I don't mind if you just say "Goddunnit", but please don't recite pseudoscience here.
quote:
At the close of the last Ice Age, even a small rise in sea level may have been enough to destabilize the edges of the then existing Ice sheets.
Q: Which is more stable, a block of ice that is freestanding, or a block of ice for which 90% of its mass is bouyed by water?
Now, water will convey heat to the ice faster than air would, if the water is warm enough to do so. However, you would have to have tiny blocks of ice to overcome the surface area problem - something that your "edges of an ice sheet holding back a torrent" case doesn't come close to representing.
quote:
I agree with you entirely that melting todays glaciers would not be anywhere enough water to flood the world
That's an understatement of a ridiculous degree,
quote:
you need to consider the glacial ice volume at the LGM (Late Glacial Maximum). The much larger ice volumes in existence at that time would of had much greater impacts on sea level rise then the mere Ice Age left overs we have today.
So, in short, you think that glaciers on earth *AVERAGED* several *MILES* high at the end of the last ice age? Are you serious? Mount Everest is 8.8km high. Even with your completely incorrect "hydrostatic equilibrium adjusting landscapes on the order of miles" notion, do you have even a remote explanation for this?
By the way, have you ever heard the term "megatsunami"? The water under your scenario of a feedback mechanism of glacial melting would release water in massive bursts (and probably huge landslides as well). This water would not arrive gently on foreign shores - it would arrive as a megatsunami that puts anything in recorded history to shame. The potential collapse of La Palma, one of the Canary Islands, has been modelled to produce a wave 90 meters high. What you propose would make the collapse of La Palma look like the ripples from a light breeze on a pond.
quote:
It would be expected that large scale removal of water from the oceans durning the ice age would cause the ocean floor to rebound which would cause a general subsidence of the continents.
About a 20th of earth's crust is water; furthermore, water is relatively light. So, no, right out, that's impossible.
Furthermore, there's the heat problem. Bending rock releases a *tremendous* amount of heat on the scale that you're talking about. Have you ever felt an iron bar that someone has just bent in half? Picture that much heat being released from every bit of bedrock around the entire planet at once. Earth would be turned into a pressure cooker. Noah wouldn't be worrying about water, he'd be worrying about the fact that he's breathing high pressure scalding steam.
quote:
This newer view will no doubt be a major blow for the over hunting theory
Are you kidding? The extinctions - which you correctly state occur at different times - almost always follow the arrival of humans in the new areas.
quote:
some studies have inferred post-glacial hydroisostatic depression of the crust (e.g. Hopley, 1983, for Queensland, Australia), although estimates of the amount of ocean floor depression vary considerably, which is not surprising given the scattered study sites.
Please, quote us from Hopley, 1983, the depth which he cites. I have little doubt that the statement "vary considerably" is because the amounts are far, far, far, far, far, far, far too small for your hypothesis.
quote:
(e.g. Clark et al., 1978; Clark, 1980)
Please, quote from Clark et al, 1978 and Clark, 1980 as well.
quote:
Marine diatoms can be used to chart sea-level changes, that is what I am doing. If I can accurately document the extent of late ice age marine diatoms far inland ...
Please state your methodology, so we can all get a kick out of it. What is your background for identifying fossilized marine diatoms and distinguishing them from freshwater diatoms? What is your background for dating strata? What geological training do you have at all that would make you even remotely qualified enough for such a task? What method would you use to weed out potential errors, such as long-term inland seas?
quote:
"Estimates for ice-volume sea-level equivalent tied up in equilibrium ice sheets range from as high as 163 m to as low as 102 m. Importantly, all of these calculations presume the ice sheets were at equilibrium."
Not present-day ice sheets.
quote:
Just using their figure of a possible 163 m, you would have a drop in the shoreline of only 54 m since the sea floor has rebounded 54 m and the continent has sunk 54 m.
As discussed before, it will either A) take ages, or B) fry the entire planet, due to the bending of the rock. Take your pick.
quote:
With the reduced ice age relief, maybe that would have been enough to reach the now existing 1000 ft contour line
What on earth are you talking about? "1000 foot contour line"?
quote:
If such results are documented it will be interesting to see the impact on future scientific papers on the subject.
I'm seing a "Creationists Say The Darndest Things!" email circulating in the future.
This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 08:20 PM
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."
™ Version 4.2
