81 replies to this topic

[danielost]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 04:37 PM, said:

Same location with 20 year time difference (the first shot is tighter than the second shot).  Care to speculate on whether the glacier has changed?  It's northern Peru, near the Equator, so seasons aren't a factor.



How about these northern hemisphere glaciers.  Anyone want to speculate?

the great lakes have been moving south for the last 10,000 years due to glacier melt.

[Emma_Acid]

danielost, on 19 January 2010 - 05:41 PM, said:

the great lakes have been moving south for the last 10,000 years due to glacier melt.

Not this drastically they haven't.

[danielost]

Emma_Acid, on 19 January 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

Not this drastically they haven't.

about 4 inches a year.  besides at some point a melting ice cube speeds up.

[IamsSon]

Yeah, uhmmm, haven't glaciers been basically receding since the last ice age... which is a good thing, isn't it?

[Siara]

IamsSon, on 19 January 2010 - 06:18 PM, said:

Yeah, uhmmm, haven't glaciers been basically receding since the last ice age... which is a good thing, isn't it?

No they (obviously) receded and then went through cycles of growth and contraction.  The problem is that what's happening now is outside the limits of this cycle.  That's why we hear about people finding mammoths (and ancient humans) as well in areas that have melted.  They've been there for 10,000 yrs and the now ice is melting to reveal them.

I heard that stuff about the Great Lakes moving south too.  It's pretty weird isn't it?  Please note that if this was happening because glaciers were retreating they'd be moving north.

[danielost]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

No they (obviously) receded and then went through cycles of growth and contraction.  The problem is that what's happening now is outside the limits of this cycle.  That's why we hear about people finding mammoths (and ancient humans) as well in areas that have melted.  They've been there for 10,000 yrs and the now ice is melting to reveal them.

I heard that stuff about the Great Lakes moving south too.  It's pretty weird isn't it?  Please note that if this was happening because glaciers were retreating they'd be moving north.

no the lakes are moving south because as the ice melts up north that part of the continent is rising do to the wieght lose.

[Siara]

danielost, on 19 January 2010 - 06:29 PM, said:

no the lakes are moving south because as the ice melts up north that part of the continent is rising do to the wieght lose.

Really? So the continents are tilting with less weight? Wow.  Geology and the patterns of the earth are so amazing.

[danielost]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 06:31 PM, said:

Really? So the continents are tilting with less weight? Wow.  Geology and the patterns of the earth are so amazing.

isn't it.  i mean can you imagine that ice actually wieghs a lot.

[Siara]

danielost, on 19 January 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

isn't it.  i mean can you imagine that ice actually wieghs a lot.

The weight is amazing to contemplate.  It also suggests that the continents are resting on a mushier more flexible surface so they can tilt like rafts or boats.

[danielost]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 06:34 PM, said:

The weight is amazing to contemplate.  It also suggests that the continents are resting on a mushier more flexible surface so they can tilt like rafts or boats.

since the mantle is mostly melton and the continents are lighter then the surrending ocean yes they are.

[Siara]

danielost, on 19 January 2010 - 06:36 PM, said:

since the mantle is mostly melton and the continents are lighter then the surrending ocean yes they are.

[wordless amazement]  I should take a geology course at our community college.

[danielost]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 06:41 PM, said:

[wordless amazement]  I should take a geology course at our community college.

why?  here!

http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics

[Siara]

danielost, on 19 January 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

why?  here!

http://en.wikipedia....Plate_tectonics

Thanks!

[IamsSon]

Siara, on 19 January 2010 - 06:25 PM, said:

No they (obviously) receded and then went through cycles of growth and contraction. The problem is that what's happening now is outside the limits of this cycle. That's why we hear about people finding mammoths (and ancient humans) as well in areas that have melted. They've been there for 10,000 yrs and the now ice is melting to reveal them.

I heard that stuff about the Great Lakes moving south too. It's pretty weird isn't it? Please note that if this was happening because glaciers were retreating they'd be moving north.

How do we know what the "cycle" is? How can we be sure that everything occurring naturally occurs in cycles, or that we can discern those cycles well enough to determine an event is occurring outside a natural cycle?

Maybe this is part of a natural cycle that occurs every 4.7 billion years.

Edited by IamsSon, 19 January 2010 - 10:37 PM.

[Siara]

IamsSon, on 19 January 2010 - 10:36 PM, said:

How do we know what the "cycle" is? How can we be sure that everything occurring naturally occurs in cycles, or that we can discern those cycles well enough to determine an event is occurring outside a natural cycle?

Maybe this is part of a natural cycle that occurs every 4.7 billion years.

They can tell from sediment layers. Ice bergs have little bits of plant life and so on in them.  And when there isn't any ice of course there's a lot of plant stuff mixed in with the sediment.

I read something interesting on the Science Daily site that said that certain species in certain parts of the world that feed on plankton were eating a lot of  material that was 7,000 years old because of glacier melt.  I'll post the link if I can find it.