaciologically plausible ice sheet configuration.The possibility of catastrophism is not discussed. However, see also https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/23/problem-of-missing-ice-finally-so… … where many of the commenters appear to have missed the point, yet alone the ice. Fascinating article and above board from a mainstream point of view.