Geoscientists discover trigger for past rapid sea level rise

Jul 11, 2012
Earth

The cause of rapid sea level rise in the past has been found by scientists at the University of Bristol using climate and ice sheet models.

The process, named 'saddle-collapse', was found to be the cause of two rapid events: the pulse 1a (MWP1a) around 14,600 years ago and the '8,200 year' event. The research is published today in Nature.

Using a climate model, Dr Lauren Gregoire of Bristol's School of Geographical Sciences and colleagues unearthed the series of events that led to saddle-collapse in which domes of ice over became separated, leading to rapid melting and the opening of an ice free corridor. Evidence of these events has been recorded in ocean cores and fossil ; however, to date the reason behind the events was unclear and widely debated.

Ice domes up to 3 km thick (three times the height of Snowdon), formed in regions of high and higher , such as the . Together with the saddles – lower valleys of ice between the domes – these made up the ice sheet.

Towards the end of the last ice age, at the time of mammoths and primitive humans, the climate naturally warmed. This started to melt ice at increasingly high elevations, eventually reaching and melting the saddle area between the ice domes. This triggered a vicious circle in which the melting saddle would lower, reach warmer altitudes and melt even more rapidly until the saddle had completely melted. In just 500 years, the saddles disappeared and only the ice domes remained.

The melted ice flowed into the oceans leading to rapid rises of 9 m in 500 years during the Meltwater pulse 1a event 14,600 years ago and 2.5 m in the second event, 8,200 years ago.

Dr Gregoire, lead author of the study, said: "We didn't expect our model to produce such a rapid sea level rise. We got really excited when we realised that the events we simulated corresponded to real events!"

In the model, Dr Gregoire found that saddle-collapse could explain a significant amount of the sea level rise observed: "The meltwater pulse produced by the saddle-collapse can explain more than half of the sea level jump observed around 14,600 years ago. The rest probably came from the progressive melting of ice sheets in Europe and Antarctica."

This research not only identifies the process which caused the melting of the North American ice sheet and the trigger for rapid sea level rises in the past, but also increases our understanding of the nature of ice sheets and climate change, allowing further questions to be posed and, with more research, answered.

Research like this allows climate and ice sheet models to be tested against evidence from the real world. If climate models are able to reflect patterns observed in natural records our confidence in them increases. This is particularly relevant where the models are also used to investigate the effect of climate change on sheets in the future.

Explore further: NASA sees Tropical Storm playing polo with western Mexico

More information: Paper: ‘Deglacial rapid sea level rises caused by ice sheet saddle collapses’ by Lauren Gregoire, Antony Payne and Paul Valdes in Nature

Related Stories

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

New structure found deep within West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Sep 23, 2004

Ice sheet more susceptible to change than previously thought Scientists have found a remarkable new structure deep within the West Antarctic Ice Sheet which suggests that the whole ice sheet is more susceptible to future ch ...

Coral links ice to ancient 'mega flood'

Mar 30, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Coral off Tahiti has linked the collapse of massive ice sheets 14,600 years ago to a dramatic and rapid rise in global sea-levels of around 14 metres.

Declining sea ice to lead to cloudier Arctic: study

Mar 31, 2012

Arctic sea ice has been declining over the past several decades as global climate has warmed. In fact, sea ice has declined more quickly than many models predicted, indicating that climate models may not be correctly representing ...

Recommended for you

NASA catches a weaker Edouard, headed toward Azores

3 hours ago

NASA's Aqua satellite passed over the Atlantic Ocean and captured a picture of Tropical Storm Edouard as it continues to weaken. The National Hurricane Center expects Edouard to affect the western Azores ...

Tree rings and arroyos

Sep 18, 2014

A new GSA Bulletin study uses tree rings to document arroyo evolution along the lower Rio Puerco and Chaco Wash in northern New Mexico, USA. By determining burial dates in tree rings from salt cedar and wi ...

User comments : 89

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

A_Paradox
5 / 5 (4) Jul 11, 2012
That's an interesting thought, if I have understood this correctly. They are saying, on one hand, that a gradual warming of the ocean and atmosphere causes the frost line to rise higher above sea level, and the northern/southern most limits of frost at sea level move towards the poles.

The other side of this is that, where an ice sheet lies across a relatively flat terrain, once the frost line rises above the ground level of that plateau a relatively vast area of ice will start to melt at the bottom. As the lower ice melts away, the ice above subsides and ends up below the frost line so it melts in turn.

Is this going to happen to the Greenland ice cap? And what about Antarctica?
R_R
1.5 / 5 (37) Jul 11, 2012
What a bunch of crap. Giant impacts at great lakes and lower right Hudson Bay 10500 BC incinerated previous ice cap and pole shift left the remaining ice outside the new arctic circle where sun did its work. But hey pass the cheque to the good little sheep.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (37) Jul 12, 2012
I see some brainwashed little coward gave me a 1 out of 5. Why not debate me and feel free to bring a van full of phds you little coward, ill show u whats what.
gmurphy
4.3 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012
@R_R, 'Giant impacts at great lakes ... incinerated previous ice cap'?, you want debate?, the only thing I'm debating is how completely detached from reality you are. Why not take up religion?, it suits crazy people.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (33) Jul 12, 2012
another murph, so completely brainwashed he cant comprehend he has been brainwashed, what a sad world we live in
R_R
1.1 / 5 (34) Jul 12, 2012
Always the same, cant produce any real evidence, just yak on like a parrot repeating what they're told, brainwashed farm animal.
R_R
Jul 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
R_R
Jul 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
FainAvis
5 / 5 (21) Jul 12, 2012
@R_R You have an attitude problem. Keep a civil tongue and you may get some takers.
R_R
Jul 12, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MarkyMark
4.7 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2012
#$@% you lol

I think he would rather you didnt buba, and i have yet tee see evidence for youre theory either.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (34) Jul 12, 2012
marky boy, you will never see the evidence because i will never show it to u, waste of time
Dug
5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Nothing like a scientific debate to stimulate the mind.
rubberman
4.8 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2012
So R_R stands for "Really Retarded" then?
You posted a lame ass theory, you show evidence as to it's credibility...if there is any....anywhere. Otherwise you're just another crackpot typing his way into ridicule on a science website.
R_R
1 / 5 (28) Jul 12, 2012
U are so right, this is very scientific like, ignore and ridicle anything that challenges the current paradigm, that way all the selfish ass arrogent yes men scientists get thier cheques.
R_R
1.1 / 5 (28) Jul 12, 2012
rubberman to the rescue of science, thats about right. Not one post yet that refutes the two giant craters I alluded too earlier. Bring it on yes men
R_R
1.2 / 5 (28) Jul 12, 2012
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is a 12500 year old horseshoe crater carved when the Michigan Basin was smashed down in a bowl formation, the arc at lower right hudson bay was formed 12500 years ago when a meteor pierced the continent like a bullet and then filled with lava. Bring it on u brainwashed genuises, i show u whats what
rubberman
4.8 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2012
U are so right, this is very scientific like, ignore and ridicle anything that challenges the current paradigm, that way all the selfish ass arrogent yes men scientists get thier cheques.


You are ignorant and rediculous!!!!!
Where's my cheque?
R_R
1.2 / 5 (26) Jul 12, 2012
like a rubber stepford wife
rubberman
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2012
Like a walmart gag reel
R_R
1.2 / 5 (26) Jul 12, 2012
yup, the state of science today, just another wall street
Shootist
4.7 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012
Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is a 12500 year old horseshoe crater carved when the Michigan Basin was smashed down in a bowl formation, the arc at lower right hudson bay was formed 12500 years ago when a meteor pierced the continent like a bullet and then filled with lava. Bring it on u brainwashed genuises, i show u whats what


dood, I don't buy AGW, but if those two geographic locations were 12500 year old meteor craters, we'd all, the entire planet, would still be dead.

Both of those formations are larger than Chicxulub, the 185km diameter astrobleme, formed by the 10km bolide, that did in the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
rubberman
4.8 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2012
yup, the state of science today, just another wall street


Shootist gave you a scientific explanation that invalidates your theory on the impacts. Since you don't agree with science I wasn't even going to point out the lack of geological evidence for a shift in obliquity as recent as 12500 years ago on the scale you claim to have happened. As Shootist points out, 12500 years is nowhere near long enough for the planet to recover to it's current state from an impact that of that size.
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but if your going make it public, expect responses based on how valid it is. And if you are going to debate like a child, expect to be treated like one.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (24) Jul 12, 2012
Shootist, that is at least is an attenpt to show evidence against me, thanks. You will find though that there is clear scientific evidence that the chicxulub impact is about 300,000 years earlier then the dinosaur extinction and I promise u the impact crater responsible for dino extinction is many times greater then Chicxulub. Question now is will u ignore this new info.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (25) Jul 12, 2012
Rubberman, not invalidated read above. It baffles me how people just up and say there is no geological evidence for recent earth axis change. They just accept that it was normal for mile thick ice sheets to reach into the USA on one side of the pole while on the other side in siberia and alaska millions of mammals roamed a nice temperate ice free arctic ocean coast line. Do u not see it, Like give ur head a shake.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012
And then suddenly all ice up and disappears from North America while Alaska and Siberia freeze solid, perfectly preserving mammoths for 12000 years. Your being duped people.
rubberman
4.8 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Are you still pushing the whole Hudson Bay as the Geographic north pole, or is the great pyramid speaking more rationally these days? That is a 30 degree change in axial tilt which puts the center of Siberia on about the same line of latitude as Cairo....that ain't mammoth country. All the numbers I can find on the "hudson bay rock" peg it at around 5KM. Nowhere near large enough to cause a change that large, and not in the correct location to cause the shift you propose.
R_R
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2012
Rubberman, keep in mind that 12,000 years ago people were little differemt then us and whatever happened they witnessed it. Now the GP is a mathematical record of what hapeened and it is no coincidence pi was found in it (100 years ago) because it represents Earths northern hemisphere. It pinpoints the old pole at hudsonbay right in center of north american ice sheets but more to the point right in center of the canadian shield, home of polar ice cap since the last great pole shift at dinosaur extinction. No ice ages, no interglacials, just science manipulating the evidence.
rubberman
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2012
12000 years ago, the general concensus was that the world was flat, apparently other than the authors of the GP mathematical record....you would think news of this globular earth would have reached other civilizations, it would have made life alot simpler for Columbus.....
R_R
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2012
The general consesus is wrong, at least one civilization 12000 years ago new the earth was round and were able to find thier position on this planet using the stars, the first egyptians were the direct descendents of the survivors and built a memmorial based on passed down records. By the way nearly every nation remembers the resultant flooding, and there are many ancient myths that remember the pole shift including Noah who says he witness the earth tilt or something to that effect. I can counter anything u bring to table and show how science manipulated it but im guessing your mind is closed, correct me if wrong.
A_Paradox
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2012
Wow, I made a comment some days ago, but only just noticed that phys.org had emailed me about other comments. So I came back and looked, and ... WTF ... why is someone raving on about meteorites?!

Well it is good that the filter button removes the nasty comments with one simple click!

I did do a simple & quick Google search on 'most recent meteorite impacts and discovered a website called Scientificpsychic.com [at first I baulked at the 'psychic' bit but, whatever ..] and learned about a meteor/astoroid _air burst_ about 12,900 yeas ago which is thought to have exploded over SE Canada and started forest fires all across North America. The smoke from the fires is said to have precipitated a _cooling_ event.

"The catastrophe started what is now called the Younger Dryas cool interval, which was a period of cold weather lasting approximately 1300 years."

cont>>

A_Paradox
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2012
"Young Dryas, etc" cont ...

The article says the fire storms, and the cooling wiped out the North American mega fauna and 'the Clovis People'.

They say that the evidence can be seen in layers of soot and charcoal, dated to that time, which occur in widely scattered locations across North America. They say there is an inclusion of microscopic diamonds in the soot, which is said to indicate a comet as the source. But no indication of big craters! They offer the following very reasonable comment on that score:
"It is also possible that the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered large areas of North America during the last Ice Age, was thick enough to mask the impact."

That makes sense, surely. Ice, one or more kilometres thick, may indeed have melted in a few spots directly beneath where the comet fragments terminated, but not a whole ice cap!

The Tunguska impact of 1908 showed what such an air burst can do to a forest. If dozens of fragments like that exploded over Canada ...wow!
R_R
1 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2012
It has been shown that all of North America and Europe were incinerated, Nanodiamonds and uridium layer worldwide, the reason the few invested scientists dont go further is to avoid another firestorm. For what they have said they have been attacked or ignored. The 500 km wide craters are plain as day, lower right Hudson Bay and lake michigan/lake huron. But the powers that be dont want u to know, ur sheep to them.
A_Paradox
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2012
It has been shown that all of North America and Europe were incinerated, Nanodiamonds and uridium layer worldwide, the reason the few invested scientists dont go further is to avoid another firestorm. For what they have said they have been attacked or ignored. The 500 km wide craters are plain as day, lower right Hudson Bay and lake michigan/lake huron. But the powers that be dont want u to know, ur sheep to them.


R R,
would you please provide details of the references you are relying upon in making these assertions.
R_R
1 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2012
Paradox, science has been covering this up for over 60 years scince Hapgood and Velekovski and Eistien tryed to show the way. Perhaps though u should start by reading Dr. Richard Firestone' s book, "the cycle of cosmic catastrophies". I have been able to take it to the next level because no one has a thumb on me but more importantly I have deciphered the eye witness evidence. believe it or not but this no joke.
A_Paradox
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2012
RR,
whether or not the claims of Firestone are all true or partly true or whatever, it has no bearing on the discussion in the article above concerning a newly discovered trigger for rapid rises in sea level in prehistoric times. Why did you purport that it does?

What a waste of everybody's time!
R_R
1 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2012
Saw that coming, it is pertinent because these impacts melted the icecap in a day causing the rapid rise in sea level, not the crap in the article. But selfish arogent brainwashed sheep can only say no no no (ba ba ba) your kind is the reason for all the worlds problems.
R_R
1 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2012
Well Paradox, how long u going to sit around your palace and come up with your next arogent remark. Wonder how many people starved to death, how many species went extint, how many mega tons of carbaon went into the atmospher, how much closer the next impacter is while u put your makeup on.
SteveL
4.8 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2012
Well, first off the dates don't match up with the article. R-R's 12,500 years ago and then later 12,000 years ago - pick a date and stick to it.

The discredited Younger Dryas impact hypothesis indicates the year 12,900 BP, and when no evidence was found to support it the date was later moved to 10,900 BP. Again no evidence has been found to support this theory.

The present article specifically mentions dates of 8,200 years ago, possibly effected by the Mount Mazama eruption as they are only 500 years apart, and 14,600 years ago which just happens to fall into the time span of the Missoula Floods for which there is a massive amount of available physical geological data.

I can find no geological data that would indicate the massive fracturing from an impact event in the Great Lakes region. Of course, conspiracy theorists could incorrectly conclude that every geologist is hiding the data for some nebulous and senseless reason.
R_R
1 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2012
oh another one, 12500 years ago. Impact hypothesis discredited by who? how? All u parrots do is repeat what u told. Why dont u explain why the other dates are so accurate. ya right i wont hold my breath and if u try i will grind u to bits. No geologic evidence for impact great lakes says the parrot, any one else should investigate "michigan basin", this area smashed down with such incredible force deep rock layers buckled up in bowl formation. polly want a craker?
R_R
1 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2012
Cmom polly, instead of skawking what u told, why not produce actual evidence to back up what u say. I jam crackers down ur throat.
R_R
1 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2012
Show us u so much smarter then Albert Einstein who wrote the forward for Mr Hapgoods poleshift book and was reading Mr Velikovski when he passed. Excuse me while i puke.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2012
The risks of AGW gets bumped up when we know why we observe what we observe, especially since it can happen again. The west Antarctic ice sheet is similarly unstable (floats on water), and I'll bet Greenland is the next weak ice cover.

The science denialist is frenetically pattern searching to explain away AGW as a mere random pattern.

Seems the current consensus on Hudson Bay is 2/3 mantle convection and, ironically here, 1/3 ice age rebound. A few geologists have pushed a Pre-Cambrian impact, before complex multicellulars existed - few takers.

Similarly the Great Lakes are fused then rifted plates starting some ~ 1.1 - 1.2 billion years ago. Such low power events didn't threaten life (see the Africa & Island rifts today), but was an opportunity for evolutionary diversification. [Wp]
R_R
1 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2012
Isostatic rebound is nothing more then sciences coverup of impact rebound. have a good day
Ancient Coder
not rated yet Jul 14, 2012
The air temperature is lower the higher you go!

As the top melts off, the ice is exposed to warmer air at lower altitudes and melts even faster!

There was an article on here not too long ago about this observation with the Greenland ice sheet!
casualjoe
5 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2012
Yes, all scientists are in it together, for years covering up this fantastic secret from everybody using their unholy genius.

Do you know how silly you sound RR? Have you ever met another person? You really sound like you haven't.
R_R
Jul 14, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docmordin
5 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2012
A whole bunch of nonsense from R_R


The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis has been disproved in several papers:

F. S. Paquay, et al., "Absence of geochemical evidence for an impact event at the Bølling-Allerød/Younger Dryas transition", PNAS 106: 21505-21510, 2009
T. L. Daulton, et al., "No evidence of nanodiamonds in Younger-Dryas sediments to support an impact event", PNAS 107: 16043-16047, 2010
T. Surovell, et al., "An independent evaluation of the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis", PNAS 106: 18155-18158, 2010
H. Tian, et al., "Nanodiamonds do not provide unique evidence for a Younger Dryas impact", PNAS 108: 40-44, 2011
J. S. Pigati, et al., "Accumulation of impact markers in desert wetlands and implications for the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis", PNAS 109: 7208-7212, 2012
A. van Hoesel, et al., "Nanodiamonds and wildfire evidence in the Usselo horizon postdate the Allerød-Younger Dryas boundary", PNAS 109: 7648-7653, 2012
R_R
1 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2012
The examples u presented dont even agree with each other, one says "no evidence of nanodiamonds in younger dryas sediments" and another says " nano diamonds dont provide evidence for younger dryas impact" impling they there. U proved didly by suppling a bunch of speculation by bought and paid for yes men.
docmordin
5 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2012
See also:
J. R. Marlon, et al., "Wildfire responses to abrupt climate change in North America", PNAS 106: 2519-2524, 2009
A. L. Westerling, et al., "Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity", Science 313: 940-943, 2006
T. W. Swetnam, "Fire history and climate change in giant sequoia groves", Science 262: 885-889, 1993
A. Hubbe, et al., "Early Holocene survival of megafauna in South America". J. Biogeography 34: 1642-1646, 2007
A. J. Stuart, et al., "Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth". Nature 431: 684-689, 2004
J. L. Gill, et al., "Pleistocene megafaunal collapse, novel plant communities, and enhanced fire regimes in North America". Science 326: 1100-1103, 2009

In short, the observed "nanodiamonds" were actually graphene/graphane oxide aggregates. Also, had there been an impact there would have been widespread fires and megafaunal extinctions at the Pleistocene epoch would have affected many more animals.
R_R
1 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2012
Dr Richard Firestone has showed North America and Europe incinerated with discovery of "black mat" layer in ground. Have u never heard of ice age extinction event, one of largest in earth history, over 20 species of elephant alone lost.
R_R
1 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2012
ScienceDaily (Sep. 14, 2010) Nanosize diamonds have been discovered in the Greenland ice sheet, according to a study reported by scientists in a recent online publication of the Journal of Glaciology. The finding adds credence to the controversial hypothesis that fragments of a comet struck across North America and Europe approximately 12,900 years ago.

"There is a layer in the ice with a great abundance of diamonds," said co-author James Kennett, professor emeritus in the Department of Earth Science at UC Santa Barbara. "Most exciting to us is that this is the first such discrete layer of diamonds ever found in glacial ice anywhere on Earth, including the huge polar ice sheets and the alpine glaciers. The diamonds are so tiny that they can only be observed with special, highly magnifying microscopes. They number in the trillions."
docmordin
5 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2012
The examples u [sic] presented dont [sic] even agree with each other...


You obviously don't understand the theories you espouse, let alone the content of the references I posted.

In one of their seminal papers on the, now disproved, Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, D. J. Kennett, et al., ("Nanodiamonds in the Younger Dryas boundary sediment layer", Science 323: 94, 2009) observed "nanodiamonds" (they weren't nanodiamonds, they were graphene/graphane oxide aggregates) and concluded that they catalyzed from the air shocks produced by comets or carbonaceous chondrites.

Following this report, H. Tian, et al., in their study, put forth plenty of evidence showing that crystalline structures were likely not formed from an exogenic impact. However, even if they were, van Hoesel showed that they formed after the start of the Younger Dryas, which implies that something other than an impact event triggered the climate change.
R_R
1 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2012
Doc, This is so typical, first it say "they werent nanodiamonds" as if fact then they say "however even if they were". u need to do better cherry pickin.

Apart from the Mexican site, the researchers also identified sediment layers of the same age, dating back 13,000 years ago, in Canada, the United States, Russia, Syria and various sites in Europe. The same family of nanodiamonds, including the impact form of nanodiamonds called lonsdaleite, which is unique to cosmic impact, and high velocity collided spherules were found. These features are impossible to form through geologically natural processes here on Earth, and seem to lead to the conclusion of a cosmic impact.
R_R
1.3 / 5 (15) Jul 15, 2012
The only fact is there is a unigue worldwide layer of these diamonds. All these studies nit picking, the dates wrong, the types wrong, blah blah blah, all just speculation from people with vested interests. As if they can date anything back that far with no error. Meanwhile the big picture becomes obscure.
docmordin
5 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2012
You obviously have serious reading comprehension issues.

To spell things out for you, H. Tian, et al. showed that the existence of nanodiamonds alone does not provide sufficient evidence for a Younger Dryas impact, as nanodiamonds can be deposited by stellar dust (Z. R. Dai, et al., "Possible in situ formation of meteoritic nanodiamonds in the early solar system", Nature 418: 157-159, 2002; N. A. Marks, et al., "Nonequilibrium route to nanodiamond with astrophysical implications", Phys. Rev. Lett. 108: 075503, 2012), formed in charred wood (F. Banhart and P. M. Ajayan, "Carbon onions as nanoscopic pressure cells for diamond formation", Nature 382: 433-435, 1996), etc.; that is, nanodiamonds can form outside of impact events.

van Hoesel showed that nanodiamonds in sediment layers from multiple areas postdate the Younger Dryas boundary. As a result, if nanodiamonds were formed from an impact event, that impact event wasn't the catalyst for the climate change/extinctions.
docmordin
5 / 5 (12) Jul 15, 2012
To add more, A. C. Scott et al. ("Fungus, not comet or catastrophe, accounts for carbonaceous spherules in the Younger Dryas 'impact layer'", Geophysical Research Letters 37: L14302, 2010) showed, as the title of their paper suggests, that the carbonaceous spherules observed by Kennett et al. were not the product of an impact event, adding yet more evidence against the Dryas Young impact hypothesis.

As for your comment about lonsdaleite, it cannot be used as a irrefutable indicator of shock metamorphism. For example, lonsdaleite is absent from the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary, where only shock-produced cubic diamond was found (R. M. Hough, et al., "Diamonds from the iridium-rich K-T boundary layer at Arroyo el Mimbral, Tamaulipas, Mexico", Geology 25: 1019-1022, 1997); additionally, C. Koeberl et al. ("Diamonds from the Popigai impact structure, Russia", Geology 25: 967-970, 1997) could not find any in their study of the Popigai crater.
R_R
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2012
Space dust blanketed the earth in diamonds, thats a new one. Thanks
R_R
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
Did ur space dust bring some iridium too

Abstract Details
Exceptional iridium concentrations found at the Allerød-Younger Dryas transition in sediments from Bodmin Moor in southwest England

Elevated iridium values, dated to start of the Younger Dryas cooling event, have been found in sediments deposited at a number of Late Glacial sites in North America and one in Europe. It has been proposed (e.g., Firestone et al., 2007, PNAS 104: 16016-16021) that this widespread iridium enrichment signal is the result of an explosive disintegration of a large extraterrestrial object over North America around 12,900 cal. yr BP, and it is contended that it was this event which instigated the Younger Dryas cooling.
Peter Hent
5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
I see some brainwashed little coward gave me a 1 out of 5. Why not debate me and feel free to bring a van full of phds you little coward, ill show u whats what.


You don't debate to prove your case with the scientific method... you gather and assemble data into a coherent package that supports your hypothesis.

In your case, the data (the geology of the lakes) puts your idea to bed before it even gets its socks on.

If you think otherwise, you have to either:

a) Show how the currently mapped geology of not just the lakes, but the surrounding landscape, supports your idea or

b) Show how existing Geologists made a massive misinterpretation of the field data*

*Caution: this involes you remapping the entire area again.
R_R
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
Im not a scientist and I dont have to hide hehind ur big science words and I especially dont have to do anything u tell me too. I not here to convince any of u closed minds just show others the truth.
CardacianNeverid
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2012
Im not a scientist and I dont have to hide hehind ur big science words and I especially dont have to do anything u tell me too. I not here to convince any of u closed minds just show others the truth -RRTard

Yeppers, Iz dont need no fancy booklearnin' to tellz me wots wot, coz I knowz me better from my gutz!
R_R
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
I guess clever cuz signals it has devolved too far, not much point in going on. My book "message from the ancients" explains how the survivors measured and recorded a 28 degree pole shift 10,500 bc and how all the evidence easily supports this. What science is up to beats me. Best John
SteveL
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
I imagine your "book" has a lot of pretty pictures that you crayoned. Were you able to stay inside the lines?
paddyconroy
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2012
RR, you can argue with these people all day long and just drive yourself mad lad, but your nearly there, have you ever noticed what is so different about these places on earth where they all say humans came from, or came out of ? before they spread out across the rest of the earth after whatever did happen to cause the earth`s problems eh ? earth were stripped of 99.99% of it`s atmosphere and humans could then only survive in 2 spots of earth where a little air had remained,and those spots on earth were the lowest points on earth, the Rift valley and Isreal, hence why the Jews lay claim to this spot ? next time it happens, as it will again as it has time & time again already, and only those people (Gods people) living in those area`s will survive again, after the last time this happened the first place they could move to on higher ground (with air) were what were known back in those days as the raised lands, Egypt ect.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2012
The raised lands Egypt were first called by the people who populated it ? only people living in the lowest lands could of named Egypt by that name then ?
R_R
1 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2012
Thanks for that Paddy, you are right it does ware u down. Evidence and common sense have no sway, just a pack tring to remove your flesh. This is definately not a problem of evidence but has to do with human nature. I found your take very interesting and had not heard it put that way, could well be. I might think there was a few more pockets for survival then that but certainly u are very close to truth. Perhaps people just dont want to know.
Parsec
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2012
What a bunch of crap. Giant impacts at great lakes and lower right Hudson Bay 10500 BC incinerated previous ice cap and pole shift left the remaining ice outside the new arctic circle where sun did its work. But hey pass the cheque to the good little sheep.

Giant impacts at 105000 BC caused the melting in 14000 BC? Good rule of thumb... don't post drunk.
R_R
1 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2012
Parsec, why dont u sum up in plain english what evidence there is that u so sure this great melt occured 14000 bc (article says 14600 years ago, that 12600 bc for u sober ones) and I show u were speculation presented as fact.
xen_uno
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
Noah of Noah's Ark fame mentioned in a science forum? Now I've seen everything. RR and his alias Paddy need to take their mythology elsewhere.

Paddy - " .. earth were stripped of 99.99% of it`s atmosphere and humans could then only survive in 2 spots of earth where a little air had remained,and those spots on earth were the lowest points on earth, the Rift valley and Isreal .. "

FYI paddy ... lowest point on dry land is the shores of the Dead Sea (1,371 ft below sea level). Pressure there is 15.43 psig (compared with 14.7 psig @ sea level). Since your expertise is in fairy tales and not science, this means with such a minor difference, suffocation at sea level is suffocation at -1,371 feet. I'm not gonna tackle your ridiculous scenario of earth losing 99.9% of its atmosphere, which would require an impact so great as to turn the earth into another asteroid belt.
R_R
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2012
And in those days, Noah saw the Earth had tilted and that its destruction was near. Book of Enoch 65.1

Uno thinks talk of earth tilt thousands of years ago is just something someone came up with while watching the sheep, he will never understand he is the one laying in a bed of hay.
xen_uno
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2012
RR - "Uno thinks talk of earth tilt thousands of years ago ... "

Try billions which is way before man came along to create religion as a means of mind and social control for the weak minded masses. False prophets such as yourself are dealt with harshly in the Old Testament, aren't they? You should be scared as hell.
R_R
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2012
Hey, I'm not the one ling to you and I get no benifit knocking my head against a wall, believe me. I mean this is very simply if u let it be, (look down on globe) North America covered ice and Siberia covered Mammoths then suddenly ice melts Maommoths freeze. Can u please explain why you and others here are so quick to disgard this, I dont get it.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
Hi RR, im not into this stuff really but i do like my
Egyptology, and i have my own theories, the very first people who populated Egypt named it the Raised lands, they could have only named it that if they have arrived there from living prior in low lands ? http://ww w.halexandria.org/dward204.htm
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
Beginning circa 18,420 B.C.E. (possibly November 15th, a Tuesday), Ptah became the first king of Egypt and was known as the Creator God, "A very great god who came forth in the earliest times." He undertook great works of land reclamation and dyking -- thus explaining Egypt's nickname, "The Raised Land".
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
Moses knew what he were doing when he lead all the people back to the lowest point on Earth where they had originally came from ? after all the plagues and locusts ect he`s thought "here we go again" with whatever destroyed our world in the past, lets get Gods peoples back to where they knew they would be safe again ?
R_R
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
Hi Paddy,the first egyptians are auctually the last of the Atlantians, a civilization going back tens thousands years. They were well aware the earth round from earliest times and I can tell you highly mathematical. Impact was of upmost importance becauase homeland destroyed more then once. Raised lands would be very important in these circumstance. Hope this helps.
R_R
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
Just to clarify the Egypyian civilization is a relocation due to impact in Indian ocean 3200 bc.Burckle crater.
MarkyMark
4 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2012
R R stop talking to yoursel with your alt you just make yourself seem a little more crazy than gullable!!!
wtfscience_
5 / 5 (1) Jul 17, 2012
It's painfully obvious RR and Paddy are one in the same.

I'm always wary of any "scientific" information that comes from skitzo's with horrible grammar and spelling.
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
R R: "I dont get it."
The rest of us realized this when you started posting.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2012
RR, you`v proper got Einstein`s goatie going there mind you have, nice one though lad. lol
R_R
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2012
lol, la polica paradigm no engleh
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2012
anyone ever thought about this might have something to do with the shifting of the magnetic poles ? http://www.guardi...eed=true
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2012
does magnetic pull force hold the cold there in that area of our earth along with the other reasons of its location to the sun,if so that force is coincidently moving area during the same timing as these same areas are melting ?
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2012
it were just a thought lol it would explain why the ice aint changing in other area`s of the globe, other than at the poles ? look at what`s already happened to the ice down in the the south Atlantic anomaly region ?
SteveL
5 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2012
There is no "magnetic pull" on the climate. Not unless you can prove there is a lot of ferrous metal in the atmosphere.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2012
not on the climate itself, but could the magnetic pull force hold the cold into the solid ground between the earth`s core and the earth`s surface area before it reaches above that ?
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2012
What does my fellow inmate RR think on that ? i note all the wannabe Einsteinian`s have went into hibernation on this one RR ?
R_R
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2012
Hi Paddy, its hard for me to comment as my knowledge of magnetic pole is limited, you would have to show climate amomolies have followed magnetic pole movement back through time and then you might have something. My guess is science doesnt have near as good an understanding as it pretends and that type of questioning is what leads to breakthroughs.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 04, 2012
Thanks RR,still it`s shut most of the half wits up i note ? they`v not even a thought on this one ? lol the previous one, the earth`s lowest point on land, if earth`s atmosphere were somehow stripped away from our globe, and only 1% of it managed to escape that stripping, then that 1% air would imedietly all move and relocate itself at the worlds lowest`s points on our globe, leaving it these places the only place on earth that anything could survive? first humans found near Afar ? http://www.selamt...Lucy.htm
SteveL
5 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2012
The closest you could come to the magnetic pole, which is generated from the earth's core, having an influence on the global climate would be from its magnetic shield protecting us from solar radiation, and far more tenuously its influence on the earth's crust - which then effects continental drift.

Geological magnetism would not be holding heat or cold in locations, either up or down.
paddyconroy
1 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2012
Thanks Steve, i were just tossing a thought about to find that answer, i thought that if the magnetic pull held the cold in the iron ore of that region and then the magnetic pull force were moving hundreds of miles away, like we know it presently is, then maybe it were warming the area that the force had moved away from then, such as the south Atlantic anomaly region ? as its both these area`s of the globe that the ice is melting, not elsewhere such as the Indian Himalayas,where their glaziers are quite stable, dont at up if its global warming i reckon, or have the Indian Himalayas galziers formed because of their altitude hight ? and its also both those 2 regions where the ice is melting that the magnetic pull force beneath that region that is going hat wire ? it were just a thought of mine though like i say ok, just wanted to check with you`s guys.