That water for that dense cloud-cover for the Ice Age had to have come from somewhere.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
End of Ice Age
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Then why does the scientific data show colder oceans rather than warmer oceans?
Do you have ANY data which backs up your statement? Or do you just go with logical inference as your guide?
Edit:
A possibility for you to ponder.
Changing weather patterns.
Did you know that there is very little precipitation over most glaciers?
If the land was once occupied by glaciers which might have had very little actual precipitation over them... where did that precipitation fall?
Do you have ANY data which backs up your statement? Or do you just go with logical inference as your guide?
Edit:
A possibility for you to ponder.
Changing weather patterns.
Did you know that there is very little precipitation over most glaciers?
If the land was once occupied by glaciers which might have had very little actual precipitation over them... where did that precipitation fall?
The O18 isotope levels within deepening ice layers on Greenland reflect that the oceans were cooling while the Ice Age icepack was building up.
That's the point, not much snow falls there now because it's so cold, the air can't hold much moisture (clouds), but with clouds from warmer oceans during the Ice Age, the clouds insulated the polar regions for warmer winters, and cooler summers.
The O18 isotope levels within deepening ice layers on Greenland reflect that the oceans were cooling while the Ice Age icepack was building up.
I quoted this so that the record shows you believe the "oceans were cooling while the Ice Age icepack was building up."
That's the point, not much snow falls there now because it's so cold, the air can't hold much moisture (clouds), but with clouds from warmer oceans during the Ice Age, the clouds insulated the polar regions for warmer winters, and cooler summers.
The lack of clouds means more the sunlight reflects back into space, particularly off ice and snow, thereby reducing the global heat budget. The lack of clouds means more radiation cooling at night, thereby reducing temperatures more. Increased cloud cover is correlated with increased temperatures. Look at Venus (dense cloud cover, incredibly hot) and Mars (little cloud cover, incredibly cold). An ice age is a positive feedback loop.Temperatures fall almost everywhere, including sea surface temperatures, once an ice age starts. Logic and evidence go against your conjecture.
Ice Age:
Get over it. The Ice Age hasn't ended. It's only half-over (or maybe half-back, depending on the future).
So when do you believe the Melt Down COMMENCED? The general view has been that it commenced circa 18,000 years ago, and over the course of many millenia until about 12,000 years ago, the oceans rose during a series of meltings and stabilizations some 350 feet. Then it stabilized for about 2,000 years, then rose another 50 feet commencing circa 10,000 years ago until about 9,000 years ago. That is an AVERAGE rate of only about 400 feet in 18,000 years, or about 1 foot per half-century, not even noticeable during one's lifetime. During periods of more rapid melt, perhaps some communities would have noticed the rise in the oceans, and certainly any settled communities near an ocean shore would have noticed, because they would have had to have been abandoned after a few generations.
I'm willing to readily accept that the last 50 foot rise also occurred in a series of smaller stabilizations, with perhaps the last 10 feet in the more recent past circa 5,000 years ago, and possibly even a few feet in the last 3-4 millenia.
As I've posted before, we see extensive evidence for these periods of stabilizations in the benches of the former Lake Bonneville, as it slowly dried out during the Melt Down, resulting in the current Great Salt Lake and Bonneville Salt Flats. The Melt Down wasn't sudden, and it wasn't continuous. And, it's likely not over, since there is enough ice left to raise the oceans an additional 400 feet, as we know they've been in the past from the benches (google Marine Terraces) we see surrounding the continents.
So, do you have any cogent comments to make? I haven't seen anything new yet. You should also go check the Astronomy section on your post on the Great Pyramid, 'cause I gave you the answer to the secret it contained (and no, you did not have the answer yourself).
Get over it. The Ice Age hasn't ended. It's only half-over (or maybe half-back, depending on the future).
So when do you believe the Melt Down COMMENCED? The general view has been that it commenced circa 18,000 years ago, and over the course of many millenia until about 12,000 years ago, the oceans rose during a series of meltings and stabilizations some 350 feet. Then it stabilized for about 2,000 years, then rose another 50 feet commencing circa 10,000 years ago until about 9,000 years ago. That is an AVERAGE rate of only about 400 feet in 18,000 years, or about 1 foot per half-century, not even noticeable during one's lifetime. During periods of more rapid melt, perhaps some communities would have noticed the rise in the oceans, and certainly any settled communities near an ocean shore would have noticed, because they would have had to have been abandoned after a few generations.
I'm willing to readily accept that the last 50 foot rise also occurred in a series of smaller stabilizations, with perhaps the last 10 feet in the more recent past circa 5,000 years ago, and possibly even a few feet in the last 3-4 millenia.
As I've posted before, we see extensive evidence for these periods of stabilizations in the benches of the former Lake Bonneville, as it slowly dried out during the Melt Down, resulting in the current Great Salt Lake and Bonneville Salt Flats. The Melt Down wasn't sudden, and it wasn't continuous. And, it's likely not over, since there is enough ice left to raise the oceans an additional 400 feet, as we know they've been in the past from the benches (google Marine Terraces) we see surrounding the continents.
So, do you have any cogent comments to make? I haven't seen anything new yet. You should also go check the Astronomy section on your post on the Great Pyramid, 'cause I gave you the answer to the secret it contained (and no, you did not have the answer yourself).
Walter, yours is so absurd, you say the Ice Age all but completely ended by 12000 B.C., and then you say sea level rose much more 6,000 years after that, completely ridiculous, as you say.
So how did those millions of grazers live in the Arctic, D H, is it was COLDER then, as you say?
And you scholars still haven't said where the water comes from to form clouds.
So how did those millions of grazers live in the Arctic, D H, is it was COLDER then, as you say?
And you scholars still haven't said where the water comes from to form clouds.
Well well, Walter, you're trying to accomodate the submergies with you're "willing to grant 50 feet," way after your 12000 B.C., you're making progress!!!!
I believe I wrote "12,000 years ago", which is about 10,000 B.C., NOT 12,000 B.C. But I forgot, you can't do arithmetic. And I posted the same information previously about the last 50 feet rise occuring following a 2,000 year stabilization circa 10,000 B.C. to 8,000 B.C., which then flooded the Black Sea, giving rise to the Noah stories. That too likely took a millenia or so, ending circa 7,000 B.C., though with the last 10 feet possibly not until about 4,000-5,000 B.C., though I do not have good data on that. That could easily explain the very shallowly submerged cities off of India, the possible Bimini harbor, etc., which are in SHALLOW ocean waters. Likewise, it is known that such silty lands as the cities off the coast of India were built upon do subside over time. Look at Venice, which has subsided some 20 feet or more in the last millenia alone. That is not because the oceans have risen, but because the land has subsided. Likely a combination of those factors were at play for some of the cities discovered in shallow coastal waters.
So what NEW have you posted? All of that, as I and others have posted, has been known. What has NOT occurred, as you have suggested, is that the Ice Age with full ice cover did NOT last until just 3,000-4,000 years ago, and then a sudden melt-down occurred raising the oceans some 400 feet to their current levels. You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim. Sunken cities in 20-30 feet of water off the coasts of India, etc., support subsidence, possibly the last 50 feet rise from melt, and more likely that there was possibly 10 feet of rise from melt from circa 6,000 B.C. to circa 2,000 B.C.
Instead of what you suggest, there was a gradual meltdown over many millenia, as detailed extensively in the scientific literature.
And, nothing you have presented supports your 'creationist' gibberish about evolution, either.
And don't forget - the Ice Age hasn't ended -we're likely just in another stabilization lull between melts.
So what NEW have you posted? All of that, as I and others have posted, has been known. What has NOT occurred, as you have suggested, is that the Ice Age with full ice cover did NOT last until just 3,000-4,000 years ago, and then a sudden melt-down occurred raising the oceans some 400 feet to their current levels. You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim. Sunken cities in 20-30 feet of water off the coasts of India, etc., support subsidence, possibly the last 50 feet rise from melt, and more likely that there was possibly 10 feet of rise from melt from circa 6,000 B.C. to circa 2,000 B.C.
Instead of what you suggest, there was a gradual meltdown over many millenia, as detailed extensively in the scientific literature.
And, nothing you have presented supports your 'creationist' gibberish about evolution, either.
And don't forget - the Ice Age hasn't ended -we're likely just in another stabilization lull between melts.
It's funny to watch you scramble to explain the submergies, bet you wish they weren't there, so why don't you just act like they're not there like most mainstream scientists, that way, you wouldn't have to jump through these hoops, ahahahaha.
And you STILL haven't said where the water comes from to form clouds, can you handle that, or is it too hard for you to answer? Ahahaha.
And you STILL haven't said where the water comes from to form clouds, can you handle that, or is it too hard for you to answer? Ahahaha.
Walter, do you mean evolution, per se, or do you mean Darwinian evolution, where goo supposedly morphed into you?
I believe 'mainstream' scientists all recognize the submerged cities. Only fools try to assert that that means the Ice Ages lasted in full glaciation until only 4,000 years ago, then suddenly they melted raising the oceans 400 feet in a matter of a few years.
I believe it is taught in about the 3rd or 4th grade of Elementary schools that water for clouds comes from evaporation from oceans and lakes. Maybe you skipped those years as a child prodigy.
And, you can read the posts about evolution in those threads, where the scientists who post show your ignorance and foolishness in fine detail.
I believe it is taught in about the 3rd or 4th grade of Elementary schools that water for clouds comes from evaporation from oceans and lakes. Maybe you skipped those years as a child prodigy.
And, you can read the posts about evolution in those threads, where the scientists who post show your ignorance and foolishness in fine detail.
Very good Walter, the water for clouds does come mostly from the oceans, so now, think real hard (if you can), were there more clouds or less clouds during the Ice Age?
And you scholars still haven't said where the water comes from to form clouds.
What clouds? The ice ages were times of reduced precipitation, particularly on the ice sheets. Even today, the Antarctic today receives very little precipitation.
So how did those millions of grazers live in the Arctic, D H, is it was COLDER then, as you say?
Millions of grazers in the Arctic during the ice age? How stupid can you be?
From http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercEURASIA.html
LGM and late Glacial 18,000-14,000 14C y.a. Conditions all across northern Eurasia appear to have been dry and treeless, dominated by polar desert or semi-desertic steppe-tundra. There are many sources of evidence supporting this interpretation; where pollen can be recovered it shows a high proportion of plants of open ground, and the 'buried soils' themselves show chemical and morphological indicators of arid conditions, together with such 'desert' features as windblown sands, wind-sculpted pebbles, wind-eroded hollows, and the sediments of intermittant desert lakes (Spasskaya 1992). The very lack of animal fossils or organic sedimentation of any sort from most of northern Eurasia during this period further suggests aridity.
Pollen and morphological evidence suggests that winter (February) temperatures across southern Siberia were about 12 Deg.C lower than at present (Frenzel 1992a), giving winters almost as severe as those in north-eastern Siberia at present. In the coldest parts of north-eastern Siberia, Frenzel suggests winter that temperatures were some 12-14 degrees lower even than the present extreme temperatures. Summer temperatures for August (Frenzel 1992b) are reconstructed as being about 6 deg.C lower throughout Siberia and the central Asian desert region, except in the north-west close to the ice sheet where they may have been 8-10 deg.C lower than today.
Walter, do you mean evolution, per se, or do you mean Darwinian evolution, where goo supposedly morphed into you?
Oh. I see. As stupid as that then.
"Ice Ages had reduced precipitation," oh sure, you're real bright.
There were millions of grazers in the Arctic regions during the Ice Age, how stupid can you be, does it get worse?
There were millions of grazers in the Arctic regions during the Ice Age, how stupid can you be, does it get worse?
"Ice Ages had reduced precipitation," oh sure, you're real bright.
Others have noted that there is little precipitation over glaciers. The Antarctic and Arctic are essentially deserts. What makes you think the ice ages were any different? Hint: It doesn't take a lot of snowfall per year to make the snow pile up when the snow doesn't melt.
There were millions of grazers in the Arctic regions during the Ice Age, how stupid can you be, does it get worse?
The Arctic was covered with ice during the ice age. Thousands of feet of ice. The Arctic was devoid of life.
"The Arctic was devoid of life." Are you kidding, what about those hundreds of thousands of bovines now entombed in frozen muck, where did they come from, outer space?
"Less snowfall to cause the Ice Age," you say, well that pretty much speaks for itself, no need to add to that, ahahahaha.
"Less snowfall to cause the Ice Age," you say, well that pretty much speaks for itself, no need to add to that, ahahahaha.
"Less snowfall to cause the Ice Age," you say, well that pretty much speaks for itself, no need to add to that, ahahahaha.
Strawman.
Where did I say less snowfall caused the ice age? I said less there was less precipitation during the ice age, just as there is on ice sheets today. This reduced precipitation coupled with the ice vastly reduced insolation, just as happens on ice sheets today. The lack of cloud cover vastly increased nighttime radiative cooling, just as happens in deserts and on ice sheets today. The combined effects create a positive feedback loop that makes an ice age form a fairly stable climactic condition: an ice age perpetuates itself. That is quite different from "Less snowfall to cause the Ice Age".
From http://www.asoc.org/general/iceshelve.htm
With a yearly snowfall of only one to three inches, Antarctica is the driest of all continents. Paradoxically, it is covered by seventy percent of the world's fresh water. Over the vast majority of the southern continent, summers never get warm enough to melt what little snow falls and freezes each year. Consequently, the snow has accumulated over hundreds of thousands or even millions of years and compressed under its own weight to form two massive ice sheets.
From http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml
Most of Antarctica is covered with vast areas of snow and ice which reflect about 75% of the incoming solar radiation.
Because the interior of Antarctica is a land mass and far away from the ocean, it gets no warming effect from the water.The interior is characterized by extreme cold and light snowfall. Raging blizzards often occur, however, when winds pick up previously deposited snow and move it from place to place.
Because the interior of Antarctica is a land mass and far away from the ocean, it gets no warming effect from the water.The interior is characterized by extreme cold and light snowfall. Raging blizzards often occur, however, when winds pick up previously deposited snow and move it from place to place.
You have not shown a single hydrology 101 reference on the cause of the ice ages. Try geology 206. Note: nothing about clouds as a cause.
Most scientists admit the .......
You, sir, are a loon. Most scientists....
Most scientists, most scientists.......
Have either one of you dared to go against mainstream theory, apart from "most scientists"?
Wait, the way it's set up is if you don't see it their way........you don't get to be a scientist.
That kind of closes the loop don't you think?
That sounds to me about as modern as the old "water test" for being a witch in the dark ages.
Swim, you're a witch........drown and well........
Same thing different game folks, thats all.
Ok, you all seem to want proof of what?........some metalic technology from 5 or 6 thousand years ago.
Guess what.....metal rusts.
Their tech might be beyond metal, crystals, carbon-fiber epoxies stronger than steel .........so who knows?
I've waited for one person here, just one, to mention something if you really want proof.
But noboday has.
So I'll do it.
If you need proof, theres one place on Earth it might still be found.
One place where metalic technology could still have survived after 5000 years without rusting.
The bottom of the Dead Sea.
Saline content is so high that at depths the oxygen content is lowered to almost zero.
If there is an effort to cloak the past, and dispose of evidence as I've heard.
Go there and look around.
You may be surprised at what you'll find.
Last edited:
The polar icecaps have much volcanic ash, the volcanos were rocking during the Ice Age, much isostatic adjustment to the overburden of the then growing Ice Age icepacks, and readjustment when they melted.
Tree rings do reflect periods of more and less growth, not years.
Ok. Where specifically was the volcanism that distorted the C-14 dating, what evidence is there and how is this volcanism itself dated? I was not aware of an increase in volcanism around 4000 years ago. Is there an increase in CO2 coincident with the ash layers you speak of? Do you have a reference? What do you think of calibration of C-14 dates against varves, which themselves can record many thousands of years'-worth of climatological history?
Also, to clarify, are you saying that many tree rings can form in a single year, thus misleading chronologists? Do you think that there could consistently be two or more wet periods in each year so as to squeeze an apparent 10,000 years'-worth of rings into an actual 4000 years or less?
Additionally, IceAgeCivilizations, I am very interested to hear about the continental-scale flood sediments - their nature, and at which sites they are represented.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.