Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Wmscott,Thanks for your reply. I'll get back with you later tonight or tommorrow.Be Well,Patrick

Originally posted by wmscott:
Patrick- You may have raised a valid point on the foraminifera and forams.
They may have been present in my samples, and I just didn't recognize them because I wasn't looking for them and didn't think to consult an identification guide for them. I will have to take that into consideration next time. And just because I didn't look for them doesn't mean they aren't there.Forams would be hard to miss. Given the thousands of soil surveys and soil micromorphology studies that have been done in the US and around the world, if the forams were present even in very low concentrations, they would have been found and noted long ago. That's my point.This is important because, unlike diatoms, the forams are clearly too heavy to be wind-transported over long distances. As I said before, it would be strange flood indeed that only deposited marine organisms that happen to be in the wind-transportable size fraction.On settling of diatoms, as already posted earlier in our discussion, strong currents were not necessary to flood the world and the evidence we have indicates that in general strong currents were not part of this event.Strong currents are not optional. The flood reached its highstand a mere 40 days after it began. You can't flood an entire continent in 40 days without strong currents, AT LEAST locally if only because of topographic irregularities.On the seaway explanation for the Michigan whales, no such sea way is believed to have existed. You are perhaps thinking of the Champlain Sea which didn't extend far enough west to count for the whales. On the timing of the deposits, both diatoms and whales are found in material from the end of the ice age.You're missing the whole point. The whale bones around the margins of the great lakes and the fauna of the Champlain sea are localized deposits which can easily be explained by a localized transgression of marine water. No matter how you slice it, that's no evidence for a global flood. And how far away from the proposed margin of the Champlain sea deposits are the Michigan whales found? It cant be very far. The graph below, from the "Michigan Whale Fossils" page, seems to indicate that the whale fossils are found only near the margins of the great lakes:
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.htmlWhere can I find more information on the stratigraphic context in which the bones were found? I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, but its hard to evaluate a claim like this until I get such basic information.And your statement that "both diatoms and whales are found in material from the end of the ice age" not only fails to establish synchrony, but is in fact inconsistent with your association of the flood with H0 (younger dryas event). As I've pointed out, H0 (~12kyr Bp) occurred ~2000+ yrs AFTER the end of the last glaciation (termination 1, ~14.5kyr Bp). There's no doubt about this since both events are present in the same paleoclimate records, and are clearly seperated by the Blling-Allerd warm period.On a comet impact on an ice sheet you stated. "contrary to what you say, all kinds of impact modeling and empirical research has been done" Could you kindly post some links or give some references? I would like to review such information.I'll find some references for you.On Heinrich events, the information on these events is a big step forward for the discussion on this board. Earlier Edge had posted "We have already established that this is not the behavior of ice sheets. No complete ice sheets have melted, surged or otherwise been disrupted in history. Jokhulhlaups occur on the fringes of glaciers and ice sheets. Never has an entire ice sheet been affected that I can tell."Huh? No complete ice sheets have melted in history, i.e. the past ~5000 years, so Edge is correct. And indeed the Heinrich events did mainly involve changes at the margins of the ice sheets. Greenland and Antarctic ice caps were not subject to mass-wasting or other major disruption by H0.Furthermore, as I am going to demonstrate in my next post using oxygen isotope data, H0 is associated with smaller ice-volume changes than the multiple Heinrich events preceding it, and of course was much smaller in magnitude than the ice-volume changes seen at each of the multiple glacial-interglacial transitions preceding it, none of which, oddly enough, seem to be associated with a global flood.The Henrich events answer his objection that yes they have and strongly enough to raise the world's sea level by 10 feet. These events appear to happen in connection with each retreat of each ice age or stage. A number of earlier retreats where associated with a rise in sea level, and a Heinrich event would be a good possibility of how the rise occurred. Now as I was saying earlier, if a comet impact or impacts triggered a Heinrich event, the event could have been much larger and abrupt than it would have been otherwise. The earlier non comet triggered Heinrich events possibly occurred in stages over a period of time, with the result that the oceans had more time to isostatically adjust under the increased water depth. A comet triggered event could have been too abrupt for this adjustment to keep pace with, and the larger size of the event trigged a larger rise in sea level. This sudden large rise, unlike the earlier Heinrich induced rises, was great enough to trigger a general surging of the ice sheets into the rising waters.See above. As I will show, H0 is not associated with a major global ice-volume reduction, major change in sea-level, major change in sea-surface temperature, or major input of ice-rafted debris, compared to numerous similar events which preceded it. Give me some time to get my ducks in a row and I'll give you quantitative data backing this up. I don't view the dating of the HO event as a problem at this time, considering that a number of the events, that at least to me that seem to have all been connected, have varying assigned dates with a spread of a few thousand years.Perhaps you dont view this as a problem simply because you are unfamiliar with how H0 (and the younger dryas interval on land) is dated? It is perhaps the best dated event in the entire quaternary record, especially in the north Atlantic region, and can be dated to annual to decadal-scale resolution with tree rings, varve counts, annual layer-counting in GISP2, and other methods. And as I pointed out above, there is no question at all that a) termination 1 occurred ~2000 years before H0/younger dryas and that the two events were seperated by the Bolling-Allerod warm period, and b) that H0 occurred 5000+ years before the biblically-dated flood (~4500 yrs Bp). If you're trying to imply that maybe H0 really occurred 4500 yrs Bp, or that H0 and termination 1 are synchronous events, then you are wrong.Now if, if the 0 Heinrich event was the start of the biblical flood, then yes we should be able to locate the flood in the ocean floor sediment cores. I agree that evidence of this event should be visible in these records.Thank you. You just made my job very easy. You'll see what I mean in my next post. But yes this was one very stealthy flood, the movement of water on and off the land was for the most part very steady and did not involve rapid movement or flow. . . The water currents would not have been fast, but they would have been vast and prolonged. Some effects from this type of prolonged current change may show up.Nope. As I pointed out, strong currents, at least on a local scale, are not optional when flooding an entire continent in a mere 40 days, even if the rate of sea-level rise is steady and constant.What I would expect to see is evidence of the isostatic depression in the form of earthquake induced turbidity flows and evidence of some areas experiencing a large increase in depth with a resulting change in conditions. . . But I would expect a lot of other cores to show earthquake turbidity flows at this time in other parts of the world.Again I conglatulate you on finally making some definite predictions (or agreeing with my predictions). Now, we are finally getting into a position to evaluate your flood theory rigorously.These effects may not be present in all areas, for some areas may not have experienced significant isostatic depression. The location of the cores will need to be taken in consideration when looking for these effects. The channel area between Greenland and North America is not that wide compared with an ocean and may not have been depressed very much. Not to worry my friend - the bases are well-covered! There are numerous cores throughout the east and west north Atlantic (e.g. Greenland-Norwegian Sea, Irminger Basin, Labrador Basin, ), and elsewhere, that we can examine for evidence of the H0 global flood event, including several right near margins of the Laurentide ice sheet. Just a few that we can look at are DSDP 609, ODP 643, V23-081, V23-14, V23-81, V28-14, etc. The graph below shows just a portion of the cores we can examine:Regarding the locations of the cores, the ideal location for looking for coseismic mass-slumping and turbidity currents would clearly be toe-of-slope and near-margin basinal locations, from which we have many cores. However, distal portions of turbidites and terriginous detritus would be evident over a much wider area.And remember, as a consequence of the proposed H0/global flood association, we can now identify the flood interval precisely in numerous records. This wont leave much wiggle-room once we start examining this data.In order to keep the goal posts from moving, maybe you could tell me beforehand where, exactly, the largest isostatic readjustmenst occurred? It would be best if you were as precise as possible, since only you know the details of your hypothesis.Patrick

quote:

---

Originally posted by ps418:
Originally posted by wmscott:
On the seaway explanation for the Michigan whales, no such sea way is believed to have existed. You are perhaps thinking of the Champlain Sea which didn't extend far enough west to count for the whales. On the timing of the deposits, both diatoms and whales are found in material from the end of the ice age.

​

You're missing the whole point. The whale bones around the margins of the great lakes and the fauna of the Champlain sea are localized deposits which can easily be explained by a localized transgression of marine water. No matter how you slice it, that's no evidence for a global flood. And how far away from the proposed margin of the Champlain sea deposits are the Michigan whales found? It cant be very far. The graph below, from the "Michigan Whale Fossils" page, seems to indicate that the whale fossils are found only near the margins of the great lakes:

​

http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/michwls.html

---

This is a good point. Thank you for the map. It shows clearly the relationship of the whale bone locations to elevation. I have repeatedly asked wmscott for the elevations of his anomalous whale bones and glacial drop stone deposits. He has not shown any to be higher than 600 to 1000 feet asl. Considering that we know the Champlain Seaway to have reached nearly this far, it is not a reach at all to think that there were connections to the areas where the whale bones were found. This is hardly a global flood.

quote:

---

Where can I find more information on the stratigraphic context in which the bones were found?

---

This is critical information. I hope that wmscott can provide it.

Patrick and Edge, you two seem to be thinking very much a like so I will respond to you both at once. I think in terms of "strong" currents we will have to start using some numbers as to the speeds involved, for in forty days at a slow walking speed of 2 or 3 miles per hour, the rising waters would have been able to reach just about everywhere. 40 days is 960 hours, times 2 equals 1920 miles traveled or times 3 would be 2880 miles. There are few places on earth that far inshore. We are also assuming that the rise in sea level all took place in 40 days, it may very well have been longer. On topographic irregularities causing faster currents due to pinch points you are absolutely correct, and we see such erosional effects due to this at places such as the Straits of Gibraltar, the Bosporus Straits, the Manych depression and many other places where the terrain focused the effects of the otherwise slow current flow.On the Michigan Whale bones, SW Wisconsin drop stones and diatoms in SE Wisconsin all being the effects of a minor extension of the Champlain sea flooding of the St. Lawrence river valley. Here below is a map of the extent of the former Champlain sea.If you look to the lower left side of the map, notice that the Champlain sea failed to even extend into lake Ontario. Lake Ontario has an elevation of 245 ft, the next lake west is lake Erie at 570 ft and is separated from lake Ontario by Niagara Falls. To cover the whale sites in Michigan would require a rise in the Chaplain's level by well over three hundred feet. The pattern of ice age and post ice drainage is known, and from this it is known that the areas west of the former Champlain sea were not depressed nearly enough to have once been under its waters. The pattern of fossils is that the finds in the Champlain sea area are associated with marine mud and bottom life showing a long marine submergence. While the other finds farther to the west, lack the marine muds and bottom creatures, showing that the submergence in that area was much briefer. What happened is the areas west were only briefly submerged in the flood, while the Champlain sea area was flooded for a time after the flood until the on going process of glacial rebound slowly raised the area back above sea level. I am very happy that you guys are at least being to see a pattern behind the origin of the evidence, that it all is best explained by a single flood event of one type or another... On the locations of the drop stones in the Driftless Area here some information on their locations. The book "The Physical Geography of Wisconsin, Third Edition by Lawrence Martin 1965, pages 130-131 sites Grant River valley and near the Mississippi at several localities east of Trempealeau, La Crosse, and De Soto, at elevations of 380 to 480 feet above the river, which would be about 1000 ft above sea level. In the book "Ice Age Lost" by Gewn Schultz on page 270 she talks about the occurrence of glacial erratics or drop stones in the Driftless area, but blames them on pranksters and gives no locations. For information on the Michigan whales see the book, The Late Quaternary Development of the Champlain Sea Basin, edited by Nelson R. Gadd. The details as I recall where they were found by people digging basements or whatever, they were found in gravel and or sand deposits reworked by glacial run off or former streams. On the HO event, I do not even mention it in my book, and would like to associate it with the flood, but I would like to have much more information before I would positively make that claim. I will say it appears to be a very likely association for the time being"No complete ice sheets have melted in history" Really? I am not sure what you meant to say, flood or no flood, the ice sheets are gone. And I didn't say they melted all at once to create the ether, they released trapped melt water which had melted earlier and was merely released at that time, and they surged into the sea or were surrounded by water where they sat. So I don't get your point on this one. As for the Heinirich events only effecting the edges of the ice sheet, the rise in sea level by one of these events was 10 feet, that is a lot of edge. As the water rises, the 'edge' moves inshore and continues the process. In earlier events this was probably a step by step feed back event. A sudden comet triggered event would run at a possibly faster pace and be large enough to raise sea levels high enough to trigger more general surging which in turn triggered even more surging and so on.I look forward greatly to your future posting on coseismic mass-slumping and turbidity currents in ocean cores. Please also consider the possibility of H1 instead of H0 as being the flood. Considering the limited look I have had on these events, I think it best to consider the last two in case I got it wrong. "where, exactly, the largest isostatic readjustments occurred?" The Pacific ocean as the largest ocean would have experienced the greatest depression, perhaps as much as a mile or more. Smaller ocean areas would have experienced proportionality smaller amounts of isostatic depression. The shifts where felt planet wide and were not limited to just the oceans, effects will also be found on land as well.

Originally posted by wmscott:
As the water rises, the 'edge' moves inshore and continues the process. In earlier events this was probably a step by step feed back event. A sudden comet triggered event would run at a possibly faster pace and be large enough to raise sea levels high enough to trigger more general surging which in turn triggered even more surging and so on.I need clarification on something. I'm moving this question to the top of my post becase I want you to answer it as soon as you can. I understand that your theory involves the melting of a large proportion of the glacial ice, but I'm unclear on how much exactly. I need as definite an answer as you can give me. Are you basically proposing a rapid deglaciation, where global ice volume shrinks from the level of the last glacial maximum to roughly modern ice-volume during the flood? That seems to be exactly what you are proposing, but I want to make sure of this before I make my next post.We are also assuming that the rise in sea level all took place in 40 days, it may very well have been longer.You're confusing me again. Are you defending the biblical flood or something else? The biblical flood has the rain falling and fountains of the great deep opening for 40 days, after which the rain ceases, the fountains close, and the waters are calm. Your flood may be different, of course. . .On topographic irregularities causing faster currents due to pinch points you are absolutely correct, and we see such erosional effects due to this at places such as the Straits of Gibraltar, the Bosporus Straits, the Manych depression and many other places where the terrain focused the effects of the otherwise slow current flow.Now explain why we don't see these features worldwide on the continents, for instance around mountains and hills, especially in areas closer to the equator where there is no evidence for glaciation!"No complete ice sheets have melted in history" Really? I am not sure what you meant to say, flood or no flood, the ice sheets are gone.I "meant to say" exactly what I did say. You seem to be having a reading problem. I said that Edge was correct that no complete ice sheets have melted in history! By history, I mean the span of time since the first written records, the past ~5000 years or so. The melting of the Laurentide ice sheet did not occur within this time, but long before. Hope that clears things up for you.As for the Heinirich events only effecting the edges of the ice sheet, the rise in sea level by one of these events was 10 feet, that is a lot of edge.Let's see . . . 10ft is just about 3m. The average difference between glacial and interglacial sea-level is over 100m, about 125m according to Fairbanks [Fairbanks, R.G., 1989, A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record; influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation: Nature, v. 342, no. 6250, p. 637-642. ]! So, the Heinrich events you wish to associate with your global flood are associated with relative sea-level changes about ~3% of that associated with the glacial-interglacial cycles which have occurred repeatedly over the past ~2My. And the sea-level rises you are referring to are not associated with the H events themselves, which are cold periods, but with rapid warming at their termination.Please also consider the possibility of H1 instead of H0 as being the flood. Considering the limited look I have had on these events, I think it best to consider the last two in case I got it wrong.H1, being several thousand years earlier than H0, is even more incongruent with the biblical chronology than H0. But whats a few thousand years between friends? Although you say that you favor a biblical date, but even allowing any reasonable margin of error, not a single event you associate with the flood is in agreement with the biblical chronology. At any rate, whether you prefer H1 or H0 won't affect anything as far as my argument goes.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-04-2002]

Hi wmscott,If you're in the question answering mood, I have a few simple ones to add to Patrick's list...You said:

quote:

---

"where, exactly, the largest isostatic readjustments occurred?" The Pacific ocean as the largest ocean would have experienced the greatest depression, perhaps as much as a mile or more. Smaller ocean areas would have experienced proportionality smaller amounts of isostatic depression.

---

I'm a little confused by this aspect of your model. Are you proposing that melting of ice sheets added water to the ocean basins, which depressed those basins by up to 5000 feet or more? Is this the process that allows Flood waters to recede from the land after the "very short" Flood? Is this what you are calling "isostatic depression"?If so, how did you arrive at the "mile or more" figure for the "isostatic rebound" of the Pacific Ocean? Can you express your result in isostatic bouyancy equations describing pre-Flood conditions, Flood conditions, and post-Flood conditions for the various areas (ocean basin, continent, glaciated continent, etc)?Thanks,...and be happy...

PatrickNo my theory does not involves the melting of a large proportion of the glacial ice at the flood event. In involves the sudden release of already melted melt water, trapped underneath the ice sheet in the subglacial lake, and lakes of water on top of the ice sheet and lakes dammed up by the ice sheet in glacial lakes. The comet impact or impacts would also have melted some ice, but % wise, not very much. The comet impact caused a sudden release of the subglacial lake waters which caused a massive surge of ice into the ocean. This was probably seen in the ocean cores as a Heinrich event. This surge event raised sea level high enough to trigger the start of a domino chain reaction surging event. As each surge raised the sea level higher and triggers another surge. As the water rises, the remaining glaciers didn't even have to move to be in the ocean, it came to them. At the end of the flood, after the waters had drained into the isostatically depressed ocean basins, the ice sheets for the most part were still where they were before. Some large amounts ended up in the seas, some went aground on land in other places. Some of the world's ice sheets may have split into pieces and drifted apart into sections before regrounding. The amount of ice before and after the flood was roughly the same. The biggest change would be the sudden release of formerly trapped melt waters, and the redistribution of large amounts of ice into the oceans.On the 40 days, since the rising waters came from glacial surging, the length of the rain fall is unimportant. The account in the bible is vague on when the springs of the deep where closed, which could be an indirect referral to the effects glacial surging would have on sea level. Considering the size of the events, and the comparative lack of erosional effects, it may have been that the waters rose for half the time period of the flood and went down for the other half. Noah and company were in the ark for most of a year, and then exited on a high point, which would allow more possible time for the water to finish draining from the lower elevations.On topographic irregularities causing faster currents due to pinch points-" explain why we don't see these features worldwide on the continents, for instance around mountains and hills, especially in areas closer to the equator where there is no evidence for glaciation!" When water drains, the water flow is concentrated in the low points like river valleys, not the hill tops. We do find this erosional evidence in a number of places, some of which are near the equator such as the straits of Gibraltar where the sea floor shows giant ripple marks from a massive in rush of water into the Mediterranean. These marks left by the rapid movement of huge quantities of water are found in a number pinch points around the world.wehappyfew
Good to hear from you again. On "the "mile or more" figure for the "isostatic rebound" of the Pacific Ocean? Can you express your result in isostatic buoyancy equations describing pre-Flood conditions, Flood conditions, and post-Flood conditions for the various areas" The figure is based on a worst case scenario of theoretical flood depth, that what if the ice sheets contained half the earth's water and suddenly released them back into the sea. At a theoretical maxim depth of about 4,000 ft for the flood waters, the oceans covering 2/3 to of the earth's surface, would have in theory been depressed about 6,000 ft to hold that much more water. The actual flood depth may have been less of course. What kind of isostatic buoyancy equations are you referring to? Could you give some examples or provide a link to a demonstration of such equations. I am not sure what you are looking for.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:
Patrick

​

No my theory does not involves the melting of a large proportion of the glacial ice at the flood event. In involves the sudden release of already melted melt water, trapped underneath the ice sheet in the subglacial lake, and lakes of water on top of the ice sheet and lakes dammed up by the ice sheet in glacial lakes. The comet impact or impacts would also have melted some ice, but % wise, not very much. The comet impact caused a sudden release of the subglacial lake waters which caused a massive surge of ice into the ocean. This was probably seen in the ocean cores as a Heinrich event. This surge event raised sea level high enough to trigger the start of a domino chain reaction surging event. As each surge raised the sea level higher and triggers another surge. As the water rises, the remaining glaciers didn't even have to move to be in the ocean, it came to them. At the end of the flood, after the waters had drained into the isostatically depressed ocean basins, the ice sheets for the most part were still where they were before. Some large amounts ended up in the seas, some went aground on land in other places. Some of the world's ice sheets may have split into pieces and drifted apart into sections before regrounding. The amount of ice before and after the flood was roughly the same. The biggest change would be the sudden release of formerly trapped melt waters, and the redistribution of large amounts of ice into the oceans.

​

---

I'm still not clear on this. Like I said, I need to be absolutely clear on what you are proposing vis a vis the transfer of ice and water to the oceans.Are you saying that only a very small proportion of the total ice+meltwater volume entered the ocean during your flood/glacial surge? Surely you are not assuming that the drainage of a ice-dammed lake alone would hydro-isostatically depress the ocean basins by a mile? I must be misunderstanding something, since you'd obviously need to have a huge amount of ice and/or meltwater entering the oceans to effect any significant sea-level change or hydro-isostatic movement.The biggest change would be the sudden release of formerly trapped melt waters, and the redistribution of large amounts of ice into the oceans.This is part of what I'm after -- how much meltwater PLUS glacial ice ended up in the oceans? So, how much ice plus meltwater ended up in the ocean basins by the end of the flood? "Large amounts" is not precise enough to be tested, since what is large depends on the scale (some events are huge on a local scale, but totally insignificant on a global scale).The global change in ice volume from the the Last Glacial Maximum LGM to the present is estimated to be 52x10^6km3 [Lambeck, K. et al., 2000, Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Late Glacial: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 181, p. 513-527.]How much of this was either melted or displaced to the oceans by the flood? A tenth, a quarter, a half? Obviously it has to be a huge amount if it is going to have much sea-level or isostatic effect.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-05-2002]

Patrick, understandably incredulous, asks:

quote:

---

How much of this [ice mass] was either melted or displaced to the oceans by the flood? A tenth, a quarter, a half?

---

Well, wmscott seems to think half of ALL water on the PLANET was in the ice sheet when he says this:

quote:

---

...based on a worst case scenario of theoretical flood depth, that what if the ice sheets contained half the earth's water and suddenly released them back into the sea. At a theoretical maxim depth of about 4,000 ft for the flood waters, the oceans covering 2/3 to of the earth's surface, would have in theory been depressed about 6,000 ft to hold that much more water...

---

Perhaps he meant to say half of the earth's FRESH water. Please clarify this for us, wmscott. The first interpretation of your statement makes no physical sense on a real earth, the second will not result in any significant Flood. Which do you prefer?Since you have apparently written a book having isostatic rebound as one of the main characters, I am even more surprised that you have not heard of the equations that describe isostacy. Here are a few links to get you started...IsostacyEustasyEquationsMore equationsEquations specifically geared towards glacial isostacyGravity Surveys in Antarcticaand a journal article:Isostatic postglacial rebound over Fennoscandia with a self-gravitating spherical visco-elastic Earth model
E. Le Meur p. 318-327, Annals of Glaciology, Volume 23, 1996

WHF -- you're dangerously close to letting one of my cats out of the bag. As you say, however, estimates of half the world's water present as glacial ice are way off . . . But I can still settle for a percentage rather than an absolute value [i.e. what percentage of global ice volume that was transferred to the oceans since the LGM was transferred during the flood].Wmscott, take your time and give me your best answer when you are ready.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-06-2002]

Wmscott:
The figure is based on a worst case scenario of theoretical flood depth, that what if the ice sheets contained half the earth's water and suddenly released them back into the sea.Good thing we have WHF here, because I somehow missed this, twice! You dont really think half or anywhere close to half of the earth's water was present as ice during the LGM, do you?!At any rate, would you say that somewhere around half of the global ice volume that was transferred to the oceans since the LGM --whatever it was in absolute terms -- was transferred during the flood? This is definite enough to work with.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-06-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-06-2002]

The historical record in the bible unfortunately fails to give us any depth soundings of the flood waters. Since Noah apparently lacked a weight and a length of rope, we will have to make some estimated guesses of how deep the flood waters might have been. Lets use the range of from 500 ft to 4,000 ft. The shallower numbers sounds more believable until you remember the statement that everything was submerged, if correct it would require a pretty subdued topography. Which is why the higher end depth numbers are attractive in their own way, yet they are just the extreme end of the range we are considering, the actual amount was probably less. No one knows for sure how much water was contained in the former ice sheets, or even the exact range they covered, all the figures are like what will follow, estimates.First let's go metric, so the range is 152m to 1219m. The earth's surface is 509,600,000 sqkm, with 45,000,000 sqkm believed to have been glaciated. Using the figure you gave of 52,000,000 cubit km for total ice volume would result in a global flood depth of only 102m. Global floods in the 152m to 1219m range would take an ice volume of 77,459,200 cukm to 621,202,400 cukm, which would be 1.5 to 12 times as much ice as the ice sheets are believed to have contained, although a smaller flood using just the believed size of the former ice sheets is still a possibility. (this clear things up for you wehappyfew?) With 45,000,000 sqkm glaciated with 52,000,000 cukm, the average thickness would be 1,156m, for the range I gave, thickness would be 1721m to 13,804m. Of course as the volume of the hypothetical ice sheet increases, the area of land to support it also increases which would reduce the average thickness, and the area actually glaciated in the last ice age may have simply been larger than is currently believed which would also reduce the average thickness. As for the amount of water/ice that ended up in the sea, just subtract the volume of current glaciers (23,000,00 cukm?) from the former figure, or from the range I gave above. That would put between 54,460,000 and 598,292,400 cukm into the oceans over time. Much of the water dumped into the oceans was in the form of ice, which slowly melted over time dropping stones on the ocean floor as the ice drifted. Since the surging glaciers displaced the ocean water, the surge itself was probably nearly pure ice % wise, the huge volume of tapped melt waters would probably be minor compared to the over all volume of glacial ice. The current ocean area is about 361,600,000 sqkm, which for the range I have given, would have been depressed an average of 50m to 553m, under the increased average depth of 151m to 1,658m. The depression is expected to be some what in the shape of a parabolic curve resulting in greater depression in larger basins. Using a rough ratio for the density of water to rock of 1 to 3, the weight of water put into the oceans would have displaced between 18,153,333 to 199,430,800 cukm of magma inside the earth. Since there is more land than there is water, the depression of the oceans resulted in a greater rebounding of the land areas. Most of the rebound occurred in areas once covered by ice sheets that lost much of their ice into the sea. There was also a general up lifting of the land as well as demonstrated by raised shorelines. On the amounts of ice left on land that later melted, and the amount initially dumped into the sea, it would % wise be smaller for the smaller flood, greater % would be put in the seas for the deeper floods. For thicker ice sheets would spread out more if surrounded by thousands of feet water, they would be much more unstable. If we assume a volume equal to the present ice volume 23,000,000 cukm in addition to what we have now, was left on land to melt away from the former ice sheets, that would have put between 31,460,000 cukm and 575,292,400 cukm into the oceans in a short period of time. Our present earth is the end result of these shifting pressures, the difference between the various models is what the ice age oceans looked like before the flood, how much water had been withdrawn and how much had their basins rebounded. The withdrawal happened slowly over time, while a large portion of the return was very quick. This difference in speeds has resulted in a different pattern in the shifts in the lithosphere before and after the flood. If for the moment we take the high end of the flood ranges I gave, which would mean pulling 1658 m depth of water out of the worlds oceans and would in turn result in a rebounding of the ocean floor of an average of 553 m. Since the weight was transferred to the land, the glaciated areas would in theory sunk a corresponding amount. However, since the water is in many cases being transported over longer distances than the sifting pressures on the asthenosphere could reasonably be felt, the rebounding of the ocean floors would have caused a general sinking of the adjoining land areas. This effect would be like letting the air out of a balloon, the earth's topography would become flatter. The weight of mountain glaciers would increase the effect of course. This resulted in many coastlines subsiding as the ocean floors were raised, which would tended to disguise the amount of water withdrawn. The sudden return of much of this water would result in the asthenosphere being unable to flow suddenly fast enough to accommodate the pressure changes. This resulted in a deeper flexing of the earth. Since density increases with depth, and isostatic shifts are on a weight for weight basis, the deep sudden flow involved material denser than the asthenosphere. Things tend to even out over time, so as the asthenosphere flows to compensate for the deeper shift, the asthenosphere is less dense resulting in a rebounding over time in formerly glaciated areas and an on going depression under isostatically depressed areas.Thank you wehappyfew for the links, I noted an interesting statement on one of the web pages. "This study demonstrates a positive feedback process in the deglaciation stages in terms of eustatic change. The destabilization of an ice sheet causes destabilization in other ice sheets."The earlier statements on the lack of foraminifera got me thinking so I reviewed some of the pictures I had taken with my microscope of Unidentified Field Objects, and compared them with some foraminifera pictures on the web. I found one. Not sure which type yet, but from the size, shape and characteristics it appears to be a foraminifera, looks a bit like Dentalina mariei, only with a bend. Have to pick up an identification guide and figure out what it is. Seems I was wrong to focus on diatoms exclusively.

Now, we are finally in a position to solve the mystery of the Scott Flood Theory by comparing it to the paleoceanographic data. There are two major lines of evidence I want to discuss. First is the actual record of eustatic sea level rise since the LGM, based on coral terrace records from numerous far-field sites (far from glaciated regions). Second is the record of oxygen isotope ratios preserved in benthic foraminifera, which can tell us not only the amount of water removed from the oceans during glaciations, but also the timing and rate at which this water returned to the oceans during deglaciation.Sea-level data and the LGM ice volumeOriginally posted by wmscott:
No one knows for sure how much water was contained in the former ice sheetsThis is a fatal assumption. Sure we know how much water was contained the former ice sheets, within reasonable limits of certainty, and this poses spectacular problems for your theory. The amount of ice present at the LGM is constrained by the eustatic sea level change from the LGM to today. Sea-level at the LGM was about 120m, +/- 15m below modern sea level. All of the accepted LGM ice volumes fall within this range. I don't know of anyone in this field who postulates a drastically larger ice volume. If you think that the LGM ice volume is being vastly underestimated, then submit your evidence for peer-review. Till then we'll go with the concensus.We know that the LGM sea-level was ~120m based on coral terraces and other sea-level data. For instance, the illustration below (Fleming et al., 1998) shows the relative sea-level change from the LGM to present, based on hundreds of data points from Tahiti, Jamaica, Barbados, Senegal River, Papua New Guinea, Cape St Francis, Mayotte, Irabu Island, West Malaysia, Timor Sea, Great Barrier Reef, New South Wales, and Huon Peninsula.Fleming K., Johnston P., Zwartz D., Yokoyama Y., Lambeck K., and Chappell J. (1998). Refining the eustatic sea-level curve since the Last Glacial Maximum using far- and intermediate-field sites. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 163, 327-342.So, barring a radical reinterpretation of the eustatic data, the Scott Theory is inconsistent with the eustatic sea-level data. It simply doesn't fit with the sea-level record. The most obvious feature of the curve is that is broadly gradual. Relative sea-level does not change dramatically (say >20m in 500yrs or so) either at H0, H1, or at any point since the LGM. In fact, sea levels following H0 and H1 were about 40 and 20m lower than today, respectively.However, on a finer scale, there are periods in which sea-level rose relatively quickly, by several meters in a few hundred years. These are at the termination of H0, which corresponds to the well-documented Younger Dryas warming (~11.5Ka), a meltwater pulse at ~14.5Ka, (Cronin, 1999, p.394) and another at about ~18Ka (Lambeck et al., 2000 and refs therein).Lambeck, K. et al., 2000, Global ice volumes at the Last Glacial Maximum and early Late Glacial: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 181, p. 513-527.Also recommended is a recent paper by Peltier:Peltier, W.R., 2002. On eustatic sea level history: Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene Quaternary Science Reviews 21 (1-3), pp. 377-396.And the following primary references for individual sites used in the eustatic curve:Bard E., Hamelin B. and Fairbanks R.G. , 1990. U/Th ages obtained by mass spectrometry in corals from Barbados. sea level during the past 130,000 years. Nature 346, 456-458.

​

Bard E., Hamelin B., Arnold M., Montaggioni L., Cabioch G., Faure G., and Rougerie F., 1996. Deglacial sea level record from Tahiti corals and the timing of global meltwater discharge. Nature 382, 241-244.

​

Chappell J. and Polach H., 1991. Post-glacial sea-level rise from a coral record at Huon Peninsula, Papua New-Guinea. Nature 349, 147-149.

​

Fairbanks, R.G., 1989. A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Nature, 342, 637-642.

​

Locker, S. D., Hine, A. C., Tedesco, L. P., and Shinn, E. A., 1996. Magnitude and timing of episodic sea-level rise during the last deglaciation.Geology, 24 (9), 827-830.

​

Okuno, J., and Nakada, M., 1999. Total volume and temporal variation of meltwater from the last glacial maximum inferred from sea-level observations at Barbados and Tahiti. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 146, 283-293.

​

Peltier, W.R., 1998. Postglacial Variations In The Level of the Sea: Implications for Climate Dynamics And Solid-Earth Geophysics. Reviews of Geophysics, 36, 4, 603-689. I should also point out the ALL of the research I've read includes detailed discussions of isostatic and hydroisostatic processes, which take into account such things as mantle vicosity.And yet another argument against sea-level much lower than -120m is that this would produce major, shelf-wide unconformities at each glacial maximum (since we know that the glacial maxima lowstands were of similar magnitudes - see below).Oxygen isotope evidenceOxygen isotope ratios provide another way to constrain the LGM ice volume. The logic is as follows: there are two oxygen isotopes in water, 18O and 16O. Water molecules containing the the light oxygen isotope (16O) are preferentially evaporated from the ocean. As more and more water evaporates from the ocean and accumulates on land as ice, the oceans because more and more enriched in the heavier oxygen isotope (18O). Thus, during a glaciation, the the ratio 180/16O [hereafter delta 18O] increases, and when the ice melts and returns to the oceans during deglaciation, the delta18O in seawater decreases.The record of this oxygen isotope fluctuation is preserved by the tests of foraminifera. Thus, as forams live and die and sink the ocean flood, they preserve a record of the isotopic composition of seawater over time. The record of the last several glacial cycles are especially well-documented.[The delta 18O in forams is a function both of the 18O/16O of ambient seawater, AND the temperature at which calcification occurs. The temperature of calcification can be determined by Mg/Ca ratios, and thus the seawater 'component' of the isotopic fluctuation can be estimated. ]The illustration below shows a record of seawater delta 18O/16O over the past 350,000 years (Lea et al., 2002). The large cycles with a period ~100k years represent full glacial-interglacial cycles. The coral based sea-level data from Barbados and Huon Peninsula are plotted against the oxygen-isotope sea level curve, and show excellent agreement. Note also that, as far as we can tell, the last few glaciations have occurred at about the same rate and tempo, and have been associated with similar changes in eustatic sea level. So, either we have no global flood, or repeated global floods.Lea et al write:The record of oxygen isotopic variations in foraminifer shells from deep-sea cores preserves a continuous record of ice volume and sea level oscillations. To extract the ice volume record, however, it is necessary to remove the temperature and local hydrological influence on 18O. We employ the strategy of estimating calcification temperatures from Mg/Ca and removing this signal from an observed 18O record of planktonic foraminifera from a core on the Cocos Ridge, eastern equatorial Pacific. The residual, 18Owater, reveals a pattern of changes that appears to be consistent with known ice volume and sea level variations. Over the last four glacial terminations, 18Owater decreases by 1.20.1. The magnitude of high stands appears to be consistent with modern sea level during MIS 5.5 (5e), 7.1 and 7.5 but somewhat lower during MIS 9.1.

​

David W. Lea, , a, Pamela A. Martina, Dorothy K. Paka and Howard J. Sperob, 2002. Reconstructing a 350 ky history of sea level using planktonic Mg/Ca and oxygen isotope records from a Cocos Ridge core. Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 21, pp. 283-293See also:Mashiotta, T. A., Lea, D. W., Spero, H. J. (1999) Glacial-interglacial changes in Subantarctic sea surface temperature and d18 O-water using foraminiferal Mg. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 170, 417-432.It has been estimated that a 10m drop in sea level is equal to an increase in oceanwater delta 18O of about 0.11. The variation of seawater delta 180 over the last 4 glacial terminations is 1.2, consistent with a sea level drawdown of 120m. However, a drawdown of sea-level such as the Scott Flood model proposes, from 1.5 -12 times the accepted value, would produce a much greater foraminiferal enrichment in 180 than is observed.First let's go metric, so the range is 152m to 1219m. The earth's surface is 509,600,000 sqkm, with 45,000,000 sqkm believed to have been glaciated. Using the figure you gave of 52,000,000 cubit km for total ice volume would result in a global flood depth of only 102m.If sea-level is, say, -100m to start with, and you add 100m of water, you won't get a global flood. At best you'd get local inundation in greatly depressed areas.Global floods in the 152m to 1219m range would take an ice volume of 77,459,200 cukm to 621,202,400 cukm, which would be 1.5 to 12 times as much ice as the ice sheets are believed to have containedAs above -- the data show that such estimates are wildly inflated. The real data constrain the ice volume to much less than 77.4 million km3. although a smaller flood using just the believed size of the former ice sheets is still a possibility. (this clear things up for you wehappyfew?)A true global flood is not possible using a realistic estimate of LGM ice volume, nor is it consistent with the actual record of eustatic sea level rise since the LGM. With 45,000,000 sqkm glaciated with 52,000,000 cukm, the average thickness would be 1,156m, for the range I gave, thickness would be 1721m to 13,804m. Of course as the volume of the hypothetical ice sheet increases, the area of land to support it also increases which would reduce the average thickness, and the area actually glaciated in the last ice age may have simply been larger. . . And here you run into yet more observational constraints. The range of the ice is defined by the range of glaciogenic features such as terminal moraines, striated pavements, and so on.As for the amount of water/ice that ended up in the sea, just subtract the volume of current glaciers (23,000,00 cukm?) from the former figure, or from the range I gave above. That would put between 54,460,000 and 598,292,400 cukm into the oceans over time. Much of the water dumped into the oceans was in the form of ice, which slowly melted over time dropping stones on the ocean floor as the ice drifted.The ice would not persist as ice for very long, especially given that H0 and H1 are both followed by major increases in sea surface temperature. Also, the fact that the Heinrich layers thin from about a foot at the mouth of the Hudson Strait to about an inch at the eastern limit of the drift path shows that they were melting fairly quickly. Finally, the discharge of iceberg armadas during Heinrich events is correlated with negative oxygen isotope excursions in north atlantic planktonic forams, which requires the ice to have melted fairly quickly. See for instance:Hiscott, R.N., Aksu, A.E., Mudie, P.J., and Parsons, D.F., 2001. A 340,000 record of ice rafting, paleoclimatic fluctuations, and shelf-crossing glacial advances in the southwestern Labrador Sea. Global and Planetary Change, v.28, p. 227-240. Got more to say. Hopefully I can find some more time this weekend.Patrick

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-07-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-07-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by ps418, 02-08-2002]

quote:

---

Where are the planktonic foraminifera, for instance? Why no marine organisms larger than, say, 100um in those midwest soils? Hmm."

---

This may not add anything to this discussion but I have personally collected and observed foraminifera from the Upper Cretaceous Selma Formation chalk in northeast Mississippi. I've read there are some 60 species occuring in the formation but in one sample of the formation in an hour of casual looking under a basic light microscope I only turned up one obvious species, which I did not attempt to identify. There were shards of silica also present, but whether these were diatoms, volcanic dust, sponge spicules, or something else I don't know.

Patrick;
If you are celebrating over having let your 'cats' out of the bag, you can put the cork back in the champagne bottle. Most of your 'cats' are dead, there may be 100 uses for a dead cat, but I don't know any of them. The information you posted on the history of sea level changes was very nice, but I was already well aware of that information when I developed my flood model. All of these sea level records are time dependent. The level has to be changing slowly or at one level for a time to be recorded. Under the model I use, the rise and fall in sea level is too brief to show up in these records. That is to be expected since as I having been posting, we do not find marine bottom life on land as a result of the flood. Since the flood was too brief to create corals on land, it is to be expected that it was too rapid to show up in coral ring records. The only parts I would maybe expect to see would be the pre flood and post flood changing levels, for example there may have been a slow tapering off in the rate the sea level went down at which may have been gradual enough to be detectable in coral and other records.On the amount of ice contained in the former ice sheets, I like to propose the possibility of larger ice caps, but such are not essential to my flood theory. On your statement that "Sure we know how much water was contained the former ice sheets, within reasonable limits of certainty, and this poses spectacular problems for your theory." I will have to balance your statement against the following one.
" It is also worth noting that despite all our efforts, we still do not know unequivocally the distribution of ice on the planet during the last glaciation!" (Late Glacial and Post Glacial Environmental Changes; Quaternary, Carboniferous-Permian, and Proterozoic, Edited by I. Peter Martini 1997, p.22) If the distribution is not known, how can the total amount of ice contained by those same glaciers be known? Guess it all depends on how you define the term 'reasonable limits'. Is 150% still reasonable? What is the percentage range on your figures? Perhaps the lower part of the range I gave is with in 'reasonable limits'. And since I allow for the possibility that the ice sheets were not any larger than is currently believed, this is hardly a 'fatal assumption'. But I, unlike some others, allow room for the possibility that our current understanding of the distribution and thickness the Pleistocene ice sheets in the future may very well turn out to have been too small. One cute comment on "I don't know of anyone in this field who postulates a drastically larger ice volume." well I do. Well, at least the possibility anyway.On the evidence against lower sea levels in the ice age, I was once again aware of the information you posted. The effects of coastal subsidence due to ocean basin rebounding on the possible scales in the range I use, have not been looked at, or taken into account and remain a possible effect.The only part in your posting that really could be a limiting factor on the amount of water removed from the oceans in the ice age, was the oxygen isotope ratio. This is by far the best part of your objections to larger ice caps. But remember this method is for estimating, it is not precise. It is good enough however to possibly eliminate the higher end of the range I gave, which was pretty incredible anyway. It will take a detailed look at the methods used, how they are calibrated and the possibility of effects not considered that could effect the accuracy of the method. If the method for example was calibrated using the amount expected to have been removed in the last ice age which would be circular reasoning. Depending on the calibration, this method could be very useful here or almost valueless. Since this here is the best part of your post, perhaps you would care to post on how this method has been calibrated on how the various oxygen isotope ratios were related to sea volume. I would prefer laboratory experiments over historical sea volume estimates which could be in error. I believe I remember a bit on this, but I think it is fair to let you post, since so far this is your best shot. Good work. If you do more research on this, my objections would be that this method is best at determining ocean surface temperatures based on removal of O