> The Antartic ice sheet does not become "ice bergs" until the glaciers > calve into the sea. And the ice sheet during the glacial maximum was > larger than it is now. > > While some skepticism about the IPCC model, which is based on 0.3 > percent of a glaciation cycle, is reasonable, to deny the glaciation > cycle is either ignorant or crazy.
Evidence for ice ages is predominantly, what I see as former sea-floor. This is actually the point: where did all the sand come from?
My personal model is based on 'Growing Earth'. On such an Earth, there were always about one third landmass and rest oceans, but on a different sized Earth.
The former oceans flow into rifts, that later become oceans. There the crust is thinner, what makes such areas expand more easily than former continents.
The former sea-floor than become marshes and later deserts, because the sea-floor drops.
This happened in steps and repeatedly in earth' history.
So what is usually regarded as remains from the ice-age is in this model former sea-floor.
The former crust is also dislocated in relation to the poles, what make former tropics become polar regions (or vice versa).
This is roughly 'Growing Earth'.
See: O. C. Hilgenberger: 'Vom wachsenden Erdball', Berlin 1933
(Unfortunately only in German).
The GE hypothesis also describes an effect, that is very similar to 'global warming'. This would make planets gain mass, longer years and greater distance to the sun. According to Hilgenberger the inner Earth heats up, while the radiation from the sun decreases.
Anyhow, this is 'Growing Earth' and that is FAR from being an accepted theory. But I think it's true, nevertheless.