Cause of the Bölling-Allerød & Younger-Dryas?

[danydandan]

25 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

Where do you come up with  that your  disingenuous comment  I said that  "ALL THAT WATER  MADE UP THE MELT WATER PULSES came from off planet"

Earlier on in the thread I stated that I'd probably agree that multiple small mundane events, not usually occuring in quick succession time scale wise, is a better fit to why we see certain changes. 

You replied stating on event caused it, you also stated that water came from off planet. So putting two and two together, I assumed you meant a comet. Because I can't think of anything else that would transport large quantities of h2o. Do you?

My calculations are correct! So other than an impact of an object 2/5th the mass of the moon hitting the Earth. How else to you suspect 'extra' water came from? Which ironically is only about 0.5% the mass of the Earth.

Edited: This is what you said. Howard's answer My premise is the opposite. ONE Large event that started many smaller events as list you.

So again if the water came from off planet and one event started it all you'd have to assume a comet. How is that disingenuous?

Edited October 27, 2018 by danydandan

[Howard West 2]

15 hours ago, Swede said:

Your contribution is such a jumbled mess of limited information and flawed logic that it is difficult to address it in a comprehensive and cohesive manner. Will thus resort to addressing the various errors on a piecemeal basis.

• ·         While large volumes of the glacial wasting were impounded by terminal moraines and ice dams, this did not prohibit flowages that were not inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins. For example, the upper reaches of the Mississippi was active flowage as early as 13-13.5 kya . In addition, both the Mississippi and the St. Lawrence flowages served, at different times, as the outlets for Agassiz breaches, as did the McKenzie River in northern Canada.
• ·         The larger water bodies in question not only filled over a number of years, but repeatedly refilled after each breach as the glacial fronts continued wasting to the north. As the glacial fronts continued to waste, isostatic rebound, downcutting, and the moving northern frontal blockages presented an ever-changing hydrological and geomorphological landscape. Bear in mind that, while there are a number of large lakes that are the vestiges of Agassiz, Glacial Lake Agassiz proper existed for approximately 4,000 years.
• ·

 

Swed said" this did not prohibit flowages that were not inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins... and Lake Agassiz proper existed for approximately 4,000 years.".

.So the Yearly precipitation flowages inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins. drained into Lake Agassiz  for "approximately 4,000 years.".

YES that is the point I was making.

 

[Howard West 2]

20 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Earlier on in the thread I stated that I'd probably agree that multiple small mundane events, not usually occuring in quick succession time scale wise, is a better fit to why we see certain changes. 

You replied stating on event caused it, you also stated that water came from off planet. So putting two and two together, I assumed you meant a comet. Because I can't think of anything else that would transport large quantities of h2o. Do you?

My calculations are correct! So other than an impact of an object 2/5th the mass of the moon hitting the Earth. How else to you suspect 'extra' water came from? Which ironically is only about 0.5% the mass of the Earth.

Edited: This is what you said. Howard's answer My premise is the opposite. ONE Large event that started many smaller events as list you.

So again if the water came from off planet and one event started it all you'd have to assume a comet. How is that disingenuous?

. "So (danydandan)  putting two and two together, I (danydandan disingenuously) assumed you(Howard West)  meant a comet. Because I can't think of anything else that would transport large quantities of h2o." Why do I say disingenuously, because, you were addressed in a post stating that a Comet could not do that!

Yes I said "ONE Large event that started many smaller events" however, I also told you that I would get to that a little at a time because people" CHERRY PICK"

[danydandan]

1 minute ago, Howard West 2 said:

. "So (danydandan)  putting two and two together, I (danydandan disingenuously) assumed you(Howard West)  meant a comet. Because I can't think of anything else that would transport large quantities of h2o." Why do I say disingenuously, because, you were addressed in a post stating that a Comet could not do that!

Yes I said "ONE Large event that started many smaller events" however, I also told you that I would get to that a little at a time because people" CHERRY PICK"

What post was that in? 

 

[Howard West 2]

On 10/23/2018 at 12:15 PM, Howard West 2 said:

Don Yeoman of  NASA 1-818-354-21XX now retired and I had discussions on the subject what comets were made of. Then  NASA sent a mission to Tempel 1 and the IMPACTOR drill a DRY hole into NASA's quintessential comet! Then a mission to the ice water filled crater at the pole of the moon to impact with that water! If a comet left the ice!!  NASA said people on Earth would see the effect of the impact!!! Nothing  The impactors did as much damage as a bullet shot into a SNOW DRIFT. Because it was snow like not the compacted Ice that a comet should have left.   Go to NASA's web page and they still give the same BS comets are made of water ice and Dirt/ AKA a dirty SNOWBALL

This one

[danydandan]

11 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

This one

None if that post says I don't think it was a comet. Seems to be relating to what a comet is made of. 

[Howard West 2]

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

None if that post says I don't think it was a comet. Seems to be relating to what a comet is made of. 

WHAT????? you tell people that you assume that I meant a comet brought water to Earth when you KNOW that I don't believe that they are made mostly of water.

Sorry but do you have  Alzheimer?

[danydandan]

7 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

WHAT????? you tell people that you assume that I meant a comet brought water to Earth when you KNOW that I don't believe that they are made mostly of water.

Sorry but do you have  Alzheimer?

Probably have some issues due to chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but I assure you my mind is sharp as a tact.

You have noylt once stated emphatically that you don't think it was comet. All that post says is you don't think comets are primarily made up by water. Am I wrong with my interpretation? 

The only thing you emphatically state is that you believe a one off event is the cause of this global climate change, and that the water is not terrestrial. Yes?

So what other one off event could bring that water to Earth other than a comet?

Edited October 27, 2018 by danydandan

[cormac mac airt]

1 hour ago, Howard West 2 said:

Swed said" this did not prohibit flowages that were not inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins... and Lake Agassiz proper existed for approximately 4,000 years.".

.So the Yearly precipitation flowages inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins. drained into Lake Agassiz  for "approximately 4,000 years.".

YES that is the point I was making.

 

You really have no point as Lake Agassiz is only one of many Glacial Megalakes and it still doesn't include the fact that most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by 1 - 2 MILES of glacier ice. 

cormac

[danydandan]

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You really have no point as Lake Agassiz is only one of many Glacial Megalakes and it still doesn't include the fact that most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by 1 - 2 MILES of glacier ice. 

cormac

Am I missing something, is there any other way non terrestrial water can get to Earth other than a comet?

[cormac mac airt]

23 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Am I missing something, is there any other way non terrestrial water can get to Earth other than a comet?

Magic apparently. 

Here are my calculations on Swede's 15,000,000 cubic mile volume of ice:

Quote

v = (4/3)*pi*r^3

15,000,000 cu. miles = (4/3)*pi*r^3

11,250 = pi*r^3

3580.9 = r^3

15.2990359 miles = r(adius)

Which means the diameter of a sphere would be 30.5980718 miles +/-

To put this in perspective that's about 5 times larger in diameter than the Chixulub Impactor that destroyed the dinosaurs. 

cormac

Edited October 27, 2018 by cormac mac airt
clarification

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Magic apparently. 

Here are my calculations on Swede's 15,000,000 cubic mile volume of ice:

To put this in perspective that's about 5 times larger than the Chixulub Impactor that destroyed the dinosaurs. 

cormac

Also you need to take into account that the poster has stated he doesn't think comets are made soley if icewater thus the actual impactor would be considerably larger. 

I don't want to type out my calculations. Lol. I did it in my head. It would take too long, but it involves the circumference of the Earth, estimated specific gravity of ice/water based on figures taken from glacial ice. Based on the 3.16x10^8km2 that's the accepted figure for the surface of water on the Earth.

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Also you need to take into account that the poster has stated he doesn't think comets are made soley if icewater thus the actual impactor would be considerably larger. 

I don't want to type out my calculations. Lol. I did it in my head. It would take too long, but it involves the circumference of the Earth, estimated specific gravity of ice/water based on figures taken from glacial ice. Based on the 3.16x10^8km2 that's the accepted figure for the surface of water on the Earth.

True. If one can't get a 300 - 400 foot of water rise in sea level out of that there is something disastrously wrong. That there was enough water/ice on the ground and no evidence of a celestial cause should tell 'someone' something, but apparently it goes over his head. 

cormac

[Trelane]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 4:44 PM, Howard West 2 said:

Here is the math: 71% of earth's surface is water! That leave 29%. Therefore, the ocean covers 2.4 more of earth's surface than the land! Lets use a the round number of 300 feet of sea-level rise. So all the dry land on earth would need to be covered by 2.4 times 300 feet of sea-level rise=about 735 feet of water would cover the land mass, all your lakes would have to contain that water in an even smaller surface area bumping the depth beyond the surface boundaries that contained the lakes .You must also leave Greenland out  because it was building snow on it's surface.

 

That is my POINT water came to Earth from off planet about the time of the MeltWaterPulse 1A and 1B

 

Here's where ^^^^^^^

2 hours ago, Howard West 2 said:

Where do you come up with  that your  disingenuous comment  I said that  "ALL THAT WATER  MADE UP THE MELT WATER PULSES came from off planet"

By virtue of the copious amount of charts and graphs you've posted, you clearly were initially trying to make this argument. When other forum members presented calculations to disprove the theory, you Texas two-stepped away by changing the intent of the narrative you initially put forth. That's not really that big of a deal, just saying.

 

[Howard West 2]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

You really have no point as Lake Agassiz is only one of many Glacial Megalakes and it still doesn't include the fact that most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by 1 - 2 MILES of glacier ice. 

cormac

 

To find the surface of a sphere the equation of 4*p “3.14159 Pi”*R² “the Radius squared.

 

So to get the surface area of Earth we need need it's radius.

 

Went to Wikipedia for the ninth time in my life and they said the which may (?) be close enough for this equation 3959 miles.

 

So 4 times p “3.14159 Pi (R radius of Earth times 3959 miles times 3959 miles) or 15673681. we get 196,961,118 square miles.

 

Now to get the surface area of the “sea” we use the percentage of the sea that is covered. That figure is 71%

 

So if the surface area of Earth is 196,961,118 square miles then 71% of Earth covered by water is 139842394 square miles.

 

Therefore,out how many CUBIC MILES of water would be needed to create the sea rise 300 to it current level ?

 

So we need to divide the height of a CUBIC MILE by 5280. giving us a volume of a SQUARE MILE one foot deep that would be 5280 square miles

 

To see how much far a would a cubic mile cover to a depth of 300 miles we divide 5280 by 300. which gives a coverage of 17.6 miles to a depth of 300 feet.

 

Therefore, to get the number of cubic miles to fill the volume of the 300 foot rise of sea-level we use the number 17.6 because that is the number of square miles that a cubic mile will cover to a depth of 300 feet.

 

71% of Earth covered by water is 139842394 square miles divide by 17.6 ( miles covered by a cubic mile) would be 7,945,590. cubic miles Also Known As 8 million CUBIC MILES

 

 

But you want me to believe a piece data that gives a FUDGE factor 12 MILLION CUBIC MILES?

 

 

 

 

[jesshill]

I sure wish I was smart enough to get in on this conversation...really.

Jess

[Howard West 2]

So to be accepted here I have to believe that there was 10 million to 20 CUBIC MILES of Water on land. 10 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 375 feet and 200 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 750 feet.  I jumped to conclusions in an earlier post that they would not cover the rise in Sea-Level. But neither of the numbers are fact they are GUESSES. 

[Howard West 2]

1 hour ago, Howard West 2 said:

So to be accepted here I have to believe that there was 10 million to 20 CUBIC MILES of Water on land. 10 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 375 feet and 200 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 750 feet. 

At 10 million cubic miles would cover when surface of the land 57118724.22 square miles. So the water average depth would be an average depth 924 feet.

 

At 20 million cubic miles would cover when surface of the land 57118724.22 square miles. So the water average depth would be an average depth 1848 feet..

 

I jumped to conclusions in an earlier post that they would not cover the rise in Sea-Level. But neither of the numbers are fact they are GUESSES. 

O GREAT ONE HOW could I have mistrusted your data

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by Howard West 2

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, jesshill said:

I sure wish I was smart enough to get in on this conversation...really.

Jess

Basic mathematics really. 

[danydandan]

17 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

 

Why do you think the Ice has to cover the land? 

[Howard West 2]

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Why do you think the Ice has to cover the land? 

Because Archimedes  if it floats on water it's displacement weight is already a part of the water level

[danydandan]

23 minutes ago, Howard West 2 said:

Because Archimedes  if it floats on water it's displacement weight is already a part of the water level

Very good.

Now incorporate that into your calculations for the height of the water.

[danydandan]

I'm only taking the p***, carry on.

Still waiting to see where you assume the extra water came from.

[Swede]

5 hours ago, Howard West 2 said:

Swed said" this did not prohibit flowages that were not inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins... and Lake Agassiz proper existed for approximately 4,000 years.".

.So the Yearly precipitation flowages inhibited by glacial factors from draining into the oceanic basins. drained into Lake Agassiz  for "approximately 4,000 years.".

YES that is the point I was making.

 

Your “deduction”, an attempt to support your flawed position, would be incorrect:

• ·         The annual liquid precipitation, part of the annual hydrological cycle, was, in regards to basin level rise, a minor component at best. Bear in mind that the annual hydrological cycle was also a component, to varying degrees, during even the LGM.
• ·         As previously noted, the progressive wasting of the glaciers continually opened up new flowage routes that carried annual precipitation. For example, somewhat prior to 10 kya the St. Lawrence Seaway was unobstructed as were many smaller flowages.
• ·         To suggest that Glacial Lake Agassiz acted as a catchment basin for half of the North American continent is not only demonstrably incorrect, but patently silly. We can trace the glacial input routes into the ever-changing lake. Furthermore, given the surface area of the lake (~135,000 mi² at its maximum extent) and the effect of the katabatic winds, any precipitation falling on the lake was likely subject to a high degree of evaporation.

However, your present argument is a red herring. The reality is that the glacial bodies present at the time of the LGM held the H₂O volume responsible for the basin elevation rises. No external input needed. Thus, your primary speculation is not only rendered moot, but is also incorrect.

A brief overview of the changing phases of Glacial Lake Agassiz:

https://msu.edu/~michal76/research/407_Geomorphology_Lake Agassiz2.pdf

Edit: Format.

Edited October 27, 2018 by Swede

[Swede]

2 hours ago, Howard West 2 said:

So to be accepted here I have to believe that there was 10 million to 20 CUBIC MILES of Water on land. 10 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 375 feet and 200 million Cubic would raise the sea- levels 750 feet.  I jumped to conclusions in an earlier post that they would not cover the rise in Sea-Level. But neither of the numbers are fact they are GUESSES. 

1) Your attention to figure accuracy is so disjointed as to make your attempted point difficult to follow at best.

2) Guesses? Not really. Volumetric calculation based upon isostatic rebound, relict beach ridge measurement, and a number of other data-sets including ice coring.

.