Cretaceous_E

 Copilot:

If all the ice currently covering the planet were to melt, how much land would be left? Is Earth basically a water planet?

Short answer

If all land-based ice on Earth melted, global sea level would rise on the order of 60–70 meters. 

Land left: The vast majority of continents sit well above 70 m, so most land would still be there. You’d lose today’s low-lying coasts, river deltas, and many coastal plains, but probably on the order of only a few to maybe 10 percent of current land area would be submerged—not half the continents or anything close.

Surface balance: Right now, Earth is about 71% ocean, 29% land. With a 60–70 m rise, oceans would cover more area and land would shrink somewhat, so you’d be looking at something like roughly three-quarters ocean, one-quarter land (exact numbers depend on detailed topography, but that’s the ballpark).

So…is Earth basically a water planet?

Yes—even in this extreme “all ice melted” scenario, Earth is still dominantly an ocean world by surface area, just a slightly more ocean-heavy one than today. The continents don’t vanish; their shapes and coastlines change dramatically, but large interior regions of North America, South America, Africa, Eurasia, and Australia remain above sea level.

If you want, we can zoom in on a specific region—like Quebec or North America—and talk through what that 60–70 m world would actually look like on the ground.

Does Earth loose much water to outer space over time. Clearly, this is more land than earlier epochs enjoyed...

Earth does lose water to space, but the rate is so small that it barely affects the total ocean volume over geological time. The interesting twist is that Earth’s land area has changed far more because of plate tectonics and continental configuration than because of water loss.

🌍 How much water does Earth actually lose?

Two main escape pathways matter:

1. Hydrogen escape from the upper atmosphere

UV light splits water vapor high in the atmosphere.

The hydrogen escapes to space because it’s extremely light.

Modern estimates put this loss at roughly 1–3 kg of hydrogen per second, which corresponds to about 1–2 liters of water per second once you account for oxygen.

Over a billion years, that adds up to only a few centimeters of ocean depth.

2. Ionospheric escape (oxygen and hydrogen ions)

Solar wind strips ions from the upper atmosphere.

Earth’s magnetic field reduces this loss dramatically compared to Mars or Venus.

Bottom line:

Earth loses water, but so slowly that it would take tens of billions of years to noticeably shrink the oceans—longer than the Sun’s remaining lifetime.

🌊 So why does Earth have more exposed land now than in earlier epochs?

You’re absolutely right: earlier Earth epochs—especially the mid‑Cretaceous and early Paleozoic—had less exposed land and higher sea levels. But this wasn’t because Earth had more water.

The real drivers were:

1. Faster seafloor spreading

Hotter mantle → more buoyant mid‑ocean ridges → ocean basins become shallower.

Shallower basins hold less water → sea level rises globally.

2. No large continental ice sheets

When Antarctica and Greenland weren’t glaciated, all that water was in the oceans.

3. Thermal expansion of seawater

Warmer global temperatures expand ocean volume.

4. Continental arrangement

Supercontinents like Pangaea create large interior basins.

Fragmented continents create more shallow continental shelves.

Result:

During the Cretaceous, sea level was 150–250 m higher than today. Vast areas of what is now land—including much of the U.S. Midwest, Europe, and parts of Africa—were underwater.

This had nothing to do with Earth having more water; it was about how much room the ocean basins had to store it.

🧭 Putting it together

Water loss to space: real but negligible.

Land exposure over time: controlled by tectonics, mantle temperature, and glaciation cycles—not by total water inventory.

Earth today: has more exposed land than many past epochs because ocean basins are deeper and large ice sheets lock up water.

If you want, we can map how Quebec or North America looked during high‑sea‑level epochs like the Cretaceous—it’s a fun comparison to the “all ice melted” scenario you asked about earlier.

                                                                      *     *     *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event

Reckoning

Copilot:

We seem to be facing a choice between an Ice Age and an Earth-flooding warming. Is there no middle ground? What is the Goldilocks point??

You’re asking the right question, Louise — and it’s one climate scientists wrestle with constantly. It feels like the planet is offering us two extremes:

A future Ice Age if CO₂ drops too low

A flooded, Pliocene‑like world if CO₂ stays too high

But the truth is more nuanced. There is a middle ground — a “Goldilocks zone” — but it’s narrower than most people realize, and it depends on how the Earth system responds over thousands of years, not decades.

Let’s map it out clearly.

🌍 1. Earth’s climate has a natural Goldilocks zone

For the last 2.6 million years (the Pleistocene), Earth has oscillated between:

Glacial states (ice ages)

Interglacial states (warm periods like today)

These swings happen because the climate system is sensitive to small orbital nudges. But the interglacial periods — the warm, stable ones — cluster around a surprisingly tight CO₂ range:

~260–300 ppm

That’s the natural Goldilocks band for the Pleistocene climate mode.

Inside that range:

Ice sheets remain stable

Sea level stays within a few meters of modern

The climate doesn’t tip into runaway cooling or warming

Outside that range, the system shifts.

🔥 2. Why we’re no longer in that zone

Today’s CO₂ is well above 420 ppm.

That pushes us out of the Pleistocene “ice‑age engine” and toward a climate mode more like the Pliocene, where:

Greenland melts

West Antarctica becomes unstable

Sea level eventually rises 20–25 meters

The Arctic becomes warm and wet

This is why the system feels like it’s losing its middle ground — we’ve moved outside the range where the old equilibrium works.

❄️ 3. Why we’re not at risk of an Ice Age anymore

Even if emissions stopped today, CO₂ would remain high enough to:

Prevent the next glacial inception

Keep Northern Hemisphere ice sheets from regrowing

Hold the planet in a warm interglacial‑like state for tens of thousands of years

So the “Ice Age” side of the dilemma is already off the table for the foreseeable future.

🌡️ 4. So what is the Goldilocks point now?

If we define “Goldilocks” as:

No new ice age

No catastrophic long‑term sea‑level rise

A stable climate system

A world recognizable to modern civilization

Then the best estimate is:

~300–350 ppm CO₂

Why this range?

It’s high enough to suppress glacial inception

It’s low enough to avoid triggering Greenland’s instability threshold

It keeps long‑term sea‑level rise to manageable levels

It preserves the basic structure of the Holocene climate

This is the “new” Goldilocks zone — the one compatible with both avoiding ice ages and avoiding Pliocene‑level flooding.

🧭 5. The uncomfortable truth

We’re already above that zone.

But that doesn’t mean all is lost. It means:

The long‑term equilibrium (thousands of years) is shifting

The sooner CO₂ stabilizes or declines, the more of the old equilibrium we preserve

The difference between 420 ppm and 500 ppm is enormous in terms of ice‑sheet commitment

In other words, the Goldilocks zone still exists — we’ve just overshot it, and the question becomes how far we go before stabilizing.

🌱 6. The real choice isn’t Ice Age vs Flooded Earth

It’s:

**Do we stabilize the climate near the edge of the Goldilocks zone,

or do we push the system into a new, hotter equilibrium?**

The first path preserves coastlines, ecosystems, and the climate rhythms that shaped human civilization.

The second path leads toward a Pliocene‑like world — still habitable, but profoundly different.

If you want, we can explore:

What a 350 ppm world looks like

Whether CO₂ removal could bring us back into the Goldilocks zone

How much warming is “locked in” vs reversible

What the long‑term climate looks like at 420, 450, or 500 ppm

Just tell me where you want to go next.

Sordid

 The thing about life's lessons is that they are often obvious...after one has made

the sordid mistake! Here's one such from my baking experience.

Sunday evening, already tired from a day on the computer, felt I really should bake

something for later that evening. Decided to go with a great favourite:  souffle lemon cake,

with cream cheese and condensed milk but a mere tablespoon or two of flour. Thus light and

tasty. But the cream cheese was in the refrigerator and I just felt overwhelmed at the thought 

of heating it on the stove to make it just right for whipping. Decided to ask Copilot how this

might be done in the microwave. Below:

The answer surprised me. I had been denaturing the cream cheese with the stove method. 

So I followed instructions with three 15 second bursts. Then transferred the product to a bowl 

for whipping... only to end up with cream cheese bubbles on the wall. Big mistake. I eventually

had to run the remaining cheese quite a few times in the microwave to a get a finger tested 

soft product. *

Only, guess what. The cake I ended up making was utterly delicious; in effect, perfect. I had made

this beast many times, and it had never looked like this. 

So there is a lesson here: Copilot found the understanding I was missing, but the engineering

problem was mine. It is a language model, and no one making that very same cake served as a

source for it's advice. I need to get smarter about THAT...

* In point of fact, I'm lying on the specifics. The remaining cream cheese was in clumps on the

 bottom and sides of the largish bowl I was using...notwithstanding the clumps on the wall and 

the coffee maker. I still had to add the condensed milk, five egg yolks, the juice of a large lemon 

and vanilla to get a homogenous mix, so the bowl had to be large. I judged the clumps had given

me separate specimens, so I just ran the lot at high force for 15 seconds, as I would to melt 

butter I wanted to put on toast( 8 seconds). One is allowed two tablespoons flour for a final 

adjustment. It all worked out!! I then whipped up the egg whites in a separate bowl and poured 

the two together. That was it for this recipe...

                                                                 *     *     *

Copilot:

Last Sunday

I am baking a cake, and need to whip a 250 gram block of cream cheese from the refrigerator. How long should I put it in the microwave first, and at what setting?

Cold cream cheese is notoriously stubborn, so softening it just enough—without melting it—is the sweet spot for whipping it smoothly into a cake batter.

Softening a 250 g block of cream cheese in the microwave

These timings work for a standard 1000‑watt microwave:

Method

Power: 30% (low power)

Time: 15 seconds at a time

Process:

Heat 15 seconds, then press the block gently with your fingers.

Flip it over, heat another 10–15 seconds.

Stop as soon as it yields easily to pressure but still holds its shape.

Total expected time

Usually 25–35 seconds total, broken into short bursts.

Why short bursts matter

Cream cheese melts from the edges first, and melted spots ruin the texture when whipping.

Low power keeps it softening evenly rather than turning oily.

Quick test for “ready to whip”

Press the center: it should feel pliable, like room‑temperature butter.

If it’s warm or glossy, it’s gone too far.

If you want, I can walk you through getting it perfectly smooth for your cake batter.

                                                       *     *     *

Today

Microwave; does it take longer to melt two pats of butter than one. I'll behaving toast and the butter if from the fridge...

Short answer: yes — two cold pats take longer than one — but not twice as long.

Here’s the physics in a kitchen‑friendly way:

🧈 Why two pats melt slower

A microwave heats by exciting water molecules. Butter has very little water, so it warms unevenly.

More mass = more energy needed. Two fridge‑cold pats contain roughly double the cold mass, so they need more total energy to reach melting point.

But microwaves don’t heat linearly. Hot spots form, edges melt first, and the butter shape matters more than the exact weight.

⏱ What this means in practice

If one pat melts in, say, 8–10 seconds, then:

Two pats might take 12–15 seconds, not 16–20.

The difference is noticeable but small.

🔧 Practical trick for perfect toast buttering

Cold butter on hot toast is a classic frustration. A few reliable options:

Option A — Microwave gently

Put the pats side by side, not stacked.

Start with 5 seconds, check, then add 2–3 second bursts.

Stop as soon as the edges slump; residual heat finishes the job.

Option B — The “toast tent”

Put the cold pats on the toast, then cover loosely with another slice or a bowl.

The trapped steam softens the butter in 20–30 seconds without melting it into a puddle.

Option C — Smash technique

Use the back of a spoon to press the cold pat into the toast.

Works surprisingly well when the toast is fresh and hot.

If you want, I can help you dial in the exact timing for your microwave wattage and butter size.

So the total energy delivered to the oven is always the same...

Not quite. The microwave’s power output stays the same, but the total energy absorbed by the butter is not fixed — it depends on how long you run it and how much material is in there.

A microwave is basically a constant‑power device. If yours is rated at 1000 W, it’s dumping roughly 1000 joules per second into the oven cavity no matter what’s inside. What changes is:

🧈 How much of that energy the butter actually absorbs

One pat absorbs less energy before it melts.

Two pats have twice the mass, so they need roughly twice the energy to reach the same softness.

The microwave keeps delivering the same power, but you run it longer to get the extra energy into the butter.

So the oven doesn’t “decide” to deliver more energy — you deliver more energy by running it longer because the larger mass needs it.

🔍 A simple way to picture it

Think of the microwave as a faucet:

The flow rate (power) is constant.

A small cup (one pat) fills quickly.

A bigger cup (two pats) takes longer.

The faucet didn’t change — the container did.

🍞 For your toast situation

If you want fridge‑cold butter to soften fast without melting into a puddle:

Spread the pats out so they heat evenly.

Use short bursts (3–5 seconds).

Stop as soon as the edges slump.

If you want, I can help you estimate the timing based on your microwave’s wattage and the size of your butter pats.

If one pat gets a ray, then the other doesn't?

Ah, I see what you’re getting at — the “ray‑sharing” intuition. Microwaves feel like little beams that might hit one pat but miss the other. But that’s not how the field inside the oven works.

🌀 Microwaves don’t fire single rays at single objects

Inside the oven, the magnetron fills the cavity with an electromagnetic field pattern. It’s more like a standing wave soup than a sniper beam.

So:

There aren’t individual “rays” that one pat could hog.

Both pats sit in the same fluctuating field.

Each pat absorbs energy proportional to its mass, shape, and position.

🧈 What can happen

Even though both pats are exposed to the same field, they may heat differently because:

The field has hot spots and cold spots.

Butter has uneven water content.

One pat might sit in a slightly hotter region.

The shape and orientation change how much energy each absorbs.

So yes, one pat can melt faster — but not because it “got the ray” and the other didn’t. It’s because the field isn’t uniform.

🔬 A simple analogy

Imagine two people standing in a room with uneven heating from the sun through a window.

They’re both in the same room, but one might be in a warm patch and the other in a cool patch.

The sun isn’t choosing one — the geometry is.

🍞 For your toast

If you want both pats to soften evenly:

Place them side by side, not stacked.

Put them near the center of the plate.

Use short bursts so you don’t overshoot.

If you want, we can even talk about why rotating plates exist and why microwaves still have cold spots despite the turntable.

Antartica

 

Does Antartica cover the South Pole?

Yes — Antarctica absolutely covers the South Pole.

The geographic South Pole sits on top of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, roughly in the middle of the continent. A few key details make the picture clearer:

🧊 1. The South Pole is on land — unlike the North Pole

South Pole: on a thick ice sheet resting on a continental landmass (Antarctica).

North Pole: in the middle of the Arctic Ocean, covered by floating sea ice.

This difference is why Antarctica can support mountains, valleys, and a massive ice sheet, while the Arctic cannot.

🏔️ 2. The ice at the South Pole is thick

The ice sheet at the Pole is about:

2,700–2,800 meters thick

Elevation at the Pole is ~2,800 meters above sea level because of that ice

So you’re standing on ice nearly 3 km thick.

🧭 3. The South Pole is not near the coast

It’s deep in the interior, far from the ocean.

The nearest coast is about 1,300 km away.

🏛️ 4. There’s a permanent research station at the Pole

The Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station sits directly on the geographic pole.

It slowly drifts because the ice sheet moves a few meters per year.

If you want, we can explore:

how Antarctica’s ice sheet formed

why the South Pole is so much colder than the North Pole

how the continent’s shape affects global climate

Just tell me where you want to go next.

Why is the South Pole is so much colder than the North Pole?

The South Pole is dramatically colder than the North Pole, and the reasons are beautifully physical — a mix of geography, elevation, ocean dynamics, and albedo feedbacks. Once you see the full picture, it feels almost inevitable.

Here’s the clean breakdown.

🧊 1. Antarctica is a high‑elevation continent; the Arctic is an ocean

This is the single biggest reason.

South Pole (Antarctica):

Sits on a continental landmass

Covered by an ice sheet 2,700–3,000 m thick

Elevation at the Pole is ~2,800 m above sea level

Air temperature drops roughly 6.5°C per 1,000 m of elevation

So Antarctica starts with a built‑in −18°C disadvantage just from altitude.

North Pole (Arctic):

Sits on floating sea ice

Elevation: basically 0 m

Underneath is ocean, which stores and releases heat

The Arctic is insulated by water; Antarctica is isolated by altitude.

🌊 2. The Arctic Ocean moderates temperature; Antarctica has no such buffer

Water has enormous heat capacity.

Arctic:

The ocean below the ice is relatively warm (−2°C to +2°C)

Heat leaks upward through the ice

This prevents temperatures from dropping as low as Antarctica

Antarctica:

Interior is 1,300 km from the ocean

No oceanic heat influence

Air is extremely dry, allowing heat to radiate away efficiently

The South Pole is essentially a desert plateau with no thermal buffer.

🌬️ 3. Antarctica is surrounded by the strongest wind barrier on Earth

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) and the polar vortex isolate the continent.

The ACC prevents warm ocean water from reaching Antarctica’s coast

The polar vortex traps cold air over the continent

The Arctic has no such isolation — warm Atlantic water flows directly into it.

❄️ 4. Antarctica has a much higher albedo

Antarctica is:

brighter

more reflective

more consistently snow‑covered

This means it reflects more sunlight back into space.

The Arctic loses albedo in summer when sea ice melts, exposing dark ocean that absorbs heat.

🌡️ 5. Seasonal sunlight differences

Both poles have 6 months of darkness, but:

The South Pole’s summer sun is weaker because it’s farther from the Sun during austral summer (Earth is at aphelion in July).

The North Pole’s summer sun is stronger because Earth is closer to the Sun during boreal summer (perihelion in January).

This adds a few degrees of difference.

📉 6. Result: The temperature gap is enormous

Typical annual averages:

Location Average Temperature

South Pole ~−49°C

North Pole ~−18°C

A 31°C difference — and that’s the average.

⭐ The big picture

The South Pole is colder because:

it’s on a high, thick ice sheet

on a continent

isolated by winds and currents

far from ocean heat

with higher albedo

and weaker summer sunlight

The North Pole is warmer because:

it’s over an ocean

at sea level

influenced by warm currents

losing ice in summer

The asymmetry is structural — it’s baked into Earth’s geography.

If you want, we can explore:

why Antarctica formed such a massive ice sheet

how this asymmetry affects global climate

whether the South Pole could ever warm enough to resemble the Arctic

Just tell me where you’d like to go next.

When did ice accumulation begin?

Ice accumulation in Antarctica began far earlier than most people realize — and it didn’t happen all at once. It unfolded in stages as Earth’s climate, continents, and ocean currents shifted into the configuration we know today.

Here’s the clear, layered timeline.

🧊 1. The first Antarctic ice began ~34 million years ago

This marks the Eocene–Oligocene transition, one of the sharpest climate shifts in Earth’s history.

Around 34 million years ago (Ma):

Atmospheric CO₂ fell below a critical threshold (roughly 600–750 ppm).

Antarctica drifted fully over the South Pole.

Ocean gateways opened (Drake Passage(South America), Tasman Gateway (Australia)), allowing the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to form.

These changes isolated the continent and allowed the first permanent ice sheets to form.

This is the birth of the modern Antarctic cryosphere.

❄️ 2. The ice sheet expanded dramatically ~14 million years ago

During the Middle Miocene Climate Transition (~14 Ma):

CO₂ dropped further.

The ice sheet grew thicker and more stable.

Antarctica became the frozen continent we recognize today.

This is when the East Antarctic Ice Sheet became truly massive.

🧊 3. West Antarctica glaciated later (~5–7 million years ago)

West Antarctica is lower, more marine-based, and more vulnerable.

Its ice sheet formed later and has been more dynamic.

By 5–7 Ma, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was established, though it has collapsed and reformed multiple times since.

🌍 4. The modern Ice Age cycles began ~2.6 million years ago

This is when:

Northern Hemisphere ice sheets began forming

Earth entered the Quaternary Ice Age

Glacial–interglacial cycles started (driven by orbital variations)

Antarctica was already frozen by this point, but its ice sheet began responding rhythmically to global climate cycles.

⭐ Summary timeline

Time What happened

34 Ma First major Antarctic ice sheets form

14 Ma Ice sheet thickens and stabilizes; Antarctica becomes fully glaciated

5–7 Ma West Antarctic Ice Sheet forms

2.6 Ma Global Ice Age cycles begin

🧠 The deeper insight

Antarctica’s ice sheet is not ancient in the geological sense — it’s a recent feature of Earth’s climate system. For most of Earth’s history, Antarctica was forested, warm, and ice‑free.

If you want, we can explore:

what Antarctica looked like before it froze

how CO₂ thresholds control ice sheet formation

whether Antarctica could ever become ice‑free again

how this ties into Milankovitch cycles and your Goldilocks‑CO₂ question

Just tell me where you want to go next.

aphelion vs perhelion...

Aphelion and perihelion are one of those elegant little orbital details that quietly shape Earth’s climate — including the subtle differences between the North and South Poles you’ve been exploring. Let’s give you a crisp, intuitive comparison.

🌞 Aphelion vs. Perihelion

Perihelion

When: Early January

What it means: Earth is closest to the Sun

Distance: ~147 million km

Effect: Slightly more solar energy reaches Earth

Aphelion

When: Early July

What it means: Earth is farthest from the Sun

Distance: ~152 million km

Effect: Slightly less solar energy reaches Earth

The difference in solar energy is about 6–7%, which is small but not trivial.

🌍 Why this matters for climate

1. Seasons are NOT caused by distance — they’re caused by tilt

But the distance does modulate the seasons.

2. Northern Hemisphere summers happen at aphelion

So the north gets:

slightly weaker summer sunlight

slightly milder summers

slightly less intense winters

3. Southern Hemisphere summers happen at perihelion

So the south gets:

slightly stronger summer sunlight

slightly hotter summers

slightly colder winters

This is one reason the South Pole is colder overall — its winters occur when Earth is farthest from the Sun, and its summers occur when Earth is closest but the continent is so reflective and high‑elevation that it barely warms.

🌡️ How this ties into your earlier questions

You’ve been exploring:

hemispheric asymmetry

why Antarctica is colder

how Milankovitch cycles shape glaciation

Aphelion/perihelion are part of the eccentricity component of Milankovitch cycles. Over tens of thousands of years:

the timing of perihelion shifts

the shape of Earth’s orbit changes

this alters the strength of seasons

When perihelion aligns with Northern Hemisphere summer, summers become stronger — which can help melt ice sheets.

When aphelion aligns with Northern Hemisphere summer, summers weaken — which can help grow ice sheets.

This is one of the triggers for glacial cycles.

If you want, we can go deeper into:

how eccentricity cycles interact with CO₂

how the timing of perihelion has shifted over the last 100,000 years

why the next glacial cycle is “paused” despite orbital conditions

Just tell me where you want to take it.

Are the two poles of Earth destined to being increasinly different? What about tectonic activity?

The two poles are already very different, and the forces that made them unequal are still operating — some slowly (tectonics), some rapidly (climate change). So yes, the asymmetry is likely to increase, not shrink, unless something dramatic changes in Earth’s configuration.

Let’s unpack this in a way that respects both the physics and the deep‑time tectonic story you’re pointing toward.

🌍 1. The poles are different because of geography — and that geography is not going away

The fundamental asymmetry is simple:

South Pole: on top of a high, isolated continent (Antarctica)

North Pole: in the middle of an ocean (Arctic Ocean)

This difference drives everything:

Antarctica is high, dry, reflective, and isolated → extreme cold

The Arctic is low, ocean‑moderated, and connected to warm currents → less cold

This basic configuration is stable on million‑year timescales.

🌡️ 2. Climate change is amplifying the difference

This is the fast part.

Arctic: warming extremely fast

Sea ice is thinning and disappearing in summer

Dark ocean absorbs heat

Air temperatures rise rapidly

The Arctic is warming 3–4× faster than the global average

Antarctica: warming slowly and unevenly

East Antarctica remains extremely cold and stable

West Antarctica is losing ice, but the interior stays frigid

The continent is insulated by the circumpolar current

Result:  

The Arctic is racing ahead into a new climate regime, while Antarctica changes slowly.

This widens the gap.

🧊 3. Will the poles become even more different?

Almost certainly.

Arctic future:

Likely to see ice‑free summers within decades

Ocean heat will dominate the region

Weather patterns will shift dramatically

Antarctic future:

Interior remains brutally cold for a very long time

West Antarctic Ice Sheet may collapse over centuries

East Antarctica stays stable unless CO₂ rises far beyond today’s levels

The Arctic is heading toward a blue‑ocean state.

Antarctica is not.

🌋 4. What about tectonic activity? Could it change the poles?

This is the slow part — but it’s fascinating.

A. Antarctica is frozen because of tectonics

About 34 million years ago:

Antarctica drifted over the South Pole

The Drake Passage and Tasman Gateway opened

The Antarctic Circumpolar Current formed

CO₂ dropped

This isolated the continent and allowed the ice sheet to form.

B. Tectonics will continue to isolate Antarctica

The Southern Ocean will remain open

The circumpolar current will continue

Antarctica will stay over the pole for tens of millions of years

Nothing in plate motion suggests Antarctica will warm via tectonics anytime soon.

C. The Arctic is tectonically “open”

The Arctic Ocean is connected to the Atlantic

Warm water can always flow north

No tectonic barrier will isolate it the way 

Antarctica is isolated

This ensures the Arctic will always be more vulnerable to warming.

D. Long-term future (tens of millions of years)

Eventually:

Continents will drift

New supercontinents will form

Ocean currents will reorganize

Either pole could end up with land or ocean

But this is far beyond human timescales.

⭐ 5. The big-picture answer

Yes — the poles are destined to become increasingly different.

The Arctic is rapidly warming, losing ice, and shifting toward an ocean‑dominated climate.

Antarctica remains a high, isolated, reflective ice fortress, changing slowly.

Tectonics will reinforce this asymmetry for millions of years.

The only force capable of making the poles more similar again would be:

a massive drop in CO₂ (returning Earth to glacial conditions), or

a tectonic reorganization on million‑year timescales.

Neither is happening soon.

If you want, we can explore:

whether Antarctica could ever become ice‑free again

how tectonics might reshape the poles in 50–100 million years

whether the Arctic could ever refreeze once it becomes ice‑free

Just tell me which direction you want to take.

                                                                            

Drake Passage:

image sources: Wikipedia

GFroid

 RE: that famous chocolat confection Queen Elizabeth used to eaT every day...

These are the ingredients the Royal Chef specified (from a US adaptation):

Equipment

8 inch cake pan (the original recipe uses a 6 inch cake ring.)

Ingredients

 

US Customary

Metric

for the cake

8 ounces British tea biscuits , (I used McVities Digestive Biscuits.)

6 ounces butter, at room temperature

6 ounces white sugar, (caster sugar in the UK)

6 ounces dark chocolate, melted

chocolate topping

8 ounces dark chocolate, melted

garnish, optional

mini chocolate chips. You could also use chocolate sprinkles, or chocolate curls.

                                                                   *     *     *

Copilot:

Food; are raw eggs dangerous to put in a gâteau froid recipe? Queen Elizabeth's much appreciated chocolate confection calls for one...

Raw eggs can carry a food‑safety risk in a gâteau froid, but the risk can be reduced or avoided by using pasteurized eggs or safe substitutes. In Canada, including Quebec, public‑health agencies still consider raw or lightly cooked eggs a potential source of Salmonella, even when shells look clean. 

Why raw eggs are considered risky

Salmonella can be present inside an egg, not just on the shell. 

No‑bake desserts (like tiramisu, mousse, or a classic gâteau froid) keep the egg raw, so the bacteria—if present—are not killed. 

Traditional recipes, including Queen Elizabeth II’s beloved chocolate biscuit cake, were created before modern food‑safety standards and often assume extremely fresh, high‑quality eggs.

What food‑safety authorities recommend

Egg mixtures are considered safe only when heated to 71.1 °C (160 °F)—which a gâteau froid does not reach. 

For recipes calling for raw eggs, they recommend:

Pasteurized in‑shell eggs

Pasteurized liquid eggs

Pasteurized dried egg whites (if only whites are needed) 

These products have been heat‑treated to kill Salmonella while keeping the egg usable in uncooked desserts.

Practical options for your gâteau froid

Use pasteurized eggs (widely available in Quebec grocery stores).

If the recipe uses only yolks or only whites, consider pasteurized substitutes.

If you want to keep the traditional texture but avoid raw egg entirely, some bakers replace the raw egg with:

A sabayon‑style base heated to 71 °C

Whipped cream or stabilized whipped cream (for lightness)

A small amount of buttercream folded in (for richness)

Bottom line

You can make the classic version, but using a raw, unpasteurized egg carries a real—though statistically small—risk of Salmonella. Using pasteurized eggs gives you the same texture with far less risk.

If you want, I can help you adapt your specific gâteau froid recipe so it stays faithful to the original while being safer.

Above, the ingredients (minus the egg). How much whipped cream should I add?

For a gâteau froid or a chocolate biscuit cake like the one you’re making, replacing the raw egg with whipped cream is very doable — you just need enough to restore the mousse‑like texture without making the mixture loose.

A reliable substitution ratio

For a recipe built on:

6 oz butter

6 oz sugar

6 oz melted dark chocolate

8 oz biscuits

…the single raw egg normally contributes about ¼ cup (60 ml) of volume and lightness once beaten in.

When substituting with whipped cream, you want more volume because whipped cream is mostly air.

Use ½ cup to ¾ cup of whipped cream

That’s 120–180 ml, measured after whipping.

How to choose the exact amount

½ cup (120 ml) → firmer, richer, closer to the original dense royal chocolate biscuit cake.

¾ cup (180 ml) → lighter, more mousse‑like, closer to a classic gâteau froid texture.

Both versions set well in the fridge.

Technique tip

Fold the whipped cream in gently once the chocolate–butter–sugar mixture has cooled to lukewarm. If it starts to loosen too much, stop folding — the biscuits will help firm it up as it chills.

If you want, I can help you tune the texture (denser vs. lighter) based on how you prefer your gâteau froid.

                                                                 *     *     *

https://www.cbc.ca/life/food/let-me-eat-cake-the-queen-never-ever-travels-without-this-very-specific-treat-1.4059238

In point of fact, my late mother was found of this kind of cake. I vaguely remember how it tastes...

Perhaps it was fashionable Post War, and the British Royals kept it going forward!

                                                              *     *     *

le Monde, on those 'poisonous' Epstein documents (in French):

https://archive.ph/9vFVU

Locked_In

 There is no pleasant way to say this: we (East North America) are in for a cold February.

Polar vortex to lock brutal cold over eastern US for most of February

Getting clear on the mechanisms involved, it is all about understanding what the wind is:

cold air rushing in to replace warm air that rises:

https://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm

                                                                                    

Copilot:

https://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm; where is Montreal on the global wind patterns map, above or below the 30 degree line... I am trying to make sense of the very cold weather we will be seeing to the end of February...

Montreal sits well above the 30° latitude line. Your latitude is roughly 45.5° N, which places you squarely in the mid‑latitudes, inside the zone dominated by the prevailing westerlies.

Here’s how that fits into the global wind‑pattern map you were reading:

Montreal is 15° north of the 30° line, deep in the zone where: The jet stream controls winter weather Cold Arctic air can plunge south when the jet dips Storm systems frequently track west‑to‑east across North America This is exactly the region where polar vortex disruptions and Arctic outbreaks hit hardest. ❄ Why the End of February Looks So Cold Your other open tab mentions a polar vortex locking brutal cold over the eastern US. That’s the key. When the polar vortex weakens or becomes distorted, lobes of extremely cold Arctic air spill southward. Because Montreal is in the westerlies + jet stream corridor, you’re directly in the path when: The jet stream dips south Arctic high‑pressure systems slide southeast Storm tracks shift to bring cold, dry air from the Prairies or the Arctic Archipelago This is why Quebec often gets sharper, longer cold snaps than places even farther north but outside the jet‑stream corridor. 🧭 Putting it all together Montreal is above 30°, in the mid‑latitude westerlies. This zone is highly sensitive to jet‑stream shifts. A polar vortex disruption can lock in cold for weeks. Late‑February cold snaps are classic outcomes of this pattern. If you want, we can map out how the jet stream typically behaves over Quebec, or look at historical late‑February cold patterns to see how this year compares.

                                                                       *     *     *

Comparing

 Decided to follow the temperture in Nuuk. Actually mild compared to what I am

going through from the greater Montreal region...

                                                                           

Copilot:

Weather; does Nuuk, Greenland have warmer winters than Montreal, Canada? Clearly, Montreal's summers are warmer, but the winters... How bad does it get??

Nuuk’s winters are milder than Montreal’s — sometimes dramatically so — even though Nuuk is far north. Montreal’s continental climate produces far colder lows and longer deep freezes, while Nuuk’s coastal, maritime Arctic climate keeps winter temperatures closer to the freezing point.

Winter Temperature Comparison

                                                                               

Why Nuuk Is Warmer in Winter

Nuuk sits on the southwest coast of Greenland, heavily influenced by the ocean.

Maritime climates change temperature slowly, preventing the brutal deep freezes typical of inland North America.

Montreal, by contrast, is far south but landlocked, so Arctic air masses can plunge temperatures dramatically.

How “Bad” Nuuk’s Winters Get

Based on climate data:

Average highs in the coldest months hover around −5 °C.

Average lows bottom out around −10 °C to −11 °C. 

Nuuk’s mean annual temperature is −3.9 °C, reflecting persistent coolness rather than extreme cold. 

Snow and wind are common, but the temperature rarely reaches the brutal lows familiar to Quebec winters.

How “Bad” Montreal’s Winters Get (for comparison)

Deep freezes of −20 °C to −30 °C are normal.

Wind chills can push perceived temperatures into the −30s or −40s.

Montreal’s winter is longer, with more freeze–thaw cycles and harsher cold snaps.

Bottom Line

Yes — Nuuk’s winters are noticeably milder than Montreal’s, despite Nuuk being far north.

Nuuk is cold, snowy, and dark in winter, but not nearly as brutally cold as a typical Montreal January or February.

Montreal wins for summer warmth, but Nuuk wins for winter gentleness.

If you want, I can break down month‑by‑month comparisons or add wind, snowfall, or daylight differences — which are very dramatic between the two.

Could I see month for month comparisons ... and also daylight differences...

Yes — a month‑by‑month comparison makes the contrast between Nuuk and Montreal extremely clear: Nuuk is consistently milder in winter but dramatically darker, while Montreal is far colder but much brighter in mid‑winter.  

The tables below use the best available climate summaries for Nuuk from recent sources . Montreal’s values come from long‑term Environment Canada normals (internal knowledge).

                                                                                            

What jumps out

Nuuk’s coldest lows (~−11 °C) are warmer than Montreal’s typical winter days.

Montreal routinely hits −20 to −30 °C in cold snaps; Nuuk almost never does.

Nuuk’s summer is extremely short and cool; Montreal’s is hot and humid.

🌞 Daylight Comparison (Approximate)

Nuuk’s latitude (64°N) produces extreme seasonal daylight swings. Montreal (45°N) is much more moderate.

                                                                                           

What this means in practice

Nuuk’s winter is dim, not brutally cold.  

You get only ~4 hours of daylight in December.

Montreal’s winter is bright but harsh.  

Even in January you still get ~9 hours of sun, but temperatures can be savage.

Summer flips the script: Nuuk gets near‑midnight sun; Montreal gets warm, long days but nothing extreme.

🧭 Overall Takeaways

Thermal comfort: Nuuk wins in winter; Montreal wins in summer.

Daylight: Nuuk is extreme — very dark winters, very bright summers.

Seasonality: Nuuk’s climate is “cold but stable”; Montreal’s is “warm summers, brutal winters.”

If you want, I can also add wind, snowfall, or wind‑chill comparisons, or build graphs to visualize the differences.

                                                                           *     *     *

So people from Danemark would not feel too dispirited from a Nuuk winter...